SECOND DIVISION April 5, 2011 No. 1-10- 1743 TYK EESH A CHRIS TMA S, S pe ci

al A dm i ni stra tor ) Appe al fro m the of the Est ate o f Verni

ce Christm

as, ) Ci rcu i t Cou rt of ) Co o k C o un t y Pl ai ntif f -Ap pel l an t, )

) v. ) No. 06 L 5624 ) DR. DO NA LD W . HUGA

R, LTD ., RONA

LD W
. ) HUGA R, LO RETTO H OSPITA L, an d T. ) MACK, ) Ho no r ab le ) Eil

een Mary Brewer Def endan ts-A ppel l ees . ) Judge Presidin g. JUS TI CE CON NOR S d elivered t he judg ment o f the co ur t , w ith o pinion. Jus t ices Kar nezis co ncur re d in t he judg ment a nd o pinion. Jus t ice Ha rr is dissent ed, wit h op inion. OPINI ON Plai ntif f Ty keesha C hri stmas a ppeal s f rom the di sm

is sal with prej udic e of her m

edi cal
ma lpractice compl

ai nt pursuant to sect ion 2-619 of the Code of Ci

vi l Procedure (735 ILCS 5/2- 619 (West 2008)) on the ground that t he ph ys ic ia n wh o author ed a report in

support o f h

er complai nt as required by section 2-622 of the Code o f Ci vil Procedure ( 735 ILCS 5/2 -622 (West 19 98 ) ) wa s no t pr o pe r ly lice nse d. We affir m. I. BACKG

ROUND As rel evan t t o t hi s appeal , the facts of this case are straightforward. In 2004, Vernice Christ mas und er went sur ger y for a n ailment in her right foo t . T he su rg er y was p er for med by defen dants Dr. Hugar and Dr. Mack, both Ill in ois-l ic ensed podiatrists. Unf

ort unatel y, Vern ic e di ed ab out two weeks

af ter the s urgery , al l eged l y due to com

pli cations f

rom th e opera tion
. Plai ntif f, as adm in istrato r of Vernice's es

tat e, filed the i

nstant medical

mal pract ice action agai

nst defen dants i n 2006.No. 1-10- 1743

2

As required by

section 2-622 o f the Code of Civi l Procedure ( 735 ILCS 5/2 -622 (West 1998)), plai

ntif f' s compl ai nt in cl uded an af

fi davi t by h er att orney s

tating that the atto rney

had consul ted “wi th a currently

practici ng podia tric phy si ci an,” who ha

d “determi

ned i n a wri tt en repo rt * ** that there is a reasonable an d meri to rious cause for t he f

il in g of this action” agai

nst def endan ts. A c opy

of the report wa s al

so attach ed, b ut the a uthor of the re port was n

ot nam ed. T he au t ho ro f t he r ep o r t st at ed t ha t it wa s his “p r o fes sio na l o pin io n * ** ba se d o n a r ea so na ble degre e of medi cal /podiatri c certai

nty ” tha t the ca use of a cti on ag ai nst def endan ts ha d m eri t. Spec i f i cal l y , the a uthor i den tif i ed “ sub stan

dard om i ssi ons/ actions” by def endan ts that we re “d ev iat io ns f

r o m ac ce pt ab le s t an da r d o f ca r e a nd se r ve d a s s ign ifica nt co nt r ibu t ing fac t o r s” in Ver nice's d eat h. Af ter t he complain

t was fil ed, t he parties proceed ed to discovery and litigated the case f or a b out f our yea rs . H owe v er , i n 20 10 , a b out th re e m on th s b ef oreth e tr i al wa s s ch ed ul ed to begi n, def endan ts conducted t he deposi

tion of Dr. Ran

dal Woj ci ehoski , whom pl

ai ntif f h ad ide ntif ie d as an ex

pert witness ex

pected to testify

at tr ia l. A s i t t urned out, Dr. Woj ci ehoski was the a uthor of the 2 006 re

port. However, def

endan ts di scov ered d uri ng th e dep osi tion that Dr. Woj ci ehoski

had not b een

l i censed as a podi atri st at the ti

me tha t he a uthored the re port. Dr. W oj ci eh osk i gra dua ted asa doctor of

podi atri c m edi ci ne i n 1 986 , an

d he l ater b ec am

e a doc tor of ost eopat hy

in 1989. Ho wever, Dr. Wojci ehoski al lowed hi s podiatric li

cense to lapse someti me around 1990, and f

rom that point on he m

ai ntain ed onl y h is professi onal li censes as an o st eo pa t hic ph ysic ian an d e mer ge nc y ph ysic ian
. Dr
. Wo jcie ho sk i ment io ne d d ur ing his dep os itio n t hat his Wiscons in ost eo pat hic license, as w ell as t he co rr esp ond ing licenses t hat he hel d in ot her states, all

owed hi m to provide a f

ull -scope practice that in

cl uded podiatric m

edi calNo. 1-10- 1743

3

ser vices w itho ut t he nee d fo r t he ad dit ional po diat ric license . D r. Wojcieho ski did no t obt ain a new podiatric li

cense until

short ly bef ore t he deposition i

n 2010, when he was retained as a defen se expert f

or a po dia trist in a case un related to t hi s one. Less t han t wo wee ks a fte r t he de po sitio n, d efenda nt s move d t o d ismi ss t he co mplaint unde r se ct ion 2 -6 19 o f the Co de o f Civil Pr oc edu re (7 35 I LCS 5/ 2- 619 (Wes t 200 8) ), ar guing th at p l ai n ti f f h ad f ai l ed to co m pl y wi th se cti on 2- 62 2 b ec au se

Dr . Woj ci

eh osk i wa s n ot a li censed podiatrist when he authored the repo rt. Because a valid section 2-622 repo rt is a st at ut or y req uire ment fo r filing a medical malpra ct ice ac t ion, defend ant s ass er t ed t hat plaint iff 's
co mpla int mus t be dis miss ed
. Pla int iff ar gu ed t ha t Dr
. Wo jcie ho sk i's lic en se as an o st eo pa t hic ph y si ci an sa ti sf i ed th e r eq ui re men ts o f se cti on 2- 62 2 b ec au se

un der W i sc on si n l aw , a cc ordi

n g to pla int iff, lice nse d o st eo pa t hs ma y pr ac t ice po dia t r ic me dic ine wit ho ut o bt ain ing a p o dia t r ic li cense. Fo llow ing fu ll brie fing a nd e xt ens ive o ra l ar gu ment s, t he t ria l co ur t fo und t hat pla int iff had no t co mplied wit h se ct io n 2- 62 2 a nd d ismisse d t he c o mplain t wit h pr eju dic e. Pla int iff timel y f il ed a not ice of appeal , and this case i s now before us. II. ANA LYSIS This ap peal pres en ts two i ssues: ( 1) wh

ethe r plai ntif f com pli ed wi th the statutory
r eq uir eme nt s fo rple ad ing a me dic al ma lpr ac t ice cla im un de rse ct io n 2
- 62 2 o f t he Co de o f Civ il Pro ce du re(7 35 IL CS 5/

2- 62 2 ( W est 20 06 )); an

d ( 2) i f n ot, w h eth er di sm i ss al of th e c om pl ai n t with prej udic e was warranted under s ection 2-619 of the Code of C iv il Procedure (735 ILCS 5/2- 619 (W est 200 8)). A. Compl ia nce wi th Section 2-622No. 1-10- 1743

4

We i ni tial ly exam in e whether pl

ai ntif f com pli ed wi th the requirem

ents of section 2-622, but we fi rst must m

ention the current legal

status o f this secti on. Section 2-622 has b een affect ed by se ver al judicial dec isions a nd legislat ive enac t ments , mo st re cent ly i n Lebron v. Gottlieb Memorial Hospital , 23 7 Il l . 2d 217 , 25 0 (2 010 ). Se e al so O'Casek v. Children's Home & Aid Society

of Illinois , 22 9 I ll. 2d 42 1, 42 4- 25 , 45 0 ( 20 08 )
. S ee ge ne r ally Cookson v. Price , 239 Ill. 2d 339 , 3 41- 42 ( 201 0) (e xplaining t he effect of t he var iou s judicial ac t ions a nd t he l eg i sl ati ve am en dm en ts to s ec ti on 2 -62 2). Th e l eg i sl atu re i s i n th e p roce ss of ree na cti ng se cti on 2-622 as i t exis ted before Lebron (s ee

97 th Il l . G en . A ss em., H ous e B i l l 28 87 , 20 11 Se ss .; 97 th Ill . Ge n. A ss em ., Se

na te B i l l 188 7, 2 011 Ses s.) , but the l eg i sl ati on h asnot y et b een p as se d a s of t he da t e o f t his a pp ea l. De sp it e t he co nvo lut ed pr o ce du r al h ist o ry o f se ct io n 2
- 62 2, t he sp ec ific l an gu ag e th at is a t i ss ue i n th i s a pp ea l h as n ev er b een al tered , a n d s o wh i ch v er si on of th e statu te weref er to is i m materi al . A l

thou gh the re a re s ome te xtu

al dif f ere nc esbe twe en the ve rs i on of
se cti on 2 -62 2 a s i

t cu rrentl y sta nds a nd the ve rs i on th at e xi ste d pr i or to Lebron , t he phrase “lice nse d in t he sa me p r o fes sio n, wit h t he sa me c las s o f lice nse ” d id n o t ch an ge an d p r es uma bly wil l rem ai n the sa me f oll owi ng r een actm en t by the l egi slature. 73 5 ILC S 5/2-6 22 (W est 200 8); 97th Ill. Gen. Assem., Ho use Bil l 2887, 2011 Sess. As i t currently

stands, the portion of secti on 2-622 that is relevan t t o t hi s case reads as foll ows:

“ In any action, whethe

r in to rt, co ntract o r ot herwi se, in whi ch the pl ai ntif f s eeks dam ages f or in j uri es or de ath b

y reas on of medi cal , hosp i tal , or other heal

i ng a rt malpra ct ice, t he plaint iff

's at t or ney or t he plaint iff

, if the plaint iff

is pro cee ding pr o s e, shall fil

e an a ffi davit , a t t ache d t o t he o riginal and all cop ies o f theNo. 1-10- 1743

5

compl ai nt, declari ng one of the f

oll owing: 1. Tha t t he affiant has c ons ult ed a nd r eviewe d t he fact s o f the cas e wit h a he alt h p r o fes sio na l wh o t he affia nt r ea so na bly be lieve s: ( i) is kn o wle dg ea ble in the relev ant is sues i

nvol ved i n the particul

ar action; (i

i) practi ces or has practic ed wit hin t he las t 6 ye ar s o rt ea ch es o rha s t au gh t wit hin t he las t 6 ye ar s in t he sa me ar ea o f he alt h c ar e o rmed icine t ha t is a t iss ue in t he pa r t icu lar ac t io n; a nd ( iii) is qualif ie d by experience or dem

onstrated co mpe

tence i n the sub je ct of the case; that the revi ewi ng h eal th prof ess i onal ha s determ

i ne d i n a wri tten rep ort, after

a review of the m

edi cal record and ot her relevan

t material in volv ed i n the particul

ar action that there is

a reasonabl

e and m eritorious cause f

or t he f il in g of such
ac ti on ; an d th at th e af f i an t h as con cl ud ed on th e b as i s of

th e rev i ewi n g h ea l th professi onal 's rev ie w and consul

tation that t here i s a reasonab le and m eritorious cause for fili

ng of such action. If the aff idav it is fi led as to a defendant who is a phy si ci an l ic ensed to treat hum

an ai lm ents wi thout the use of drugs or me dic in es and wi thout operati

ve surg ery, a den

tist, a podi atri st, or a psy

chologi st, or a
na prapa th, the w ritten report must be from a health professional licens ed in the same pr ofession, w

ith the s ame clas

s of licens e, as the d

efendant. ” ( E mph as is adde d.) 735 ILCS 5/2-62 2(a) (W est 199 8). The individual defe ndant s in this c ase ar e po diat rist s licensed unde r I lli nois law , a nd t he r efo r e s ec t io n 2
- 62 2 r eq uir es pla int iff's at t o rne y t o co nsu lt wit h a he alt h p r o fes sio na l wh o is lice nse d t o pr ac t ice po dia t ry pr io rt o filing t he law su it
. T he dis ag r ee men t be t we en t he pa r t ies in this case i s over the m

eani ng of the term

“l ic ense” as i

t is used i n the statute. I t is un

dis putedNo. 1-10- 1743

6

t ha t , at t he t ime p laint iff filed he rlaw su it in 2 00 6, Dr
. Wo jch ieh o sk i did no t ho ld a po dia t r ic l i cens e. H owe ve

r, p l ai nti f f arg ue s th at D r. W oj ch i eh osk i 's W i sc ons i n l i cens e a s a

doc tor of
o st eo pa t hy is s uffic ien t t o sa t isfy t he lice nsin g r eq uir eme nt o f se ct io n 2
- 62 2 b ec au se Wisc o nsin l aw al l ows doctors of

osteopath

y to practi ce podi

atri c m edi ci ne wi thout addi

tion al l i censi ng. Defe ndan ts' position is

that t he statute means

that author s of section 2-622 report s m ust hold a current podiatric l

ic ense, regardl

ess of an y other qual

if ic ations they

mi ght have. We i nterpret t he m

eani ng of a s tatut e de novo , and the

gen eral pri nc i pl es of statutory co nst ru ct ion ar e we ll know n. See Acme Markets, Inc. v. Callanan , 236 Il l . 2d 29, 3 5 (200 9). Ou rpr imar y o bje ct ive is t o giv e e ffec t t o t he leg isla t ur e' s int en t , an d “ [ t ] he mo st r elia ble indicat or of t he legislat ur e's int ent is the langua ge o f the st at ut e, given it s plain, o rd inary, a nd popularl y un derstoo d me ani

ng.” Gardner v. Mullins , 2 34 I ll. 2d 5 03, 511 (2 009 ). When a statute l eav es term s un def i ne d, we m

ay cons ul t a dicti onary

to determ

i ne thei r plai n a nd ord i na ry me ani ng. See People ex rel. Daley v. Datacom Sys tems Corp. , 146 Il l . 2d 1, 15 (1991 ). Addi tional ly , where two stat utes deal wi th the sam

e subj ect matter, t hey

mus t be considered to gether in

order t o give

them a harm onious ef fect. See People

v. McCar

ty , 223 Ill . 2d 109, 133 (20 06) . “ [W]h ere

an en ac tmen t i s c l ea r an d un am bi guous a cou rt i s n ot at l i be rty to depa rt f rom the pl ai n l an gua gean d m ea ni ng of the sta tute b y rea di ng i nto i t exce ptions , li m i tati ons or condi tions that the l egi sl ature did not express. [Ci tations.]” Kraft, Inc. v. E dgar , 138 Ill . 2d 178, 189 (1 990). Sec t ion 2 -6 22 d oe s no t define wha t it means by the t er m “li cens e, ” so we t ur n t o t he di cti ona ry . In the con tex t of prof es si ona l reg ul ati on, a l i cens e i s def

i ne d a s “ a ri

gh t or permi ssion granted in

accord ance wi

th law by a competent au thor ity to engage in s ome busi nessNo. 1-10- 1743

7

o ro cc up at io n, t o do so me a ct , o rt o en ga ge in so me t r an sa ct io n w hic h bu t fo rsu ch lice nse wo uld be unlaw ful.” We bst er 's Thir d Ne w I nt er nat ional Dict ionar y 1304 (1 981 ). In I lli nois, t he practi ce of p odia

try i s control l ed by

the Podi atric

Medi cal Practi ce Act of 1987 (22 5 ILCS 10 0/1 et seq . (West 20 08)). The publi c policy behi nd the Act is to ensure t hat “only quali fi ed perso ns” pr ac t ice po dia t r ic me dic ine , an d t he Ac t de cla r es t ha t “no pe r so n sh all p r ac t ice po dia t r ic
medici ne i n the State of Ill i

noi s wi thout a val

i d exi stin g li cen se to do so.” 225 ILCS 100/ 1 (West 2008); see al

so 225 ILCS 100/11 (West 2008) (prohibi ting un li censed practice). The Act designates the Departmen t o f F in anci al and Profess iona

l R egul ation (DFPR) as the

body
au thor ize d to i ss uepodi atri c l i cens es , an

d i t prom ul ga tesappl i ca ti on a nd exam i na ti on requ irements as well as m andat or y quali

fi cat ions for rec eivi

ng a li cense from the DFP R’s l i censi ng b oard. See

225 IL CS 10 0/8 th

rough 10 (W est 200 8). When sec t ion 2 -6 22 o f the Co de o f Civil Pr oc edu re is rea d in co njunct ion wit h t he licensing re gime des cr ibed in t he Po diat ric Me dical Pr act ice Act of 1 987 , it is rea dily appar ent tha t the term “ l i cens e,”

asi t i s u se d i n s ec ti on 2 -62 2 a

nd asappl i ed to podi atrists , re f ers to a l i cens e that hasbe en

obta i ne d f rom the De pa rtm en t of Fi na nc i al an d Pr of es si ona l Re gul ati on follow ing an exa minatio n and s at isfact ion o f ot her qua lif icat ions. Co nseq uent ly, so meone who h ol dsa cur

re n t pod i atr i c l i cen se sa ti sf i es th e l i cen si n g r eq ui re men t of se cti on 2- 62 2. T

h e statu te does not co ntain

any li mi ting l anguage that would i

ndicate that it can onl

y b e satis fi

ed by an Ill i noi s p odiatri c l i cens e, s o weas su

me w i thou t de ci di ng tha t a curren t podi atri c l i cens e f rom another jurisdi ction also satisf ie s secti on 2-622. The probl em

here i s that Dr. Wojchi

ehoski did not hold a po diat ric license fro m any jurisdi ction when h

e wrot e the section 2-622 report, and so the question now bec omes wh etherNo. 1-10- 1743

8

his W i scon si n l i cense a s a d

octor of osteopa

thy sati sf i es the statute' s l

i censi ng r equi rem en t. Pla int iff ha s p r o vid ed us wit h a n e xt en sive an alys is o f t he int r ica cie s o f Wisc o nsin law o n t his poi nt i n h er bri ef . Pl ai ntif f ’sposi tion restson the

prem i se that under W

i scon si n’ s podi atry licensing re gime a license is no t re quir ed fo r so meone who is “lawfully pr act icing wit hin the scope of a l

ic ense, perm

it, regis trat ion or certif

ic ation granted by

this state o r the federal governm ent.” Wi s. Stat . § 448.62 (2006). Plai ntif f argues that because Dr. Woj chi

ehoski was lice nse d in Wisc o nsin as a p hysic ian an d W isc o nsin allo ws lice nse d p hysic ian s t o en ga ge in podi atri c m

edi ci ne as p art of th

ei r prac tic es (s ee W

i s. Stat. § 44 8.01(5 ), (9) (20 06)), th en Dr. Woj chi ehoski was theref

ore “li censed” to practice podi atry wi

thin the me ani

ng of s ection 2-622. However, based on the f

acts of thi s case we do not need to rely on Wi sconsi

n l aw i n order to resol ve thi s i ssue b eca

use the p odi atri c l

i censi ng r egi mes of Il l i noi s an d Wi scon si

n a re sub stantiall

y i n ac cord on thi s poi

nt. Com pare W i s. Stat. § 448.62 (2006), wi th 225 ILC S 100/3 (Wes t 200 6) (st at ing t hat t he Po diat ric Me dical Pr act ice Act of 1 987 do es no t pr ohibit “[a] ny per so n licensed t o p ra ct ice medicine a nd su rg er y in all of it s bra nches in this St at e und er t he Med i cal Practi ce A ct of 1 987 f

rom e nga gi ng i n the prac tic e f or whi ch he or sh e i s l

i censed .”). Gi ve n th at s ec ti on 2 -62 2 i s a

n I l l i noi s statute , we

de term i ne the l eg i sl atu re' s i nte nt i n l i gh t of Ill i noi s l aw . A s w e s eei

t, th e di sp osi

ti ve que sti on i s th i s: coul d a

n I l l i noi s- l i cens ed doc tor of
os t eo pat hy aut hor a se ct ion 2 -6 22 r epo rt for a claim aga inst a n Illinois-license d po diat rist ? Section 2-622 does not disti ngui sh b etween lic enses

granted by

dif feren t juri sdi ctions, an

d our
an al y sis m us t b e g ui de d b y th e p re su m pti on th at th e l eg i sl atu redi d n ot i n ten d a sta tute to produce an absurd, i

nconveni ent, or unjust resul

t. See Brucker v. Mercola, 227 Ill . 2d 502, 514 (2007). If an Il

li nois -li cenced osteopath can author a section 2-622 report in thi s si tuation, thenNo. 1-10- 1743

1 Ill i noi s law treats doctors of osteopathy sy nony mousl y wi th m edical doctors (225 ILCS 62/5 (West 2008)), and both types of docto r must be

li censed as phy

si ci ans un der the Medical Practice Act of 1987 (225 ILCS 60/1 et seq. ( We st 20 08 ) ) in o r de rt o pr ac t ice med icine in Ill in ois. 9 there is no reason bas ed on the pl ai n l anguage of

the statut e to pr ohibit a W is consi n-l ic ensed osteo path from

authoring one. Section 2-622 was en

acted as part o f a pac

kage of m edi cal ma lpractice reforms i

n 1985,
and the und erl y i ng p oli cy behi nd th e statute is “

to reduce the n um ber of f ri vol ous su i ts that ar e fil ed a nd t o e lim

inate suc h act ions a t an ea rly st age , be for e t he exp ense s o f li t igat ion have mounted.” DeLuna v. St. Elizabeth's Hospital , 147 I ll . 2d 57, 65 (1992 ). The st atut e requires a healt h pr ofe ssio nal to re view t he plaint iff 's claim to det er mine whet her it is “re aso nable and
me ritorious,” and i

n the context of a m

edi cal ma lpractice action one of

the crucia

l f actual questions i

s whether the appl

ic abl e m edi cal standard of care h

as been violated. See Sullivan v. Edwar d Hospital , 209 Ill . 2d 100, 112 (2004) (listing the e le me nts of a m edi cal ma lpractice cl ai m). This m

eans that the i

ni tial review of a potential

cause of ac

tion f or medical

ma lpractice und er se cti on 2-6 22 i

nc l udes a rev i ew of the standard of

care . Thi s c ons eq

ue ntl y na rrow s th e i ss uedow n to w he the r a phy si ci an ca n l eg al l y opi ne on the standard of care that podiatris ts owe t o t hei

r patients, and the s

upreme c ourt answered that
ver y ques t ion in Dolan v. G alluzzo , 77 Il l . 2d 279(1979 ). 1 In Dolan , the s uprem e court con si de red whether a

ph y si ci an ca n te sti f y asan ex pe rt wi tne ss i n a medi cal mal pra cti ceac ti on agains t a po diatrist, and, specifi call y, whether a physici

an who is n

ot also licensed as a podiatr ist is competent to t estif

y a bout t he standard of

care applic abl

e to po dia tric m edi ci ne. See id. at 281. Not in

g that a “practitione

r of a particul

ar school of m

edi ci ne i s enti tled to have h

is conductNo. 1-10- 1743

10

tested b y the standards

of h i s sc hool ,” the supr em e court held tha

t “i n orde r to testif y as a n expe rt on the standard of care i

n a gi ven school of me dic in e, the witnes s m

ust be lic ensed therei

n.” Id. at 2 83, 285 ; s eealso Gill v. Foster , 157 Ill . 2d 304 (1993) (reaffi rmi ng Dolan 's holding); Jones v. O'Young , 154 Il

l . 2d 39 ( 1992)(sam

e). The suprem

e court based its hol

din g in part o n the f

act that t he l

egi sl ature has establ

is hed sep arate re gul

atory regi m es f or phy sician s an d other s chools

of m edi ci ne (f or exa m pl e, den tistry or o pto me

try), observi

ng that “[w] e si

mpl y a re not disposed to pro vi

de for what, i

n ef fect, m ay res ul t i n a hi gher s tan da rd of ca re w he n th e l eg i sl atu re, by rec ogn izi ng va riousschool

s of medi cin e, has not do ne so. To do so would not only be unf air to po diatrists ( i.e. , to al l ow pr ac t it io ne r s o f o t he rsc ho o ls t o t es t ify re ga r din g t he st an da r d o f ca r e p o dia t r ist s o we ) , bu t it
wou l d al so a ss

um e that s ci en cean d m edi ci ne ha ve ac hi eved a u ni ve rs al sta nd ard of trea tmen t of dis ease or in

jury.” Dolan , 77 Ill . 2d at 284. The supreme court recognized, h owever, that ph y si ci ans m ay also b e l i cen se d p odi

atr i sts , a n d i n th at s i tua ti on th ey ar e c om pe ten t to ev al ua te compl ia nce wi th the standard of care f

or po dia try. See id. at 285. Dolan de al

t wi th e xp ert te sti mony at tri al , but the s am

e p ri nc i plesappl y to the rev i ew of a potential

cause of action pursuan

t t o section 2-622. Am

ong ot her thi

ngs, the unde

rly in g policy of th e statu te is to pr ov i de

a p re l i m i n ar y re v i ew of a p oten ti al mal pr ac ti ce ac ti on i n ord er to determi ne wh ether the defe

ndan t has f al le n sh ort of the appl

ic abl e standard of care. Un

der Dolan , the on

l y he al th prof ess i onal s tha t are legal l y com peten t to eval uate th e stan

dard of care f or podi atri c m

edi ci ne at tria l are l i censed podi atri sts, an

d ph y sician s wh

o are l i censed und er a dif f er en t re gul ator

y re gi me c an n ot ev al ua te w h eth er de f en da n t pod i atr i sts h av e c om pl i ed wi th the sta nd ard of ca re u nl es s th ey are also l i cens ed aspodi atrists . It f

ol l owstha

t ph y si ci an s c an notNo. 1-10- 1743

11

aut hor a se ct ion 2 -6 22 r epo rt t hat dee ms a cau se o f act ion ag ainst defend ant po diat rist s t o be “rea so nable and merit or iou s” be cau se p hysicians are not legally compe t ent t o e valuat e t he sta n da rd of ca ref or p odi atr i c m ed i ci n e a n d op i n e w h eth er th at stan da rd h as b een met. An y c ontrary resul

t would be ab surd, giv

en the l egi sl ative policy underl yi ng section 2- 622 of weed i ng out un meri torious l awsui ts at the e arl

i est poss i bl e poi nt. A s the

supr em e court not ed in Dolan , on e p rob l em wi th a l l owi ng ph y si ci an s to te sti

f y ab out the p odiatri

c s tan da rd of
ca r e is t ha t it may r es ult in t he ev alu at io n o f a p o dia t r ist 's a ct io ns u nd er a h igh er st an da r d t ha n is actuall y c omm on in the professi

on. See id. at 282. Anal

ogously , the possib il

ity exi sts that physicians who aut hor sec t ion 2 -6 22 r epo rt s may deem laws uit s merit or iou s base d o n t he percei ved v iolation of the standard of care appl ic abl e to physi ci ans, al lowi ng sui ts to proceed, ye t when the podi atric standard of c are is applie d at tr ia

l b y qua li fi ed podiatrist expert witnesses t he laws uit s ar e fo und t o be merit less. Su ch a r esu lt w ou ld be co nt ra ry t o s ect ion 2 -6 22's
o bje ct ive o f en su r ing t ha t o nly malp r ac t ice cla ims w it h so me me r it ar e file d t o be gin wit h, an d it would theref

ore be unreasonab le

not t o require that the heal th professi

onal who in itial ly reviews a ca se fo r mer it is lega lly

co mpet ent t o o pine o n t he st anda rd of c ar e t hat is at issue in a pa r t icu lar ca se . By ma nd at ing t ha t t he r ev iew ing he alt h p r o fes sio na l be lice nse d in t he sa me pro fessi on as the defendant, t hi s is preci sely what section 2-62 2 requires. Ad dit io na lly, o ur r ea din g o f t he leg isla t ur e' s int en t r eg ar din g t he lice nsin g r eq uir eme nt is rein forced when

we consider the lan

guage of the versi on of secti on 2-622 that was in eff ect bef ore Lebron and is c ur re nt ly i n t he pr oc ess o f ree nact ment. In t hat ver sion, one of t heNo. 1-10- 1743

2 This langu age re phr ase d se ct ion 2 -6 22's old re quir ement t hat t he r epo rt aut hor be “qu alifi ed by ex pe r ien ce o rde mo nst r at ed co mpe t en ce in t he su bje ct o f t he ca se . ” 7 35 I LC S 5 /2
- 62 2( a) ( 1) ( iii) (We st 1998 ). 12 requirem ents f or section 2-622 report authors was that t hey me et the expert witness

standards 2 pro mul gated in section 8-2501 o f the Code of Civi l Procedure ( 735 ILCS 5/8 -2501 ( West 20 08 ) ) , wh ich inc lud es t he ne ar ly ide nt ica l co nsid er at io n o f “w he t he rt he wit ne ss is lic en se d in the sam e professi on with the s am

e cl ass of l

ic ense as the defe ndan t.” Given the parall el la nguage of the

two st atutes, t he l

egi sl ature undoubtably

in tended for the sam

e professi onal qu alific at io n st an da r ds t o ap ply t o bo t h se ct io n 2
- 62 2 r ep o r t au t ho r s a nd ex pe r t wit ne ss es at t r ial. In light o f t he a bo ve d iscu ss io n, we ho ld t hat se ct io n 2- 62 2 r eq uir es t hat t he a ut ho r o f a report mus

t hold a current podiatri c lic ense wh en the def endan t in the c ase i s a l

ic ensed podiatrist, and i

t is n ot suf fi ci ent for the author to be l ic ensed onl

y as a phy si ci an. In thi s case, altho ugh Dr
. Wo

jch ieh o sk i wa s lic en se d a s a n o st eo pa t hic ph ysic ian in Wis co nsin at t he t ime that he authored the section 2-622 report, he di d not hold a podia

trist's l ic ense an d therefore was not a heal th professi

onal li censed i n the sam e professi on, with the sa

me cl ass of l ic ense, as defen dants wi thin the me ani

ng of s ection 2-622. As a resul t, plai ntif f' s secti on 2-622 report was defec tive. B. Dis mi ssal Wi th Prejudi ce We next con sider wh

ethe r di sm i ssa l of the com

pl ai nt wi th pre j udice was wa

rran ted. Under section 2-622, the fai lure to fi le a heal th professi

onal 's report o r an atto rney 's af fi davi t t hat
co mplie s w it h t he st at ut e is gr o un ds fo rdis miss al u nd er se ct io n 2
- 61 9 o f t he Co de o f Civ il Procedu re (735 ILCS 5/2-61 9 (West 200 8)). See 735 IL CS 5/2 -622(g) (We st 1998 ). Howev er, section 2-622does n

ot man date di sm i ssa l wi th pre j udice f or eve ry vi ola tion of i ts requ i rem en ts.No. 1-10- 1743

3 There i s al so authority f or t he proposition tha

t a tr ia l c ourt ma

y e xcuse a s ection 2-622 vi ola tion and ne ed n

ot dis m i ss a com pl ai nt at al l pursuan t to secti on 2-6 19. See , e.g. , McCastl e , 121 Ill . 2d at 194-95 ( Mill er, J., special

ly concurrin

g) (citi ng A.E. Stanl ey Manufacturing Co. v. Swift & Co. , 84Ill . 2d

245 , 25 2 (1 980 )). H owe ve r, that s cena

rio i s n ot pre sente d by

the f ac ts of this case, so we will

not explore i

t further at this ti

me . 13 See McCastl

e v. Mitchel

l B. Sheinkop, M.D., Ltd., 121 Ill . 2d 188, 194 (198 7). Whether a cause of action should be di smi

ssed with or without prejudice f or violation of section 2-622 is a de cisi on th at is l ef t to th e s oun

d di scre ti on

of th e tr i al cou rt. 3 See id. We wi

ll not reverse a trial court 's deci

si on on this

is sue abs ent an ab

use of di scretion (see id. ), a nd an ab us e of di screti on only o ccu rs w hen t he t rial co ur t 's de cision is “ar bitr ar y, fanciful, o r u nre aso nable o r w hen no reasonabl e person would take the sam e vi ew” ( Sbarbor

o v. Vollal

a , 392 Ill . App. 3d 1040, 1055 (2009) (citin

g People v. Illgen , 145 Il

l . 2d 353 , 364 (1 991))). The te st i n th i s ty pe of si tua ti on i s w h eth er th e tr i al cou rt c on si dere d th e s pe ci f i c f ac ts
an d c i rc um sta n ce s of th e c as e b ef

oredi sm i ss i n g th e c om pl ai n t an d d en y i n g p l ai n ti f f l ea v e to
am end. See Peterson v. Hinsdale H ospital , 233 Ill . App. 3d 327, 330 (1992); accord Ingold v. Irw in , 302 Il l . Ap p. 3d 37 8, 384 ( 1998)
. Amo ng t he fac t o r s t ha t a t r ial c o ur t co nsid er s in determi ni ng whether to grant leav

e to amend a com

pla in t are “ wh et he rt he ame nd men t wo uld
cur e a d efect in the p leadings ; whet her t he o t her par t y wou ld be pr ejudice d o r su rp rised by the propo sed am

endm ent; tim elin ess of the proposed am

endm ent; an d whether there were previous oppo rtu ni ties to amen

d the pleadin

gs. ” Lee v. Chi

cago Tra nsit Author

ity , 152 Ill . 2d 432, 467-68 (1992 ). Thi s case was

li tigated for four y

ears bef ore t he section 2-622 violation was uncovered dur i ng Dr. W oj ch

i eh osk i 's depos i ti on, an d de f en da nt n oted dur i ng oral arg um en ts on the moti on to di sm i ss tha t the de f i ci en cy prob ab l y ne ve r wou l d have b een r

eveal ed ha d pl ai nti f f notNo. 1-10- 1743

14

ident ifi ed D r. Wojchieho ski as a n expe rt wit ness fo r t he up co ming tr ial. Du e t o t his fact , t he trial court found duri

ng the hearin

g that t he def

endan ts did n ot hav e notice of the

im proper 2-622
r ep o r t an d t ha t t he ir mo t io n t o dis miss wa s t imely, ev en t ho ug h it wa s no t br o ug ht un t il nea r ly the e nd of di scovery . Mor e i m por tan tl y , a t n o ti me d uri n g th e p en den cy of th e l i ti ga ti on di d p l ai n ti f f atte m pt to cor re ct th e s ec ti on 2- 62 2 d ef

i ci en cy i n h er pl eadi n gs , a n d a t n o poi n t di d sh e a ttem pt to demo nst ra t e go od cau se fo r w hy she failed t o br ing t his to t he co ur t 's at t ent ion and re medy the
matter. Cf. Calamar

i v. Dramm is , 28 6 Il

l . A pp. 3d 4 20, 433 (19 97)(pl ai nti f f di d n ot sh ow g ood
caus e f or her f ail ure to f i l e a prope

r section 2-622report, des

pi te m ul tip l e ex tens i ons)
. In

f ac t, early on in the case pl

ai ntif f f il ed an am ended com

pla in t yet did n

ot fi le a corrected section 2- 622 re po rt aut hor ed by a q ualified expe rt . I t was only aft er t he de ficiency was d isco ver ed by defend ant s and only aft er t he mot ion t o d ismi ss wa s gr ant ed t hat plaint iff so ught leave t o a mend he rco mp lain t an d c o rr ec t t he de fic ien cy. Eve n then , pl ai

ntif f onl y sough t to amend th

e com pl ai nt i n orde r to dem onstra te that Dr. Wojchieho ski is cu rr ent ly l icensed as a po diat rist . T he t rial co ur t cap t ur ed t he es senc e o f the problem succi nctl y , observ i ng at the h

eari ng: “[T HE COU RT ]: Yo u [ plaint iff ] sho uld have chec ked t o s ee w het her he ha d a l i cens e n ot; a nd i f the cou rt – – i f hi s h ad be en br ough t to a c ourt' s a

tten ti on i n 2 006 , th e c ourt w oul

d have s ai d ge t yours el f a p rope r ex pe rt wi tne ss . You don't have one. *** [Plai ntif f' s Counsel

]: *** I'm aski ng f or leave to am end the 2.622 [ sic ] toNo. 1-10- 1743

15

have Dr. Wojch

ie hoski then sh ow his li cense. He h

as a l ic ense. [THE COURT]: H e di

dn' t hav e a l i cense i n 20 06.” As the tri al

court understood, am

endi ng the com

pla in t in the m ann er that plai

ntif f as ked for i s i nsuf fi ci ent to cur e the problem

because it can not change the f

act that Dr. Woj chi

ehoski
wasnot a l

i censed podi atri st i

n 20 06 wh

en he wrote the s ection 2-6 22 rep ort. Cf. Crull v. Sriratana , 3 88 I ll. App. 3d 1 036 , 1 046 (2 009 ) ( obs er ving t hat an unlicens ed p hysician “wa s n ot qu al i f i ed to au th or a se ct ion 2 -6 22 r epo rt , a nd t he de fect co uld no t have be en cu re d by amending the rep ort”) . The m

ere f ac t tha t Dr. W oj ch

i eh osk i i s n ow l i cens ed asa p odiatrist c an

not
r et r o ac t ive ly cu r e t he de fec t in a r ep o r t t ha t wa s d at ed an d file d fo ur yea r s a go . Of c o ur se , t ha t is not to say that su ch a def ect ca n n ev er b e cure d, an

d we tak e no posi tion on tha t questi on. Ra t he r , o ur po int is o nly t ha t pla int iff’s pr o po se d s o lut io n ( wh ich wa s, impo r t an t ly, t he o nly soluti on that plai

ntif f of fered) does nothi

ng to address the fun

dam ental problem of the f act that he r law sui t, as f i l ed , wa s s

upp orted by a re port a uthored by som eon e w ho wasat the ti

me n ot l eg al l y au thor ize d to do s o. Finally , t he se ct ion 2 -6 22 vio latio n her e wa s no t a “minor t echnica l err or ” t hat might
ex cus e pl ai ntif f 's f ail ure to strictl

y com pl y wi th the statute. Apa v. Rotman , 288 Ill . App. 3d 585, 589 -9 0 ( 199 7) (“[ W] her e a minor t echnica l err or is involved, per mitt ing a plaint iff t o a mend more cl osely furthers the purpose of secti on 2-622 t han di smi ssin g with prejudice.”); see also Cammon v. West Suburban Hos pital Medical Center , 3 01 I ll. App. 3d 9 39, 950 (1 998 ) ( finding abuse of dis cretion whe

re, in a case i nvol vi ng m ulti ple defen dants, the pla

in tif f f il ed a section 2- 62 2 r ep o rt t hat mist ak enly o mitt ed a d iscu ss io n o f t he d eficie ncie s o f so me d efe nda nt s) . P laint iff did not accidentall

y f ail to comply

with a technicali

ty, but instead based her compl ain t againstNo. 1-10- 1743

16

defend ant s o n t he pr ofe ssio nal op inion o f someo ne who was not legally qualified t o o pine o n t he sta n da rd of ca ref or p odi atr i c m ed i ci n e. Se cti on 2- 62 2' s g oal

of we ed i n g ou t meri tl es s l aw su i ts bef ore t hey are fi le d depends on com

pli ance wi th the statut e’s requi

remen t t hat ma lpractice la wsui ts be vetted by

a qualif ie d heal th professi

onal . Plai ntif f’ s subm is si on of a section 2-622 rep ort th at w aspre

pa red by som eon e w ho wasnot q

uali f i ed to au thor such a re port i n s upp ort of thi s pa rtic ul ar ca use of a cti on i s di rectl y contrar y to the purp ose of

the statute and i s n

ot a me re tech ni cal error. We recogni

ze that dism

is sal with prej udic e i s a harsh

resul t, given that t hi s case was clos e t o t rial and t hat t he pa rt ies do not ar gue on a ppe al tha t plaint iff 's claim lacks mer it. As t he dissent right ly obser ves, t her e is also no s ugg est ion in t he r eco rd t hat defend ant s wo uld have be en prej udiced b

y al l owi ng p l ai ntif f to ame nd h er com plai nt i n orde r to comp l

y wi th the statute. See post , sli

p op. at 21 ( Harris, J., dissenting). Al thou gh these are vali

d and well

-tak en points,
weare m i nd f ul of the de f ere nc e that w e m

us t ac cord

to the tri al cou rt wh en werev i ew a d ec i si on t ha t is c o mmit t ed t o it s s o un d d isc r et io n. We ar e b o un d b y t he st an da r d o f r ev iew , an d in t his si tua ti on we re v i ew th e tr i al cou rt’ s dec i si on on l y f or a b us e of di scre ti on , not de novo . See McCastl e , 121 Ill . 2d at 194. Abuse of discretion i s the “m ost deferentia

l s tandard of revi

ew avai la ble wi th the excepti on of no revi ew at all,” ( People v. Coleman , 183 Ill . 2d 366, 387 (1998)), and the only

real que stion on rev

ie w is whether the trial

court “appl

i[ed] the proper criteri a when

it wei ghed the f acts.” ( Paul v. Gerald

Adelman & Assocs. , 223 Ill . 2d 85, 99 (2006 ). Th i s iss ue wa s w el l b rief ed an d e xtensi v el y argu ed b y th e p ar ti es b ef oreth e tr i al cou rt, and the tr ial

cour t was full

y aware of the relevan

t facts and circumstances of thi s particular caseNo. 1-10- 1743

17

when it deci ded to dism

is s the compl

ai nt and to deny

pla in tif f l eave to amen

d. At best, the lack of prej udic e to defendan

ts satisf ie s onl y one of the f our factors t hat the suprem e court has spe cified sho uld be c ons ider ed w hen de ciding whe t her t o g ra nt leave t o a mend a c omp laint, and pl ai ntif f ’sproposed

am endm en t fe l l short on the othe

r three
. See Lee , 152 Il

l . 2d at 46 7-68. Du r ing t he he ar ing , t he t r ial c o ur t sp ec ifica lly no t ed t ha t pla int iff’s pr o po se d a men dme nt co uld not cure t he section 2-622 defect and tha t t he am endm ent cam e four y ears af ter t he origi

nal f i l i ng, b oth of w

hi ch are i m portant f actors that sh

oul d be cons i dered

i n th i s si tuati on. See id. The record demonstrates that the trial c ourt considered the correct cr iteri a (Paul , 223 Ill . 2d at 99 ) , an d i t s d ec isio n t o de ny le av e t o ame nd co ns eq ue nt ly ca nno t be co ns id er ed “a r bit r ar y, fan ci ful, or unreasonable” (

Illgen , 145 Ill . 2d at 364). As a resul t, we cannot say that the trial court abused i

ts discretion in

dis mi ssi ng the com

pla in t with prej udic e. III. CONCLUSION Fo r t he fo re go ing re aso ns, w e affirm the t rial co ur t 's o rd er dismissing t he plaint iff 's compl ai nt with prej udic e. Af fi rmed.

JUSTICE HARRIS, di ssen ting.No. 1-10- 1743

18

I re sp ec tf ul l y di ss en t. The tr i al cou rt a b us ed i ts d i scre ti on i n i ss ui n g th e order of di sm i ss al b ec au se i t f ai l ed to appl y the well-establi

shed pri nci ple that Section 2-622 is to be l ib erall y c onstrued and that
am endm ents to co mpl

ai nts i n m edi cal ma lpractice actions a

re to be l ib erall y gran ted so t hat
cas es o f this nat ur e ar e de cided base d up on t he su bst ant ive right s o f the par t ies, no t plead ing technical ities
. Se cti on 2- 62 2 does

n ot re qui reth at m ed i ca l repor ts s ub m i tted at th e p l eadi n g s tag e to su pp o r t med ica l ne glig en ce cla ims a ga inst po dia t r ist s be au t ho r ed by a p o dia t r ist lice nse d in Ill in ois. The stat ute do es not define the terms A sa me p rof es si on @ or A sam

e cl ass of l

ic ense. @ Those words used in

the statut e are to be given thei r general ly accepted and ordin

ary m eani ng. Web ster = s pri

mary def i ni tions f or A li cense @ are A perm

i ss i on to act; @ A free do m of act ion; @ and

A perm i ss i on gr an ted b y com pe ten t au th ori ty to en gage i n a b us i n es s, occ up ati on , or a cti v i ty
o t he rwis e u nla wfu l. @ We bster’s Seven th Ne w Col l egi ate Di cti onary 487 (1 971). D r. Woj ci ehoski , empl

oyi ng these def

in itions, satisf

ie d the requirem

ents of Secti on 2-622. Dr. Wojci

ehoski earned h is degree as a doctor of podiatry in 1986. In 1990 he earn

ed a degree of doctor of osteopat hy and was l

ic ensed b y the Wi sconsi n m edi cal exam in in g board. He
was per mitt ed t o e ngag e in the pr act ice o f medicine and s ur ger y. In Wisc ons in A podi atry @ is a

A branch or system @ of the practice of me dic in e and surgery . He was not required to have a separat e li

cense to pr actice podiatry or podiatr ic m edici ne, nor was t here any

pro hi bi tion against hi s refe rrin g to hi ms el f as a A podiatr ist @ , A doctor of podi atry @ or A D.P. M. @ Dr. Wojcieh oski, as a licensed physician, w as bo t h per mitt ed a nd au t hor ized by t he St at e o f Wiscons in to enga ge in t heNo. 1-10- 1743

19

practice of podiatry and was exem pt from an

y requi remen t t hat he h

ave a se parate and di stin

ct po diat ry license a s a c ond itio n t o d o s o. The Wisco nsin li cens ur e sc heme is who lly

co nsist ent wi th Dolan v. Galluzzo, 77 Il

l 2d 27 9, 2 85 (1 97 9) , w

h er e ou r s up re me c our

t re cog n ize d th at a

A ph y si ci an or surge on

may also b e a l i cen se d p odi

atr i st a n d m ay b e s uf f i ci en tl y qu al i f i ed to test if y as to the st andard of care o wed by podiatrists. @ Wiscon si n l aw does not perm i t eve ry M.D. or D.O . i

n W i scon si n to dec l are themsel

ve s to be p odi atri sts. W

i scon si n ph y sician s are pe r mit t ed t o do so , wit ho ut ad dit io na l lice nsu r e, o nly if t he y ar e a lso do ct o r s o f po dia t r ic med icine
. T he r e is no dis pu t e t ha t Dr
. Wo jcie ho sk i ea rne d h is d eg r ee as a d o ct o ro f po dia t ry in 198 6. If a license d physician w ho is a lso a po diat rist can t est ify at t rial wit h re gar d t o t he standard of care of a

podiatrist, thi s sam

e person i s equal

ly qualif ie d to author a section 2-622 report. Dr. W

ojc i ehoski , as a

D.P.M., a

nd th e def endan ts are of the s am e school of m edi ci ne . The sec t ion 2 -6 22 r epo rt was aut hor ed by a he alth c ar e pr ofe ssio nal who had t he sa me tr aining and profes si onal

credentia ls as def endan ts, who was judgi

ng thei r conduct based on the standards applic abl e to po dia trists. Court s of our state have repeatedly articulated that t he techn ic al
re quir ement s o f sect ion 2 -6 22 s hou ld no t inter fere wit h t he sp irit o r p ur po se o f the st at ut e; t he absen ce of strict t echn

ic al compl ia nce wi th the statut e i

n thi s case is one of f

orm, not substance,
and sh oul d not b e app l i ed to depri ve the p l ai ntif f a tri al on i ts m eri ts. See, e.g. , Comfort v. Wheaton F

amily Pra ctic e, 229 Ill App 3d 8 28, 832 (19 92) ; Apa v. Ro tman, 288 Ill . App. 3d 585, 589 (1 992). Notwi thstan di ng m y col l eagues a

dopti ng th e tri al court = s vi ew that Dr. Wojciehoski = s li cense was i

nadequate, the di sm

is sal of the case wi

th prejudi ce and wi thout le ave to fi

le an am ended p l eadi

ng i s un reas onab l e an

d m ust b e rev erse d asan

abuse of the court = s discre

tion
.No. 1-10- 1743

20

The purpos e of

section 2-622i s to di scoura

ge f ri vol ous l i tig ati on. McCastle v. Sheinkop , 12 1 I ll 2d 18 8, 19 3 ( 19 87 ). Th e r ec o rd her e is a bse nt any s ug ge st io n t hat pla int iff = s su rvival act ion and
wr ong ful deat h claims against t hese defend ant s ar e in any manner fr ivolo us. To t he co nt ra ry, t he
co mplain t se t s o ut a me dic al malp ra ct ice eve nt whic h alle ge dly ca us ed t he d ea t h o f pla int iff = s de ce den t. A de ath ca se i s c er tai n l y a s eri ous on e a n d i n n o wa y f ri v ol ous . It i

s w el l settl ed th at a f ail ure to com

pl y wi th se cti on 2-6 22 does

not m andate th e di sm

i ssa l of the ca se wi

th pre j udice. To t hat end, medical malpra ct ice plea dings s hou ld be liberally allowed so t hat t he ca se may be deci ded on i ts m eri ts rath er tha

n pr ocedura l tech ni cal i tie s. Catov. Attar

, 210 Ill . App. 3d 996, 999 (1 991 ). So und e xer cise o f discr et ion manda t es t hat t he plaint iff be at least affor ded t he
o pp o r t un it y t o ame nd he rco mpla int t o co mply w it h se ct io n 2
- 62 2 b efo r e h er co mpla int is dis mi ssed wi th prejudi ce. See Camm on v. W

est S ubur ban H ospi tal Medica l Cen ter, 30 1 I ll. App. 3d 9 39, 949 -9 50 ( 199 8) (a llowing a p laintiff to amend a medical malpra ct ice co mplaint wh ere the pl

ai ntif f f ail ed to attach

the re qui red af f i dav i t and report of a

he al th ca re prof ess i onal ). The m aj ori ty = s re liance o n Cru ll v. Sr irat ana, 388 Ill. App . 3 d 10 36 ( 200 9) , t o a ffi rm t he tria l court = s d ismis sa l o f t his c as e w it ho ut a t r ial o n it s me r it s is misp lac ed an d e as ily di sti ngu i shed. In Cru ll, t he p laint iff

= s i n i ti al com pl ai n t con tai n ed n o af f i da v i t or m ed i ca l repor t,
an d n ei th er wa s f i l ed wi thi n th e 9 0 day

ex tensi on gr an ted un der the statu

te. Cou n se l re f us ed to provi de th e nam

e of the a uthori ng m edi cal prof ess i onal i n l ater f i l ed rep orts. Other reports w ere t end er ed by a d o ct o r w ho se licen se had bee n r evo ke d. He re , p laint iff = s counsel = s affidavit and the me dic al

report upon whi

ch h e reli ed were tim

el y f il ed. There nev

er was an attempt to hide Dr. Wojci ehoski = s iden

tity, qualifi

cations, o r li

cense f rom defendants or t he court . MostNo. 1-10- 1743

21

impor t ant ly, unlike t he co nsult ant in Cru ll, Dr. W oj ci eh osk i wa s a f ul l y l i cens ed doc tor of
o st eo pa t hy, pr ac t icin g m ed icin e a nd su r ge ry allo we d b y t ha t lice ns ing wh ich inc lu de d p o di at ry, as w el l as h i s havi ng e arned a p odi atry

degre e. Up o n t he p laint iff

= s fili ng o f her c omp laint in 20 06, t he de fendant s answ er ed a nd t he part ies en gaged in si

gni fi cant discovery. Over the next four years written interrog ato ries, req ue sts f or produc ti on of doc um en ts, th e i ss ua nc e of su bp oen asto thi rd p arti es , th e tend

eri ng of requests to adm

it, and n ot ic in g and taki ng deposi tions took place. Shortly bef ore t he case

trial da te of A ugu st 2 3, 2 010 , th e d ef

en da nts took the d ep osi

ti on of Dr. W oj ci

eh osk i an d lea rned of t he licensing t echnica lity. He t est ifi ed t hat he had a po diat ry license in 19 86 bu t in 199 0 he
o bt ain ed his me dic al lic en sing an d t he po dia t ry lice nse wa s no lo ng er ne ce ss ar y fo rhis
co nt inu ed pr ac t ice o f po dia t ry. H e a lso st at ed t ha t in 2 01 0 h e o bt ain ed a p o dia t ry lice nse , st ill
va l i d, ashe wasretai ne d asan ex pert by a def en se a ttorney i n a nothe r m atter. The gr ant ing o f defend ant = s m oti on to d i sm i ss thi s c as e on the eve of tri al af ter y ea rs of pr epa ra t ion and bot h par t ies re ady t o t ry it o n its mer its w as w ro ng and unr eas ona ble. D enying pla in tif f the opportunity

to correct the techni

cal defec t in the m edi cal report was unreas onabl

e, ras h a nd arbi trar y . It i gn ores the pur pos e of se cti on 2 -62 2 a

nd the rul esof l i be ral con stru cti on and a mendment which at t end it . As s uch t her e wa s an a buse of d iscre t ion. We nee d no t give deferen ce to t he trial

court where i

ts action i s unreasona

ble. The def

endan t would not have b een pr eju dic ed in t he slig ht es t if t he co ur t ha d a llo we d t he ame nd men t t o t he se ct io n 2
- 62 2 a ffida vit and order the tr ial

to pro ceed on its meri

ts. Ac co r din gly, I wo uld r ema nd t his c as e t o t he t r ial c o ur t t o va ca t e it = s dism i ssa l order, al l ow the f i l i ng of an am ended s ection 2-6 22 af

f i dav i t and procee d to trial

on the meri ts.No. 1-10- 1743

22