FIFTH DIVISION Novem ber 12, 2010

No. 1-09- 2463 PA UL A BR UC E, Sp ec i al

A dm i ni stra tor ) of the Estate of Mic

hael Bruce, ) Deceased, ) ) Appe al fro m the Plai ntif f-A ppelle e, ) Ci rcu i t Cou rt of ) Co o k C o un t y, v. ) ) 08 L 14130 AR SENIO D . ATA

DERO , Ind

i vi dual l y , ) SH ER MAN H OS PI TAL, an I lli nois C or po ra t ion, ) T he Ho no r ab le an d S HE RM AN HE ALT H S YS T E M, an I llino is ) E liza be t h M. Bu dz insk i, Co rp or at ion, ) Judge Presidin g. ) Defendan ts-Appellan

ts. )

) JU STI CETO OM IN

de l i v ered th e op i n i on of th e c our t: In thi s appeal , we determi ne wh ether the ci

rcuit court pro perly

declin ed to t ransf

er venue based on i

ntrastate forum no n conveniens where the origi nal action was b

rought in the f

orum wh ere the i

nj ury occurre d an

d where s ev eral

key wi tnes ses resi ded a nd, f oll owi ng v olu ntary di sm i ssa l , wasref i l ed i n a f orum other th an

wh ere pl ai ntif f resi ded. Plaint iff Pau la Bru ce, spe cial administr at or of t he es t at e o f Michael Br uce , br ou ght
wr o ng ful d ea t h a nd su rviva l cla ims a ga inst de fen da nt s, alle gin g t he y we r e n eg lige nt in t he ir t r ea t men t o f de ce de nt , wh ich o cc ur r ed in Mc He nr y Co un t y. P laint iff o r igin ally file d t his a ct io n in McHenry County, where de fen

dant Sherm

an Hospi tal was a res ide

nt. Af ter discovery

had proc ee de d f

or al most tw o yea

rs , pl ai nti f f vol un tari l y di sm i ss ed the ac ti on a nd ref i l ed i n C ook Coun ty, w here two ph

y sical thera py f aci l i tie s of She rm an Hospi tal were l ocated, b

ut whi ch were1-09-2463

2

not re late d t o t he t re at ment a t issue, bringing t he sa me claims and making t he sa me allegat ions
co nt ained in her pr ior co mplaint. Defend ant s filed mot ions t o t ra nsfer ve nue ba sed on t he doctr in e of i ntrastate forum non conveniens . T he t rial co ur t denied t he mot ions. Fo r t he f oll owi n g r ea son s, we re v er se an d r em an d th e m atte r to th e c i rc ui t cou rt w i th di re cti on s to trans f er the caus e to McHe

nry Coun ty. BACK

GROUND Plai nti f f f i l ed thi s acti on i n McH en ry Cou nty on Marc h 1 0, 2 006 , groun

de d on cl ai m s f or
wro ngful death and survival, all eging that defendants negligently fai led to diagnose dec edent ’s de ep ve in t hr o mbo sis , r es ult ing in his de at h o n Ma r ch 18 , 20 04
. Pla int iff’s alle ga t io ns s t emme d in part from the treatment deceden t receive d at Sherman

Hospital and the Sherman

Hospital Im medi ate Ca re Ce nter, l ocated i n M cHen ry Coun ty, f oll owi ng a n i nj ury to hi s lef t le g. De f en da nt S he rm an He al th S y stem s, a

res i de nt of

Kan e C oun ty , i s th e p are nt c orporati

on of Sherm an Hospi tal . Pl ai nti f f ’s al l eg ati ons ag ai ns t de f en da nt Dr. A rs en i o A tad ero were

base d on the c are h e ren dered to decede

nt on M arch

10, 200 4, i

n h i s m edi cal off i ce i n M cHen ry Coun ty. De ce den t wa s trea ted an d di ed i n th e emergen cy

de pa rtm en t at S h er man Hos pi tal ’s mai n f ac i l i ty i n K ane Coun ty. Decedent was a resi

dent of Kan

e County. Plai

ntif f an d decedent’s two mi

nor chi ldren lik ew ise pr es en t ly r es id e in t ha t fo rum . De fe nd an t Dr
. At ad er o is a r es id en t o f Mc He nr y Co un t y, wh er e h e a lso maint ain s his o ffice
. He ha s p r ivileg es t o pr ac t ice an d s ee s p at ien t s a t ho sp it als loca t ed in Mc Henr y and Kane Co unt ies. D r. Ata der o’ s nur se a nd po t ent ial witnes s, J oa nna Pl edge r, works i n M cHen ry Coun ty a nd l i ve s i n K ane Coun ty.1-09-2463

3

Defe ndan t Sherman

Hospital ’s m

ai n f acili ty i s i n K ane County, but the treat me nt rendered t o d ece dent pr imarily

oc cur re d at facilities in McH enr y Cou nt y. Nu rse Jaso n Car man, w ho t r ea t ed de ce de nt at Sh er man Ho sp it al’ s I mmed iat e C ar e C en t er in Mc He nr y Co un t y, r es ide s in McH en ry Coun ty. N urse Carm an pres en tly works a t a di f f eren t hospi tal i n C ook County

, Il l i noi s. Two other n

urse s wh o were i nv olv ed i n the ca re of dece den t at Sher man Hospi tal Im medi ate Ca re Cen ter, Deb ra Wojc i k an d Bon ni e Gab ri el , work i

n M cHen ry Coun ty. The wi tnesses wh

o pro vi ded treatment to decedent t he day of his death at Sherm

an Hospi tal i n K ane Coun ty a re: n urse s Mi chael Taster a nd S usa n H acke , who resi

de i n M cHen ry Co un t y; D r . T imo t hy Wa ng , wh o r es ide s in K an e C o un t y; D r . Da lia G vild ys, wh o r es ide s in DuPage Coun

ty;and Dr. Doug l as Jacks on, wh o resi desi n C ook County
. Pla int iff list ed t he fo llow ing ind ividu als a s d ama ge and lo ss -o f-s o cie t y wit nes se s: pla int iff, her two sons , and he

r ne i ghbors, wh

o all resi de i n K ane Coun ty;and pl ai ntif f ’smother an

d f athe r, wh o res i dei n I nd i an a. P l ai nti f f also l i ste d s even

l oss -of -s oci ety wi tne ss eswh

o l i ve i n C ook Co un t y, in clu din g p laint iff’s au nt an d u nc le; pla int iff’s co us in; a nd pla int iff’s t wo sis t er s. T he o nly witne ss to t he i

ni tial accident and i

nj ury to decedent’s l

eg was Dav

id Spagn ola, who was dece den t’s c oworker. Spa

gnol a res i desi n C ook County
. T he ca se wa s p en din g in Mc He nr y Co un t y fo ralmo st t wo yea r s be fo r e p laint iff vo lun t ar ily dis mi ssed i t and refi le d in Cook Co unty. Def

endan ts moved to dism

is s or tr ansf

er the case ba

ck to McHenry

County un

der the doctr in

e of i ntrastate forum non conveniens . On August 19, 2009, the c i rcui t court enter

ed a 1 6 pag e m

em orand um opi ni on an d order de

ny i ng d ef endan ts’ m otion
. De fen da nt s file d a pe t it io n fo rlea ve t o ap pe al p ur su an t t o Su pr eme Co ur t Ru le 3 06 ( a) ( 2) ( 21 0 I ll.1-09-2463

4

2d R. 306(a)(2)). Pursuant to supervisory order of the Ill in ois Suprem

e Court, we granted def endan ts’ pe titi on f or le av e to appea

l
. AN AL YSIS Def endan ts Sh erm an Hospi tal and Sherm

an Heal th Sy stem s m ai ntai n that the c i

rcui t court ab us ed i ts d i screti on i n gi vi ng un due we i gh t to the f ac t tha t Sherm an Hospi tal wa s a res i de nt of Coo k C oun

ty f or ven ue pu rp ose s. De f

en da n ts c on ten d th at p l ai n ti f f ’s ch oi ce of Coo k C oun

ty
wa s e nt it led t o les s d efe r en ce be ca us e t he pla int iff did no t r es ide in t he co un t y and t he inc ide nt did not oc cu r th ere an d the p ub l i c a

nd pri va te i nte res t f ac tors s trongl y f av ored tran sf er f rom Cook County b ack to McHenry C ounty. Def endan ts further argue that plai

ntif f’ s sel ection of f

orum upon refi li ng sh ould be aff orded even l

ess def erence gi ven there is a cl ear in feren ce of f orum shoppi ng due to the fact that she previ ously fi le d her cause of

action i n McHen ry County, the situs of the wron

gf ul cond uct. Plai ntif f mai ntai ns that the ba l ance of al l pri va te and pub l i c f

actors weighs in favor of a llowing her cho ice o f foru m, and t hat her pr ior fil ing o f this ac t ion is irr elevant to a forum non conveniens anal y si s an d doesnot l ess en

the def eren ce due to her c

hoice of f orum . Ou r p re ce den

t i n str uc ts th at forum non convenien s is a n e qui tab l e doctri

ne f oun de d on
cons i derati

ons of f und am en tal f ai rne ss a nd th e se ns i bl e an d ef f ecti ve adm i nistration of

j ustice. Langenhorst v. Norfolk Southern Railw ay Co. , 219 Il

l . 2d 430 , 441, 84 8 N.E.2d 927, 93 4 (200 6). Unde r t he do ct rine t he t rial co ur t has t he au t hor ity t o t ra nsfer a lawsu it int ra st at e, even w hen t he
ven ue where the sui

t was fi le d is proper. S ee Torres v. Walsh , 98 Ill . 2d 338, 344-50, 456 N. E.2d 601 , 6 04- 07 ( 198 3) . “ ‘I t is oft en sa id t hat t he plaint iff may not , by cho ice o f an inconve nient f orum , “ve x, ” “ ha ras s,” or “ oppr es s” the de f en da nt b y i nf l i cti ng upon hi m ex pe ns e or tr

oub l e n ot1-09-2463

5

necess ary to hi s own ri ght to pursue his rem edy .’ ” Torres , 98 Ill . 2d at 345-46, 456 N.E.2d at 604-05, quot in

g Gulf Oil Corp. v. Gilbert , 33 0 U .S. 50 1, 5 08 , 91 L. Ed. 10 55 , 10 62 , 67S. Ct. 839 , 8 43 ( 194 6) . T he do ct rine p re sup po ses t he exist ence of a t least t wo for ums in which t he def endan t is am enab l e to ju

ri sdi cti on. Jones v. Searle Laboratories , 93 Ill . 2d 366, 371, 444 N.E.2d 157, 159 ( 1982). In adopt in g the in trastat e forum non conveniens do ct rine in Torres , our suprem e court r ecogni

zed the Ill in ois courts’ authority to transfer cas es as l ong exi stin

g at
com m on l aw. Torres , 98 Il

l . 2d at 3 47 , 45 6 N .E. 2d

at 6 05 . “ The doctr

i n e a l l ows a tr i al cou rt to declin e j urisdi ction of a case when

it i s apparent that trial

in another forum

with proper jurisdi ction an

d ven ue ‘would b e m

ore conveni

ent and would better serve the ends of j ustice.’ ” Glass v. DOT Transportation, Inc. , 393 Il l . Ap p. 3d 82 9, 832, 9 12 N.E.2 d 762, 7 66 (20 09), quot in g Vinso n v. Allstate , 1 44 I ll. 2d 3 06, 310 , 5 79 N .E .2 d 85 7, 859 (1 991 ). “A co ur t having jurisdi ction an

d ven ue over a case m

ay dis mi ss or transfer the cas e i f i

t “has n o practical connecti on to the forum .” Torres , 98 Il l . 2d at 34 8, 456 N .E.2d at 60 6, ci tin g, e.g. , People

ex rel

. Compagn ie Nation ale Air F rance v. Giliber

to , 74 Ill . 2d 90, 383 N.E. 2d 977 (19 78) ; Adkins v. Chicago, Rock Island &

Pacific R.R. Co. , 54

Il l . 2d 51 1, 3 01 N. E.2 d 7 29 (1 97 3) . In th e ev en t a pla in tif f f il es sui t in an im proper forum, the Ci

vi l Practice Law (735 ILCS 5/2-101 et seq . (West 2008) ) provi

desf or the m eans to trans f

er the caus e to a proper v

en ue or dism

i ss th e ac tion
. Will iams v. Illin ois S

tate S chol arship C omm’n , 139 Il

l . 2d 24, 4 0, 563 N .E.2d 465 , 472 (1 990). In d et er mini

ng t he ap pr op riat e fo ru m in which the c ase sho uld be t ried , it is incumbent upon th e court to bal

ance the prev

ail i ng p ri va te and pub l i c i

ntere sts. Glass , 393 Ill . App. 3d at 832-33, 912 N.E. 2d at 767, citin g Daw dy v. U nion P acific R.R. Co. , 207 Ill . 2d 167, 172, 7971-09-2463

6

N. E. 2d 6 87, 693 (2 003 ). “In I lli nois, t he pr ivate inter est fact or s include t he co nvenience of t he par t ies; t he r elat ive ease of a cce ss t o s ou rc es o f te st imonial, do cument ar y, and re al evidenc e; t he
av aila bilit y o f co mpu lso ry pr o ce ss t o se cu r e a t t en da nc e o f un willing wit ne ss es ; t he co st t o o bt ain at t en da nc e o f willing wit ne ss es ; t he po ss ibilit y o f vie win g t he pr emis es , if ap pr o pr iat e; an d a ll ot her practica

l c onsi derations that m

ake a trial easy, expedi

tious, and i

nex pensi ve.” Glass , 393 Ill . App. 3d at 833, 912 N.E .2d at 767, citing Daw dy , 2 07 I ll. 2d a t 172 , 7 97 N .E .2 d at 693 . T he
r ele va nt pu blic in t er es t fac t o r s imp lica t e: “t he ad minist r at ive diffic ult ies ca us ed wh en lit iga t io n is ha ndl ed i n a cong ested

venue i nstead of be i ng h andl ed at i

ts ori gi n; the u nf ai rne ss of i m posi ng jury dut y upo n re sident s o f a co unt y with no co nnect ion o t t he litigat ion; and t he inte re st in having local contro versi

es deci ded l ocall y.” Glass , 3 93 I ll. App. 3d a t 833 , 9 12 N .E .2 d at 767 , c iting Daw dy , 207 Ill . 2d at 173, 797 N. E.2d at 693. “The pri vate i nterest factors are not weighed ag ai ns t the publ i c i nte res t f ac tors;rath

er, the tri al cou rt m us t eval ua te the total

ci rcu m sta nc esof t he ca se in d et er mining wh et he rt he de fen da nt ha s p r o ve n t ha t t he ba lan ce o f fac t o r s s t r o ng ly fav ors tr ansf er.” Langenhorst , 219 Il

l . 2d at 44 4, 848 N .E.2d at 93 5. Ou r con si de rati on of the i ss uemakescl

ea r th at the b

urden i s on the de f en da nt to s how tha t the rel evan t pri va te a nd publ i c i nte res t f ac tors “ stron

gl y f av or” th e d ef en da nt’ s choi ceof f orum to warran

t di sturb i ng p l ai ntif f ’schoic e. Langenhorst , 219 Ill . 2d at 444, 848 N. E.2d at 935 . T he de fendant must sho w t hat plaint iff ’s cho sen fo ru m is i

nco nvenient t o t he de fendant and that an other f orum i s m ore conv en i en t to all parties. First American Bank v. Guerine , 198 Ill . 2d 511, 518, 764 N. E.2 d 54, 59 (2 002) . Unless the balance of facto rs st ro ngly favor a de fendant’s choic e of f orum , the p l ai

ntif f ’sf orum choic e sh oul d rare l y be di sturb ed. Langenhorst , 219 Ill . 2d1-09-2463

7

at 444, 848 N.E .2d at 935; Guerine , 198 Il l . 2d at 51 7, 764 N .E.2d at 58
. Nonetheless, “the plai

ntif f' s in terest in choosing the forum receiv es somewhat less de fer en ce wh en ne it he rt he pla int iff's r es ide nc e n o rt he sit e o f t he ac cid en t o rinju ry is lo ca t ed in the chosen f

orum.” Guerine , 19 8 I ll. 2 d a t 51 7, 76 4 N
. E
. 2d at 59
. While we ar e mind ful o f t his lim itat ion whe n t he plaint iff

cho os es a for um o t her t han whe re he r eside s, “ ‘ t he de fere nce t o be
ac co r de d i s o nly less , as

oppos ed to none .’ ” (Em

phasi s i n ori gi na l .) Guerine , 198 Ill . 2d at 518, 764 N.E.2d at 59, quot in

g Elling v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. , 291 Ill . App. 3d 311 , 318, 68 3 N.E.2d

929, 93 5 (199 7). Prevai li ng practice

further di ctates t hat the determi

nation of a forum non conveniens
m otion l i es wi thi n the soun

d di scre tion of the tri al

court. Glass , 393 Ill . App. 3d at 832, 912 N.E.2d at 766-67, citin

g Daw dy v. Union Pacific R.R. Co. , 207 Ill . 2d 167, 176-77, 797 N. E.2d 687 , 6 96 ( 200 3) . T her efo re , o n re view, t he t rial co ur t ’s de cision w ill be r ever sed only if i

t can be shown that the c ourt abu sed i ts di scre tion i n b alanci ng th e rel ev an t factors. Bland v. Norfolk & Western Ry. Co. , 116 Ill . 2d 217, 223, 506 N.E .2d 1291, 1293-94 (1987). It is wel l s ettled that an abu se o f discr et ion will be fou nd whe re no r eas ona ble per so n wo uld t ake t he view a do pt ed by the tri al court. Glass , 393 Ill . App. 3d at 832, 912 N.E .2d at 766-67, ci ting Daw dy , 207 Ill . 2d at 177, 79 7 N.E.2d

at 696. Here , ou r a n al y sis y i el dsth e c on cl

us i on th at th e c i rc ui t cou rt a b us ed i ts d i scre ti on i n i ts fi ndi ngs regardi

ng the b al ance of

priv ate and publ

ic factors. As a prel

im in ary conside

ration we
n ote th at th e c our t, i n i ts 1 6 p ag e m

em ora n du m opi n i on an d or der, af f ord ed i n ordi n ate we i gh t to t he fact t hat Sher man Ho spit al op er at es t wo physical t her apy facilities in Co ok Co unt y, and1-09-2463

8

t he r ef o r e w as a r es id en t o f Co o k C o un t y: “As to the pr

i va te f actors i n th i s ca se, i t has not be en shown that i

t woul d be

more
conv en i en t to li tig ate this ca se i

n M cHen ry than i t woul d be

to li tig ate i t in Cook Coun

ty. A l thou gh [p] l ai nti f f ’s ch oi ceof Cook Cou nty asf orum i s g i ve n l es s def ere nc e a s she i s n ot
a re si de nt of Cook Cou nty an d the acti ons gi vi ng ri se to he r cl ai m s d i d n ot occur i n C ook Coun ty, [p ]l ai ntif f ’schoic e of

f orum i s sti l l gi ven de f eren ce. Sherman is a res ident of Cook C ounty . Pl ai

ntif f ha s iden tif i ed f i f teen wi tnes ses who wi l l testi f y as to dam

ages . Eigh t o f thes e wi

tnesses resi

de i n Cook County, fi

ve resi de i n K ane County

and i ncl ude Plai ntif f, an d two liv e i n Indi ana. Even

assum in g that not all of

[p]lai ntif f’ s i dentif ie d witne sses wi

ll testify at tr ia l, the ex pected witness es identif

ie d by [p]lai ntif f are s cattered across Co ok and Kane Counties, as well as Indian a. David Spagnola, who was [d ]e ced ent ’s co -w or ker , a lso r eside s in Co ok Co unt y and is exp ect ed t o t est ify re gar ding the acci den t that l ed to the i

nj uri es f or whi ch [p]lai ntif f wastreati

ng w i th [d]e f endan ts. * * * Dr. Dougl

as , a phy si ci an wh o trea ted [d] ec ed en

t at Sh erm an , i s a res i de nt of

Cook Cou n ty an d h as b een i den ti f i ed as a p oten ti al wi tn es s. * * * I n

ev al ua ti n g th e p ri v ate inter est fact or s, t ra nsferr ing t his case t o M cHe nry Co unt y has no t been s how n t o be stro ngl y f avored as Sherman is a res ident of Cook County an d w i tne ss esf rom Cook Co un t y ar e e xp ec t ed t o o ffe rt es t imo ny. In e valuat ing t he pu blic inter est fact or s, it is clear t hat Co ok Co unt y reside nt s have
an i ntere st i n de cidi ng th i s con troversy whi ch i nv olv es a resi den t of thi s coun ty. Sherman1-09-2463

9

resides in Cook

County and wi

tnesses wh

o are expected to testify

, in cl udin g Dr. Douglas
an d e i gh t of [p] l ai nti f f ’s da mag e w i tne ss es , re si

dei n C ook C oun

ty . A s s uc h, i t woul d n ot be unf ai r to i m pos e the e xp ense

of a tri al an d the b urden of j ury duty on th e re si de nts of Cook Coun

ty. * * * In th i s ca se, Cook County has an intere st in deciding a controvers y involving one of its residents – Sherman
. * * * T his c as e is dis t ing uis ha ble fr o m Evans [ v. MD Con, Inc. , 275 Ill . App. 3d 292 (1995 )] as [p]lai

ntif f ha s iden tif i ed wi tnes ses f rom C ook County . Ad

di tion al l y , Sherman is a re sident o f Cook Count

y . * * * Here , al though [p]lai ntif f s do n ot reside [i

n] C ook County

, Sherman is a res ident of Cook Coun ty . (Em

phasi s ad ded.) We concur i

n def endan ts’ argumen

t t hat the court indeed gav e undue wei

ght to the fact t hat Sher man Ho spit al was a r eside nt of Co ok Co unt y. As de fendant s mainta in, while t he
ex i stenc e of thos e addi

ti ona l f ac i l i ti esi n C ook C oun

ty ren de rs Sherm

an Hospi tal a re si de nt of Co o k C o un t y fo rpu r

po se s o f ve nu e u nd er se ct io n 2
- 10 2( a) o f t he I llino is C o de o f Civ il Procedure (735 ILCS 5/2-102( a)(West 2008)), the inqui ry i n a forum no n conveniens an alys is
re quir es a co ur t t o lo ok beyond t he st at ut or y crit er ia for venue and t o d et er mine the r elat ive
conv en i ence of com peti ng f orum s. Williams , 139 Ill . 2d at 41, 563 N. E.2d at 473, ci ting Foster1-09-2463

10

v. Chicago &

North Weste

rn Transportation Co. , 102 Ill . 2d 378, 384-85, 466 N. E.2d 198, 199 (1 984 ) ( app licatio n of t his do ct rine invo kes pr inciples o f co nvenience and fair ness in cho os ing bet wee n t wo or mor e fo ru ms tha t have jur isdict ion) . U nder an intrastate forum non conveniens analy sis, neither of t he facili

ties in Cook Cou nty had any sem blan ce o f a connect ion to decede nt’s
car e and t re at ment a t issue in t his case . R at her , a ll of the t re at ment o n which plaint iff ’s co mplaint i s b ase d occurr

ed at Sh erm an Hospi tal ’sIm medi ate Ca re f aci l i ty i n M cHen ry Coun ty a nd a t Dr. Atadero’s off i ce i n M cHen ry Coun ty. Moreover, wede term

i ne tha t the pri va te i nte res t f ac tors c l ea

rl y we i gh i n f av or of de fen da nt s. Re ga r din g c o nve nie nc e o f t he pa r t ies , de fen da nt s p r es en t ed affid av it s a ve rr ing t ha t it
wo uld be mo r e c o nve nie nt t o ha ve t his ma t t er t r ied in Mc He nr y Co un t y. D r . At ad er o at t es t ed in h i s af f i da v i t th at a trial i n Mc Hen ry Cou n ty wou l d b e m orecon v en i en t th an a tr i al i n Coo k C oun

ty beca use it w ou ld allow him t o s ee p at ients and fu lfi ll some o f his daily respo nsibil ities, given t he location of hi s offi

ce and the hospitals where he h as privi leges. Nurse Jason Carman, whose
co nd uc t is a lso ce nt r al t o t he alle ga t io ns in pla int iff’s co mpla int , like wis e a ve rr ed t ha t a t r ial in McH en ry Coun ty woul d be

more conv

en i en t than a tri al i n C ook County
. Regardi ng the ease

of access to sources of evi

dence, the trial

court al so placed considerabl

e reli ance on the f

act that plai

ntif f’ s dam age wi tnesses were l

ocated acro ss sev

eral
cou nti es , wh i l e i gn ori ng tha t the vast m aj ori ty of the ke y medi cal wi tne ss es , wh

ose trea tmen t of dece den t was a t is sue i n th i s ca se, re side i

n M cHen ry Coun ty. F our of th

e f i ve medi cal provi ders who treated decedent, Dr. Dalia Gvi ldy s and n urses Mi chael Taster, Jason Carman, and Susan Ha ck e, r es ide in Mc He nr y Co un t y. T he fift h t r ea t men t pr o vid er r es ide s in K an e C o un t y. O nly1-09-2463

11

Dr. Douglas, who treated decedent at Sherman , is a res ide nt of Cook County. Plai

ntif f, her two sons, and two neighbors, di sclosed as dam age wi tnesses, resi

de i n K ane County . Al

though we
r ec o gn ize t ha t t he wit ne ss t o t he ac cid en t init ially c au sing pla int iff’s inju ry, S pa gn o la, r es ide s in Co ok Co unt y, we do not per ceive t he initial acc ident t o be a significant issue in t his case . T he onl y other wi tnes ses resi di ng i n C ook County

are f urthe r dam age w i tnes ses : dec eden

t’s m other, dece den t’s b rother, a nd p l ai ntif f ’saun t, unc l e, cous i

n a nd two s i sters . It is theref

ore apparent t hat the m

aj ority of witne sses wh

o have kn owledge of the

conduct al l eged l y resu l tin g i n de cede nt’s wrong f ul death resi de i n M cHen ry Coun ty. D ef endan t Dr. A tad ero res i de s i

n McH en ry Cou nty . Th us , th e c onv

en i en ceof the pa rtieswe i gh s i

n f av or of defen dants. The f

act that several, perh

aps cum ula tive, dam age wi tnesses resi

de across several
co un t ies simp ly do es no t we igh in fa vo ro f pla int iff’s ch o ice o f Co o k C o un t y. T his is es pe cia lly t ru e co nsider ing t hat plaint iff ’s r eside nce is in no t in Coo k Co unt y, her newly cho sen fo ru m, and the wrongful

acts and omi

ssions alle ged all occurred i n McHen ry County, the forum of

her origi na l choic e. We hav e previously

noted that “t he locat ion of documentary ev iden ce has become l

ess significant be cau se t od ay's t echno log y allows d oc ument s t o be co pied a nd t ra nspo rt ed e asily and in expensi vel y.” Ammerman v. Raymond Corp. , 379 Ill . App. 3d 878, 890, 884 N.E. 2d 1221, 123 3 ( 200 8) . Also , w e r eco gnize t hat “a viewing o f the site is rar ely or never called fo r in a
me dic al negl ige nce cas e,” and “

that factor, st andi

ng al one, is s im

ply in suf fi ci ent to justif

y trans fer [to a di ff erent county unde

r a forum non conveniens anal ys is ].” Hackl v. Advocate Health & Hospitals Corp. , 3 82 I ll. App. 3d 4 42, 452 , 8 87 N .E .2 d 72 6, 734 (2 008 ). Mo re ove r, no s how ing1-09-2463

12

has be en made as t o t he ava ilabil ity o f co mpulso ry pr oc ess t o s ecu re at t enda nce o f unwilli ng witne sses or the cost t o obt ai n attendance of

wil li ng wi tnesses. However, “ all other practical considerations that m

ake a trial easy, expedi

tious, and i

nex pensi ve” ( Glass , 393 Ill . App. 3d at 833, 912 N.E.2d at 767, citi ng Daw dy , 20 7 Il l . 2d at 1 72, 797N.E .2d

at 6 93)we i gh

i n f av or of def endan ts. Sh erm

an Hospi tal and A tadero hav e suf

f i cien tly shown that Atad

ero can more
con v en i en tl y atte n d tri al wi th out af f ec ti n g h i s pra cti ce i f th e tr i al tak es pl ac e i n Mc Hen ry Cou n ty rather than Cook County, and personn el for the McHen

ry County locati on for Sherm

an Hospi tal are l ocated wi thi n M cHen ry Coun ty. W e f urth er d eterm i ne tha t the publ i c i nte res t f ac tors l i ke wi se we i gh he av i l y i n f av or of having t he mat t er t ried in McHe nry Co unt y. Given t hat t he ac t s o r o missions allege d t o ha ve
caus e the wrong f ul death of dece den

t occurred

i n M cHen ry Coun ty, th e f orum of the i nj ury cl ea rl y h as a pub l i c i n terest i n th e m ed i ca l ca repr ov i de d a

t i ts m ed i ca l f ac i l i ti es b y ph y si ci ans to i ts resi dents. Al

though court congestion al one i s rel ative ly

in signifi cant and does n

ot jus tif y a ven ue trans f er ( Daw dy , 2 07 I ll. 2d a t 181 , 7 97 N .E .2 d at 698 ), we t ake judicial not ice o f the fact t hat t he Mc Henr y cou rthous e i s l

es s c ong es ted

tha n th e C ook C oun

ty cou rthous e. Thu s, th

e b al an ceof al l f actors strongl

y f avors def endan ts. In Gundlach v. Lind , 3 53 I ll. App. 3d 6 77, 820 N. E. 2d 1 (2 004 ), re lied upo n by defen dants, we reversed the j udgme nt of the ci

rcuit court denyi

ng a forum no n conveniens moti on
and di rected the tran sf er of the acti on to McH en

ry Coun ty u nde r si m i l ar ci rcum stan ces . In Gundlach , the p l ai

ntif f s res i ded i n L ake C ounty

and woul d ha ve had to travel

to eith er Mc Hen ry or Coo k County; however, the def endan ts were all

resi dents of McHe

nry County, and that f

orum1-09-2463

13

wasmore conv

en i en t for th em . Gundlach , 3 53 I ll. App. 3d a t 683 , 8 20 N .E .2 d at 5. Also, t he evi dence was

more easi

ly accessi ble i n McHen ry County than i n Cook County where 20 potential
occurren cewi tne ss esi de nti

f i ed by de f en da nts al l work ed an d re si de d i n McH en ry, com pa red to 2 surg eons i den tif i ed b y plai ntif f who were b el

i ev ed to resi

de i n C ook County
. Gundlach , 35 3 I ll. Ap p. 3d a t 683, 820

N.E.2d a t 5. In Gundlach t he pu blic inter est fact or s also weighe d st ro ngly in f avo r o f tr ansfer ring t he case to McHenry

County b ecause the l

iti gation arose f

rom al le ged negl

ige nce duri ng a m edi cal pr oc edu re per for med at a Mc Henr y hosp ital, and a s su ch, it w as a loca l cont ro ver sy tha t wo uld be of int er est t o t he cit izens o f McHe nry Co unt y, whe re as t he cit izens o f Coo k Co unt y had no i ntere st i n the l i tig ati on. Gundlach , 35 3 I ll. A pp . 3d at 68 3, 82 0 N
. E
. 2d at 6. We he ld it wo uld b e u n f ai r u n der suc h ci rc um sta n ce s to i m pos e th e c ost s of th e tr i al an d th e b urden of j ur y du ty upon th e ci tiz en s of Cook Coun

ty. Gundlach , 353 Il

l . Ap p. 3d a t 683, 820

N.E.2d a t 6. In addi tion, al though court congestion al one i s rel ative ly

in signifi cant and does n

ot jus tif y a ven ue transfer, we took judi ci al

notice that, according to the annua l report of the Adm

in is trat iv e Off ic e of the Illi nois Court s f or 2003, “McHenry

County h ad 701 pendi

ng l aw cases s eeki

ng over $50,000 in

reli ef, wh il e Cook Co unty h

ad 26,353.” Gundlach , 353 Ill . App. 3d at 683, 820 N.E.2d a t 6. In the case sub judice , the c i rc ui t cou rt here f oun d th at “ Gundlach i s d

i sti ng ui sh ab l e f rom [t he inst ant cas e] in that all of t he de fendant s in Gund lach we re re sident s o f the co unt y where t he de f en da nts were a ttem pti ng to transf er th e c as e.” How ever, wef

i nd thi s s ol e di sti

nc ti on
unavai li ng, as She

rman Hospital is a resident of McHen

ry County as wel l. Notabl y, pl ai ntif f h as1-09-2463

14

no ar gu ment ag ains t t he a pp licat io n o f Gundlach to thi s ca se. Mor eov er , w e f i n d th e c i rc ui t cou rt a b us ed i ts d i scre ti on i n gi v i n g s ca n t con si dera ti on to the fact t hat pla

in tif f h ad origi nal ly fi le d her action i

n McHen ry County . Al

though the court noted de f en da nts ’ a rgu men t con cerni ng pl ai nti f f ’s pre vi ousf i l i ng i n McH en ry Cou nty an d i nf ere nc e of f oru m sh opp i n g, i t wa s n ot m ov ed b y th i s c on si

dera ti on . In th i s c as e, gi

v en th at p l ai n ti f f i s n ot a
r es ide nt o f Co o k C o un t y and t he ac t s o ro miss io ns d id n o t o cc ur in Co o k C o un t y, b ut r at he rin McHenry County, plai

ntif f’ s previ ously chosen f orum, with n

o change i

n ci rcumstances such

that Cook Co unty woul

d be a m ore conveni

ent forum , we fi

nd that pla

in tif f is engagi

ng i n f orum sho pping . Whe n t he plaint iff is for eign t o t he cho sen fo ru m and t he ac t ion t hat gives r ise t o t he litig at io n did no t o cc ur in t he c ho se n fo ru m, “ ‘ it is r ea so nab le t o co nclu de t hat t he p laint iff engaged i n f orum shoppi

ng to suit hi s i

ndi vi dual in terests, a st rategy contrary to the purposes beh in d the ven ue rules .’ ” Daw

dy , 207 Ill . 2d at 174, 797 N. E.2d at 694, quot in g Certa in Underw riters at Lloyd's, London v. Illinois Central R.R. Co. , 329 Ill . App. 3d 189, 196, 768 N. E. 2d 7 79, 785 (2 002 ). As t he su pr eme co ur t not ed in Guerine , “[a] concern an im ating our forum no n conveniens jurisprudence is curtail in g forum shoppi ng by pla in tif fs .” Guerine , 19 8 I ll. 2d at 52 1, 764 N .E.2d at 61
. Ou r sup re me c our

t em b odi ed th i s c on cern

i n th e a n al y sis f rom th e v er y b eg i n n i n g u pon i ts ado pt ion o f the do ct rine in Torres :

“ In rec ogn izi ng the di screti on of the tri al cou rt to dism i ss a c as e w i thi n i ts j urisd i cti on when a m ore a ppr opri atei ntr as tatef orum i s a va i l ab l e a nd when mai nte na nc e of the ac ti on in the origi nal forum causes un

necess ary h

ardshi p to the defe

ndan t and other interested1-09-2463

15

par t ies, w e ho pe t o p ro mot e fair p lay betw een p laintiffs and d efenda nt s and disco ur age t he i nc ess an t jock ey i ng f or a m ore sy m path eti c j ury

l i kel y to come f orward wi

th a m ore substantial

award.” Torres , 98 Il

l . 2d at 35 1, 456 N .E.2d at 60 7.

“ Su b se qu en t de cisi on s h av e rei terate d th at forum no n conveniens is fo un de d in considerations of f

undam ental fai rness an d sens ible and ef fecti ve j udic ia l a dmi ni stration.” Peile v. Skelgas, Inc. , 163 Ill . 2d 323, 333, 645 N.E .2d 184, 189 (1994). Sin ce Torres , o ur su pr eme
co ur t has c ont inued t o c har act er ize t he intr ast at e ap plicat ion o f the do ct rine as ro ot ed in t he
cou rt' s d i scre ti on ar

y pow er to dism i ss a c as e wi th i n i ts juri sd i cti on wh en a m oreappr opri ate f orum i s av ail ab l e. Peile , 163 Il

l . 2d at 33 3, 645 N .E.2d at 18 9. The plaint iff

in Peile , who was i

nj ured in a gas expl

osion at his Pi

ke County h

ome, origi na l l y f i l ed h i s ca se i n M adi son C ounty, but i

t was l ater transf

erred to Pik e Coun ty. Peile , 163 Ill. 2d at 326 -2 7, 645 N. E. 2d a t 186 . D isco ver y pro cee ded in Pike Co unt y for t wo years , d ur ing whi ch tim e the plai ntif f s am ended thei

r com plai nt an d added de f

endan ts. Peile , 163 Ill . 2d at 327, 64 5 N
. E
. 2d at 18 6. T wo mo nt hs b efo r e t he t r ial d at e t he pla int iffs v o lun t ar ily dis miss ed t he ir l awsui t and then ref i l ed i n St. Cl ai r Coun ty. Peile , 1 63 I ll. 2d a t 327 , 6 45 N .E .2 d at 186 . I n t ur n, t he t rial co ur t denied t he de fendant s’ mot ion t o t ra nsfer t he r efiled suit back t o P ike Co unt y, and our suprem

e court rev

erse d. Peile , 163 Il

l . 2d at 34 4-45, 6 45 N.E.2 d at 194 . The court
conc l uded that the plai ntif f 's sec ond choi

ce of f orum shoul d ha

ve be en acc orded l

ess def eren ce. Peile , 163 I ll . 2d at 344-45, 645 N.E .2d at 194. T he court stat ed: “In ligh t o f these ci rcumstances, we bel

ie ve that the ci

rcuit court o f St. Cl ai

r County sh

ould ha ve accorded lesser deference, in

its forum non conveniens an al y sis, to w ha t wa s p l ai nti f f s' se con d c hoi ceof f orum f or1-09-2463

16

trial , a forum s el ected alm ost t wo years af

ter t he case

had b een transf

erred to Pike C ounty.” (Em phasi s om i tted.) Peile , 163 Il

l . 2d at 34 4, 645 N .E.2d at 19 4. Adher ing t o t he pr inciples esp ou sed in Peile , in Czarnecki v. Uno-Ven C o. , 339 Ill . App. 3d 5 04, 791 N.E .2d

164 (20 03) , we

he l d the tri

al cou rt er red i n n ot transf err i ng a c au se of ac ti on fro m Coo k Co unt y to Will Co unt y on forum no n conveniens grounds ra i sed by def endan ts. In Czarnecki , t he pla int iff filed a p er so na l injur y ac t io n a ga inst t he de fen da nt s in W ill Co un t y in 1996. Czarnecki , 3 39 I ll. App. 3d a t 505 -0 6, 791 N. E. 2d a t 166 . T went y days befo re t rial, t he plaint iff volu nt ar ily

dismissed his c omp laint. A year lat er , he re fil ed a virt ually identica l complaint i n C ook County ; n

o new def endan ts, al l egati ons, or theori es of

l i ab i l i ty were added
. Czarnecki , 339 Ill. App. 3d at 506, 791 N.E .2d at 166. T he defen dants filed m

ot ions to t ransfer the case bac k t o Will Co unt y pu rs ua nt t o t he d o ct rine o f forum non conveniens , whi ch the tri al court denied . T he plaint iff

was a r eside nt of Will Cou nt y; the a ccide nt oc cur re d in Will Co unt y; the
onl y occ ur re n ce wi tn es s c i ted b y th e p l ai n ti f f ' s i n ter rog ator y answ er s was

a W i l l Cou n ty re si den t; and a remaini

ng perso n at t he scene resided in Ogle Count y. Additionall y, two of the p lai

ntiff ’s trea ti ng doc tors, hi

s v oca ti ona l cou ns el or, a nd two de f en se -retai ne d opi ni on w i tne ss eswere C ook Coun ty c ontacts . Czarnecki , 339 Ill . App. 3d at 507-08, 791 N.E .2d at 168. Nine other wi tnes ses were di spersed am ong s i x Il l i noi s coun tie s an d i n In di ana. Czarnecki , 339 Ill . App. 3d at 508, 7 91 N.E.2 d at 168
. On appe al, w e h

el d th at th e tr i al cou rt a b us ed i ts d i scre ti on i n den y i n g th e m oti on to t r an sfe r , find ing t ha t t he pr iva t e in t er es t fac t o r s fa vo r ed t he t r an sfe ro f t he ca se ba ck t o Will Co un t y, sin ce t he pl ain t iff w as a W ill Co un t y r es id en t ; t he pl ac e o f his inju ry wa s in Will C o un t y;1-09-2463

17

and f i ve potential wi tnes ses , i nc l udi ng th e sol e occu rren ce wi tnes s, we re located i

n W i l l Coun ty. Czarnecki , 33 9 I ll. A pp . 3d at 51 0, 79 1 N
. E
. 2d at 17 0. T he pu blic in t er es t fac t o r s a lso st r o ng ly fav ored t ransf

er to Wi ll County b ecause Cook County had a mi ni ma l i nterest in the action, as plai ntif f’s i nj uries were sustained at a Will County constr uction site. Thus, Wil l County’s i

nterest i n s ecuri ng s af ety at l ocal constructi on si

tes su bstantial l y f avored tran sf

er to that coun

ty. Czarnecki , 33 9 Il

l . A pp. 3d a t 509 , 79 1 N .E.2 d a

t 169 . W e f

oun d that the p res en

ceof de f en da nts ’ reg i stered

ag en ts a nd the i r con duc ti ng of un rel ate d b us i ne ss tran sacti ons i n C ook Coun ty, w hi l e suf f i cien t to fi x v en ue, we re not si gni

f i can t factors f or forum non conveniens purpos es. Czarnecki , 339 I ll . App. 3d at 509, 791 N.E. 2d at 1 69. Mo reover, we accor ded less defer ence t o t he Co ok Co unt y cont act s cit ed by t he plaint iff beca use t he loc at ion o f plaintiff's t re at ing physicians, who se c ond uct was not at issue in t he ca se, was given “und ue w eight ,” and the locati on of experts was n ot relev ant becaus e they

were “testif

yi ng at defe ndan ts’ request.” Czarnecki , 339 Ill . App. 3d at 510-11, 791 N.E .2d at 170. We f urthe r he l d tha t pl ai ntif f 's origi na l deci sion to fi l e i n W i l l Coun ty, h i s volu ntary di sm i ss al on th e b ri n k of trial, a n d th e s ub se qu en t f i l i n g of a n ea rl y i den ti ca l cl ai m i n Coo k C oun

ty strongl y i m pli ed th at plai

ntif f wasengagi

ng i n i m perm i ssi bl e f orum shoppi ng. Czarnecki , 33 9 I ll. Ap p. 3d at 50 9, 79 1 N
. E
. 2d at 16 9. As w e s t at ed , “p laint iff’s ac t io n w as o r igin ally file d in Will County an

d proceeded there for roughly four y ears. Durin

g that t im e, there is n

o evi dence that pla in tif f di d not consider W

il l C ounty to be a conven

ie nt and appropriate f

orum.” Czarnecki , 339 Il l . Ap p. 3d a t 511, 791 N.E.2d a

t 170. In Wagner v. Eagle Food Center s, Inc. , 398 Ill . App. 3d 354, 925 N.E.2d 243 ( 2010), we1-09-2463

18

li kewi se hel

d that t he trial

court erred in

deny in g the defe ndan t gro cery s

to re and product manufact ur er 's mot ion t o d ismi ss o r t ra nsfer ba sed on forum no n conveniens wh ere th e p ri v ate
an d pu bl i c i nte res t f ac tors s trongl y f av ored retu rn of ca se to i ni ti al f orum an d gr an ti ng the moti on
wa s ne ce ss ar y t o ke ep t he pla int iffs fr o m fo rum s ho pp ing
. T he pla int iffs, an inju r ed pa r t y and his wi f e, had sued the def

endan ts ba sed on the i nj ured p arty ’ssl

i p-an d-f al l at the Ea gl e groce ry store i n W i l l Coun ty, b ut then vol unta ri l y di sm i sse d the i r clai m s an d ref i l ed th em i n C ook County
. Wagner , 3 98 I ll. App. 3d a t 355 , 9 25 N .E .2 d at 245 . P laintiffs had amend ed t heir co mplaint
seven tim es over the al

most seve n y ears that the case was pen din g in Wi ll County to add allegat ions t hat t he su bst ance plaint iff slipped on w as T ilex, a p ro duc t manufact ur ed by Clo ro x, that the bottl e was

def ecti ve , and tha

t Cl orox an

d Eagl e wer e ac tin g i n c once rt. Wagner , 39 8 I ll. Ap p. 3d a t 355, 925 N.E.2d a

t 245. In anal yzin g the publ ic in terest and priva

te interest fa

ctor s, we found that the f act that pla int iffs lit iga t ed t he ir in it ial a ct io n in Will C o un t y fo ra n umb er o f yea r s s ug ge st ed t ha t Will Co unt y was a c onve nient fo ru m for t hem, a nd at no t ime dur ing t hos e se ven year s wa s t her e any
ev i den ce th at th e p l ai n ti f f s d i d n ot co n si der W i l l Cou n ty to b e a con v en i en t an d a pp rop riate f orum . Wagner , 39 8 I ll. A pp . 3d at 36 2, 92 5 N
. E
. 2d at 25 1. Co nve r se ly, it wa s c lea rt ha t Will Co unt y wou ld be mor e co nvenient for t he wit nesse s t hat defend ant s ident ifi ed a s having kn o wle dg e o f t he inc ide nt , wh o r es ide d in Will Co un t y and pr o vid ed affid av it s s t at ing t ha t it would be i nc onven i en t to t ravel to Cook County

f or tria l
. Wagner , 398 Ill . App. 3d at 363, 925 N.E.2d a t 251. See also Certain Underw

riters at Lloyd’s, London v. Illinois Central R.R. Co. , 32 9 I ll.1-09-2463

19

App. 3d 1 89, 198 -9 9, 768 N. E. 2d 7 79, 787 -8 8 ( 200 2) (he ld t he t rial co ur t er re d in no t chang ing
ven ue und er t he d o ct rine o f forum non convenien s wh er e t he ins ur er s fil ed su it in L ak e C o un t y, wh i ch ha d l i ttl e or n o ne xu s to th e c ontr ove rs y , but de f

en da nt r ai l road wa s h eadqu arte red i n C ook County, and two of the contami nated si tes at issue were l

ocated in Cook County, and wh ere we ques tio ned t he plaintiffs’ m ot ivation fo r cho osing La ke Co unt y as the fo rum); Fra nklinv. FMC Corp ., 150 Ill . App. 3d 343, 348-49, 501 N.E .2d 887, 890-91 (1986) ( hel d the trial court abused its di scretion i

n den yi ng a forum no n conveniens moti on to tran sf er w he re th e m ere res i de nc e of defend ant co rp or at e o ffi

ces and r egist er ed a gent s in Co ok Co unt y pro vided no co nnect ion t o t he subj ect matter of the li

tigation;the accident occurred in Ve rmi li on County; the ma

chi nery whi ch
cau sed t he injury was loca t ed in Ve rmili on C ou nt y; the p rimary t re at ment o ccu rr ed t her e; and t he bul k of the wi tnes ses l i ve d i n or n ear V erm i l i on Coun

ty). Sim il arly , in the case sub judice , pl ain t iff o r ig ina lly file d h er ac t io n inMc He nr y Co un t y, where the cas e rema

in ed pendi ng f or t wo years, an

d pla in tif f at no tim

e i ndicated an inconve nience in her cho sen fo ru m. All tr eat ment o f dece dent oc cur re d in McH enr y Cou nt y. The bulk o f the oc cur re nce w itnes ses fo r d ece dent ’s t re at ment a re in McHe nry Co unt y. De fendant Atadero resides i

n McHen ry County . Plai

ntif f rel ie s on nothi

ng other than the techn

ic al resi dence of Sher man Hos pi tal i n Coo k C oun

ty b as ed on th e l oca ti on of two f ac i l i ti es total l y un re l ate d to this case and t he residence of severa l other damage witnesses in Coo k Co unty. Defendant ’s pre senc e i n C ook C oun

ty f or v en uepur pos esdoe s n

ot es tab l i sh

a c onn ec ti on w i th th i s acti on f or forum no n conveniens purposes. We al so do not giv e undue wei

ght to the resi dence of

several damage wi

tnesses in Coo k Count y, when

ot her damage wi

tnesses are in other co unties and m ost1-09-2463

20

of the key wi tnes ses regar di ng th e treatm en t of de cede

nt at i ssue i

n h er wron gf ul death clai m are in McHe nry Co unt y. The lack o f any rea l conne ct ion t o C oo k Co unt y is pat ent . I n sho rt , t he present case presen

ts just such

an i nstance s uggestin g forum shoppi ng that our supreme court has expr essly held sho uld no t be pe rmitt ed. The t rial co ur t abus ed it s discr et ion in denying defend ant s’ mot ion. Furth er, we are of the opi ni on tha t di recti ng th e tri al court to transf

er the cas e to McHe

nry County, rather than m

erely dis mi ssi ng the acti on in

Cook Co unty, is the proper disposi tion. See Wakehouse v. Goodyear

Tire & Rubber Co. , 353 Ill . App. 3d 346, 354, 818 N.E. 2d 1269, 1277 (2004) (aff

irm ed the ci rcuit court's dis

mi ssal of a sui t o n i nterstate forum no n conveniens grounds barred ref il in g of the sui

t in an ot her Illi nois county; a ll owing ref il in g would ha

ve promoted forum sho pp ing )
. T he ca se sho uld be t r an sfe rr ed ba ck t o Mc He nr y Co un t y, w he r e p laint iff init ially chose to bri

ng h er action
. CONCLUSION Fo r t he fo re go ing re aso ns, w e r ever se t he t rial co ur t ’s de nial of de fendant ’s mot ion and
rem and the matter to the ci

rcui t court wi th di rections to tran sf

er the action to McH en

ry Coun ty. Reversed a

nd rem anded. FITZ GERA

LD SM ITH, P.J., w

i th HO WSE, J ., conc

ur.1-09-2463

21 REPORT ER OF D ECI SION S – ILLI NOIS APPE LLATE COURT

(Front S heet to b e Attac

hed to Each C ase) PAU LA BRU CE, SPEC IAL

AD MINIS TRATOR O F THE ES TATE O F M ICHA EL BR UCE, DECEA SED, Pl ai n ti f f -A pp el l an t,
v. AR SENIO D . ATA

DER, M .D., INDIVIDUA LL Y, ET A L., Defendan ts-Appellees.

1-09-2463 Appellate Cour t of Illinois Fir st D istr ict, FIF TH Division Nov em ber 12, 2010 (Gi ve m on th , day and ye ar ) JUSTICE TOOMIN

de li ve red the opi ni on of the co urt: FITZGERALD SMITH, P.J., with HOWSE, J. , concur [s] dissent[s]

Lo w er C ou rt and Trial J udg e( s) in f

orm indi ca te d in t he m argi n: The Ho norable Eliza beth Bu dzinski , J udg e P res idi ng .
Indicate if attorney represe nts APPELLANTS o

r APPELLEES and include attorneys o f co

unsel. Indicate the word NONE if not represe nted. Pl ai nti ff- App ellee, Steven M. Levin Margaret P. Batte

rsby Le vi n & Pe rcon ti 325 N LaSalle

Stree t, Suite 450 Chic ago, IL 60654
Def en dants-Appe

llan ts, Rick L . Ha mmond Phillip E. W and Gum me rson & Rausch

, LLC 101 South Be nto n Stree t, Suite 201 Woo dsto ck, IL

60098 815/337-7700 Plea se Use Following For m: Comple te TIT LE of Case

Dock et N o. COURT Opi ni on Filed

JU STICES

APPE AL from th e Ci rcu it Ct. of Co ok Co un t y, Cha nce ry Di v.

For APPEL LA NTS, Joh n Doe , of Chi cago. For APPEL LEES, Smith and S mith of Chi cago, Joseph Brown, (of Co unsel) Also add at tor ne ys for third- party ap pe ll an ts or appellees.1-09-2463

22 HUGH C. GRIFFIN An na M. Lof

tus Hall Prang

le & Scho on

veld , LLC 200 South

Wacke r Drive , Suite

3300 Chic ago, IL 60606 Kay L. Schichtel Nicole M. Cla rke Le an ne Mo ore Swanso n Martin & Bell, LL

P 330 North

Wabash A

ve nue , Suite 3300 Chic ago, IL 60611 312/321-9100