Opinion ID: 3134845
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Tosado

Text: Plaintiff concedes that her claims and those of decedent’s four adult children are time-barred under Tosado v. Miller , 188 Ill. 2d 186 (1999). As mentioned earlier, in Tosado , a plurality of this court concluded that the one-year limitations period of section 8–101 of the Tort Immunity Act governs medical malpractice cases brought against local governmental entities and their employees rather than the two-year limitations period of section 13–212(a) of the Code. Justice Miller, writing for himself and Justice Bilandic, focused on the nature of the defendants rather than on the type of action. He observed that Tort Immunity Act section 8–101 applies only to defendants that are local governmental entities and their employees, while Code section 13–212(a) applies to the broader category of any physician, dentist, registered nurse, or hospital described therein. Justice Miller reasoned that Tort Immunity Act section 8–101 controlled because it was more specific than Code section 13–212(a). Tosado , 188 Ill. 2d at 194-95 (plurality op.). Justice Heiple disagreed with the characterization of Tort Immunity Act section 8–101 as more specific than Code section 13–212(a). He observed that section 8–101 of the Act is more general than section 13–212(a) of the Code because it applies to any civil action, not only to medical malpractice actions. Justice Heiple reasoned that, “to the extent that section 8–101 is more general than section 13–212(a), this is one of those instances where ‘the legislature intended to make the general act controlling’ ” and that “section 8–101 was designed to apply broadly to any possible claim against a local governmental entity and its employees.” Tosado , 188 Ill. 2d at 199 (Heiple, J., specially concurring). Justice Freeman joined in Justice Heiple’s special concurrence to this extent. Tosado , 188 Ill. 2d at 198 (Freeman, C.J., specially concurring). In this case, the appellate court relied on Tosado in concluding that section 8–101 of the Tort Immunity Act applied to Karen’s claim. However, the plaintiff in Tosado was an adult; that case did not present us with the claim of a minor. Here, it is only Karen’s claim that is at issue.