Court Opinion

ID: 9714556
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 05:40:28.969222+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:23:27.088007
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE STEIGMANN, concurring in part and dissenting in part: Although I fully agree with part I of the majority opinion, which analyzes section 2 — 622 of the Code, I dissent from that portion of the opinion which reverses the dismissal of the counts against Dr. Petra. Instead, I agree with Dr. Petra’s argument that the statute of limitations bars plaintiffs’ new counts against Dr. Petra because, under section 2 — 616(b) of the Code, they do not relate back to the original counts against Dr. Petra. The alleged medical malpractice occurred in July 1991, when defendants treated plaintiffs’ decedent following an automobile accident. In January 1992, plaintiffs initially sued Dr. Petra and the other defendants. Although the subsequent procedural history of this case is somewhat strange, all parties agree that the counts against Dr. Petra now on appeal were filed in May 1994. Thus, the new counts violate the two-year statute of limitations unless those counts relate back to the initial counts plaintiffs filed against Dr. Petra. In December 1994, the trial court dismissed those new counts, and the majority reverses on the ground that they do relate back. The initial counts against Dr. Petra allege that she was negligent because she was present in the operating room, watched Dr. Dunseth treat plaintiffs’ decedent in a negligent manner, and failed to intervene. The counts on appeal allege that Dr. Petra left the operating room at a time of critical need for plaintiffs’ decedent. The majority concludes that the later counts relate back to the earlier ones because the "transaction or occurrence” in this case, under section 2 — 616(b) of the Code, is the surgery on plaintiffs’ decedent which occurred in July 1991. Thus, according to the majority, "Dr. Petra was on notice from the beginning that her conduct during the surgery might be the basis of a claim.” (276 Ill. App. 3d at 1048.) I disagree with this analysis and view it as both an undue broadening of section 2 — 616(b) of the Code and inconsistent with previous decisions of this court. A claim of patient abandonment has nothing to do with a claim that a surgeon negligently performed a surgical procedure. A physician confronted with a claim that she negligently performed a surgical procedure would have no reason to be on notice that an issue might arise regarding whether she was even present in the operating room at all necessary times. Thus, the majority view conflicts with decisions of this court in Weidner and Chestnut, both of which essentially held that the amended pleading would relate back to the original complaint if the original complaint provided the defendant with all of the information necessary to prepare a defense to claims later asserted. As Dr. Petra argues, for 2x/2 years, from the filing of the initial complaint in January 1992 until the filing of the new counts in May 1994, she prepared her defense based upon a claim of negligent treatment of plaintiffs’ decedent. All of that preparation is for naught because the majority allows plaintiffs to now proceed on the entirely new theory of patient abandonment. As a result, almost four years after the events complained of, the majority requires Dr. Petra, as she puts it, "to start anew and examine all witnesses present on July 18, 1991, not as to what she did, but whether or not she abandoned the plaintiffs’ decedent.” I agree with Dr. Petra and note that here, as in Weidner, the same physician, patient, date, and medical procedure are involved. Because in both instances only the plaintiffs’ theory has changed, I believe no principled distinction exists between this case and Weidner. I further find this case indistinguishable from Yette, another decision of this court, in which plaintiff fell on ice in defendant’s parking lot. When plaintiff sought to change her theory from a claim that defendant failed to salt an ice accumulation to a claim of unnatural accumulation, the trial court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss on the ground that the statute of limitations had run and the new counts did not relate back to the initial one. In Yette, as in the present case, the only change was the theory underlying plaintiff’s claim. Nonetheless, this court affirmed the dismissal, holding that the change in plaintiff’s theory was such that defendant was not put on notice in the initial complaint that it might have to concern itself with how water ran off its building and whether an unnatural accumulation of ice occurred. We explained in Yette that the "amended pleadings were based on conduct *** different from [that] alleged in the original complaint and for which defendant had no notice.” Yette, 263 Ill. App. 3d at 426, 635 N.E.2d at 1094. In my judgment, the theories of recovery presented by the plaintiff in Yette in her initial and amended complaints are closer to each other than the theories of recovery asserted here: negligent treatment on the one hand and patient abandonment on the other. As a last matter, I disagree with the last sentence of the majority opinion, which states the following: "In a medical malpractice case, plaintiff should be afforded every reasonable opportunity to establish his case.” (276 Ill. App. 3d at 1050.) I do not know what this sentence is intended to mean, but I envision its ambiguity causing much mischief. It seems to imply that a separate set of standards exists under the Code for evaluating the sufficiency of medical malpractice claims, as well as for governing how the trial courts should administer them. I disagree with both implications and find nothing in the Code to suggest that a medical malpractice plaintiff should be treated any differently — better or worse — than the plaintiff in any other civil case. For the reasons stated, this court should affirm the dismissal of the amended counts against Dr. Petra and reverse the trial court’s dismissal of the other counts before us.