Court Opinion

ID: 9533925
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 04:35:32.606699+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:29:13.229164
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE COOK, dissenting: I suggest the following issues of fact are present in this case: (1) when the remodeling began, whether plaintiff suffered only a noncompensable minor discomfort or an injury “sufficient to put her on notice that her rights had been violated and [give] her a reasonable opportunity to bring an action” (Golla, 167 Ill. 2d at 369, 657 N.E.2d at 902); (2) assuming that plaintiff reasonably knew of an injury, whether she should reasonably have known that it was wrongfully caused by the remodeling project, as opposed to something in the air, in the water, in her genetic makeup, or in one of the products used in modern offices (toners, cleansers, air filters, et cetera)-, and (3) whether Devonshire, and perhaps Stradeco, should “be held estopped by their conduct from now urging that plaintiff should have sooner complained against them for a condition they repeatedly assured her she did not have” (Witherell, 85 Ill. 2d at 160, 421 N.E.2d at 876). “The statute starts to run when a person knows or reasonably should know of his injury and also knows or reasonably should know that it was wrongfully caused. At that point the burden is upon the injured person to inquire further as to the existence of a cause of action. [Citations.] In many, if not most, cases the time at which an injured party knows or reasonably should have known both of his injury and that it was wrongfully caused will be a disputed question to be resolved by the finder of fact. [Citation.] Where it is apparent from the undisputed facts, however, that only one conclusion can be drawn, the question becomes one for the court.” (Emphasis added.) Witherell, 85 Ill. 2d at 156, 421 N.E.2d at 874. ' In Witherell, plaintiff began experiencing problems shortly after she began taking a birth control pill in 1966. She was hospitalized in 1967, she experienced “excruciating pain,” she was told by her mother and other women that the pill could cause blood clots, she was told by Dr. Taubert in 1967 and again in 1972 that she had blood clots, and she was hospitalized a second time in 1972. Given these “severe difficulties” which plaintiff was having, it was inconceivable to the Witherell court that a reasonable person would not have realized, at least by the time of the second hospitalization, that she may not have been receiving proper diagnosis and treatment. Witherell, 85 Ill. 2d at 156-57, 421 N.E.2d at 874-75. What “severe difficulties” was plaintiff experiencing in the present case? Plaintiff experienced “respiratory problems” and “skin irritation” in January 1995. There were “strong, unpleasant odors.” Other employees had these same experiences, discussions were had and some employees “speculated” some condition of the building was a cause of their various ailments. 307 Ill. App. 3d at 803. In Witherell, before the limitations period was held to begin the plaintiff was hospitalized, suffered excruciating pain, and was explicitly told by a doctor that she had blood clots. In Hutson v. Hartke, 292 Ill. App. 3d 411, 412, 686 N.E.2d 734, 735 (1997), the plaintiff almost blacked out on the day of the incident but was able to make it outside without fainting. In the present case, plaintiff did not lose consciousness until April 20, 1997, which caused her to seek medical treatment. How can we say there is no issue of fact in this case? The test is not whether plaintiff reasonably suspects an injury and that it was wrongfully caused, but whether plaintiff reasonably knows of that injury and cause. The test is not what plaintiff could have done, but what it was reasonable for plaintiff to have done. The majority’s rule will require employees to be hypochondriacs, stirring up trouble in the workplace whenever those employees have a runny nose or a rash. The fact the Witherell plaintiff was misled by the advice she was given by her doctors did not delay the accrual of her cause of action against the manufacturer of the birth control pill, but it did delay accrual against the doctors. “[Considerations of fundamental fairness require that the defendant doctors be held estopped by their conduct from now urging that plaintiff should have sooner complained against them for a condition they repeatedly assured her she did not have.” Witherell, 85 Ill. 2d at 160, 421 N.E.2d at 876. In Witherell, the plaintiff knew of her injury in 1972 even though her treating physicians, potential defendants in the case, told her after 1972 that her problems were muscular. In this case, the plaintiff did not know that she had been injured when she went to see Dr. Chen, an independent witness, in August 1995. Unlike Witherell, Dr. Chen was not covering up his own malpractice when he told plaintiff he was unsure of any connection with her work exposure to her current symptomatology. Nothing indicates that Dr. Chen was incompetent or mistaken. Cf. Witherell, 85 Ill. 2d at 157, 421 N.E.2d at 875, quoting United States v. Kubrick, 444 U.S. 111, 124, 62 L. Ed. 2d 259, 270, 100 S. Ct. 352, 360 (1979) (“ ‘fails to bring suit because he is incompetently or mistakenly told that he does not have a case’ ”). The Witherell statement, that when only one conclusion can be drawn from the undisputed facts the question is for the court, appears to be nothing more than the familiar statement that summary judgment is appropriate absent a genuine issue of a material fact. See In re Estate of Rennick, 181 Ill. 2d 395, 401, 692 N.E.2d 1150, 1153 (1998). More than one conclusion can certainly be drawn in this case. True, a court can enter a summary judgment, even given a genuine issue of material fact, if what is contained in the pleadings and the affidavits would have constituted all of the evidence before the court at trial and, upon such evidence, there would be nothing left to go to a jury and the court would be required to direct a verdict. Fooden v. Board of Governors of State Colleges & Universities, 48 Ill. 2d 580, 587, 272 N.E.2d 497, 500 (1971). In this case, it cannot be said that all the evidence that would have been before the court at the time of trial was before the court at the summary judgment stage. See Rotzoll v. Overhead Door Corp., 289 Ill. App. 3d 410, 420-25, 681 N.E.2d 156, 163-66 (1997) (Cook, J., dissenting). The motion for summary judgment here was filed after plaintiff’s deposition was taken, before plaintiff had taken any discovery. Plaintiff, in her response to the motion for summary judgment, asked to be allowed to take discovery before the motion for summary judgment was decided, but that request was denied. In contrast, the motion for summary judgment in Golla was decided after discovery had been taken. Golla, 167 Ill. 2d at 357-58, 657 N.E.2d at 896-97. The Witherell court considered plaintiff’s affidavit, her answers to interrogatories, affidavits from the defendant doctors, affidavits from two other doctors, affidavits from a nurse, and plaintiffs rebuttal affidavit. During oral argument, Stradeco argued that it should not be charged with any concealment done by Devonshire because Devon-shire’s actions were not taken on its behalf. Without discovery, however, we do not know the relationship between Stradeco and Devonshire. The majority sees it as significant that in January 1995 two other employees were ordered by their doctors not to enter the building. 307 Ill. App. 3d at 803. Why did the doctors enter those orders? Did the doctors diagnose a specific illness, or did they enter their orders as a precaution? Did the employees return to the building? What steps did the doctors require before the employees returned? Without discovery, we cannot know. The unrebutted deposition of plaintiff must be taken as true. Rice v. AAA Aerostar, Inc., 294 Ill. App. 3d 801, 805, 690 N.E.2d 1067, 1070 (1998). Plaintiff testified that Devonshire performed indoor air quality tests at the facility, and she was repeatedly told by Devonshire that no problem existed within the building and the building was not the cause of her health problems. The majority avoids this issue with the amazing argument that plaintiff should not have believed Devonshire. “[Ajbsent any indication plaintiff was prevented from obtaining the results of the environmental tests during the two-year period immediately following her injury, plaintiff fails to state a prima facie case of fraudulent concealment.” 307 Ill. App. 3d at 807. The majority’s imposition of extraordinary burdens on plaintiff, and its willingness to ignore the misconduct of defendant, is contrary to Wither ell. “ ‘To decide the case we need look no further than the maxim that no man may take advantage of his own wrong. *** [Tjhis principle *** has frequently been employed to bar inequitable reliance on statutes of limitations.’ ” Witherell, 85 Ill. 2d at 158, 421 N.E.2d at 875, quoting Glus v. Brooklyn Eastern District Terminal, 359 U.S. 231, 232-33, 3 L. Ed. 2d 770, 772, 79 S. Ct. 760, 762 (1959). The majority cites Golla for the proposition that the limitations period commences when the plaintiff is injured, rather than when the plaintiff realizes the consequences of the injury or its full extent. Golla, however, involved a sudden traumatic event, an automobile accident, in which the defect in the automobile seat was apparent. The Golla plaintiff contended that her injury was de minimis when compared with the latent injury she discovered later, but the court noted her immediate injuries were sufficiently severe as to be compensable. Golla, 167 Ill. 2d at 367, 657 N.E.2d at 901. Her injuries, even if characterized as de minimis, were sufficient to put her on notice that her rights had been violated and gave her a reasonable opportunity to bring an action within the limitations period. Golla, 167 Ill. 2d at 369, 657 N.E.2d at 902. That is not true in the present case. Plaintiff here did not immediately know what had gone wrong as did the plaintiff in Golla (the automobile seat). No sudden traumatic event occurred in the present case, but an exposure to workplace conditions over a period of time, as in Nolan, 85 Ill. 2d at 171-72, 421 N.E.2d at 869, where the court held the question when the limitations period commenced was one for the trier of fact. The plaintiff in Nolan knew that he had lung problems in 1957 and that he had pulmonary fibrosis in 1965, but there was a jury question whether he should reasonably have known before 1973 that his condition was caused by exposure to asbestos materials at work. Nolan, 85 Ill. 2d at 171-72, 421 N.E.2d at 869. There was no immediate compensable injury in the present case, unless we are willing to accept the argument that a plaintiff can recover for a runny nose and an itch. Those conditions were only symptoms, perhaps symptoms of nothing. I would reverse the summary judgment for plaintiffs and remand for further proceedings.