Court Opinion

ID: 9779854
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-30 00:51:37.233155+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:33:43.222307
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE KNECHT, dissenting: Simply put, we got it right the first time. The trial court was mistaken in dismissing the complaint. Plaintiffs added additional counts to a medical-malpractice complaint after the statute of limitations expired, and those additional counts relate back to a timely filed complaint. In Porter v. Decatur Memorial Hospital, 227 Ill. 2d 343, 355, 882 N.E.2d 583, 589-90 (2008), our supreme court noted, “[t]he purpose of the relation-back doctrine of section 2 — 616(b) is to preserve causes of action against loss by reason of technical default unrelated to the merits.” We should “liberally construe the requirements of section 2 — 616(b).” Porter, 227 Ill. 2d at 355, 882 N.E.2d at 590. What are the merits here? Marc Wilson had a hip arthroplasty. Now, Marc has sciatic nerve palsy and a condition known as “foot drop.” Marc cannot walk without the aid of appliances. Marc and his wife think defendants were negligent in failing to disclose the “risks, results, and medical alternatives” related to hip arthroplasty. They also think, based on the complaint, that defendants negligently failed to investigate and treat the sciatic nerve palsy and were negligent based on res ipsa loquitur. The precise question before the trial court, and before us, is whether the additional counts “grew out of the same transaction or occurrence” (735 ILCS 5/2 — 616(b) (West 2006)) as the counts in the original, timely filed complaint. Defendants claim Marc and Sandy have now alleged three discrete transactions or occurrences — what happened before surgery, what happened during surgery, and what happened after surgery. The problem with defendants’ position is their interpretation of the phrase “grew out of the same transaction or occurrence” is too narrow. Informed consent is an issue because of the impending surgery. Negligence during surgery is an issue because the surgery took place. The need for treatment and postsurgical investigation are issues because of the surgery. The key word is “surgery,” and the key concepts are time and relation. These issues arise because of the surgery, and they are so closely related in time, subject matter, and character that they are stages or parts of one transaction or occurrence. The facts of this case more than satisfy the sufficiently-close-relationship test. Porter, 227 Ill. 2d at 360, 882 N.E.2d at 593. Section 2 — 616(b) “was largely designed to notify a party that claims will be asserted that grow out of the general fact situation set forth in the original pleading.” Porter, 227 Ill. 2d at 362, 882 N.E.2d at 594. Here, defendants were on notice the alleged negligent injury to Marc related to the hip surgery. Defendants’ supposed belief negligence would never be alleged except concerning conduct prior to surgery is misplaced, unconvincing, and defies common sense. This must be the “grey area” referred to in Porter, 227 Ill. 2d at 359, 882 N.E.2d at 592. The facts in Porter are much different than the facts in this case, but the thrust of Porter calls for plaintiffs to have their claims resolved on the merits.