Court Opinion

ID: 9525820
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 03:08:23.009029+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:17:06.055486
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE KILBRIDE, specially concurring: The majority relies on this court’s decision in Brucker v. Mercola, 227 Ill. 2d 502 (2007), in concluding that the plaintiffs claim arises out of patient care. In Brucker, I agreed with the majority’s interpretation of the phrase “arising out of patient care.” Given the facts of Brucker, however, I disagreed with the application of that phrase because the majority placed insufficient emphasis on the fundamental “patient care” component. Brucker, 227 Ill. 2d at 551 (Kilbride, J., specially concurring). In this case, I agree that the plaintiffs claim arises out of patient care. The blood transfusion was undoubtedly an integral component of plaintiffs medical care or treatment and, therefore, is within the plain meaning of “patient care.” See Stiffler, 965 F.2d at 141; Brucker, 227 Ill. 2d at 552-53 (Kilbride, J., specially concurring). Plaintiffs claim alleging harm from the failure to warn of a possible infection originated from the blood transfusion. Accordingly, plaintiffs claim arose out of patient care and falls within the scope of the medical malpractice statute of repose. Thus, I concur in the result reached by the majority despite its reliance on Brucker.