Court Opinion

ID: 9912542
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-22 18:03:41.756074+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:00:06.261673
License: Public Domain

2023 IL App (1st) 221736

                                                                             FIFTH DIVISION
                                                                            December 22, 2023

                                         IN THE
                               APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS
                                     FIRST DISTRICT

No. 1-22-1736

 PATRICIA O’DONNELL, Independent                              )
 Administrator of the Estate of Alex Melnyk, Deceased,        )    Appeal from the
                                                              )    Circuit Court of
        Plaintiff-Appellant,                                  )    Cook County.
                                                              )
 v.                                                           )    No. 2019 L 7393
                                                              )
 BAILEY & ASSOCIATES COUNSELING,                              )    Honorable
 AND PSYCHOTHERAPY LLC; NICOLE M. BAILEY;                     )    Daniel A. Trevino,
 FOUNDATIONS RECOVERY NETWORK, LLC;                           )    Judge Presiding.
 ZACHARY KORDIK, M.D.; BIANA MAVASHEVA;                       )
 and BURKE HALINOVYCH, n/k/a Burke Baldwin,                   )
                                                              )
        Defendants-Appellees.

       JUSTICE MIKVA delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion.
       Presiding Justice Mitchell and Justice Navarro concurred in the judgment and opinion.

                                          OPINION

¶1     In late 2014, Alexander Melnyk began to receive outpatient mental health treatment. In

July 2017, he died by suicide. The administrator of his estate brought an action alleging both

wrongful death and injury to the person under section 27-6 of the Probate Act of 1975 (Survival

Act) (755 ILCS 5/27-6 (West 2016)) against Mr. Melnyk’s outpatient mental healthcare

providers—Nicole M. Bailey, Dr. Zachary Kordik, Biana Mavasheva, Burke Baldwin, and

vicariously, Bailey & Associates Counseling and Psychotherapy LLC and Foundations Recovery
No. 1-22-1736

Network LLC (collectively, defendants).

¶2     The administrator alleged that defendants breached a duty to provide Mr. Melnyk with

reasonable care, including taking reasonable precautions to protect him from self-harm. The

administrator further alleged that the breach of that duty proximately caused Mr. Melnyk’s death.

The circuit court granted summary judgment to defendants on the basis that suicide is an

intervening and independent act by the decedent that precludes liability as a matter of law.

¶3     For the reasons that follow, we hold that a mental healthcare provider can be held liable

when treating an outpatient client for a suicide that is proximately caused by the provider’s failure

to act within the standard of care. Accordingly, we reverse the court’s order granting summary

judgment to defendants and remand for further proceedings.

¶4                                      I. BACKGROUND

¶5     The following facts, based on the pleadings and the attachments to the motion for summary

judgment and response, provided the basis upon which the circuit court granted summary

judgment.

¶6     In December 2014, defendant Nicole Bailey, a licensed clinical professional counselor,

began providing psychotherapy to Alexander Melnyk. In intake paperwork, Ms. Bailey recorded

that Mr. Melnyk experienced “depression” and “excessive alcohol consumption.” Progress notes

demonstrate the two met regularly for therapy sessions.

¶7     In January 2017, Ms. Bailey recorded that Mr. Melnyk attempted suicide. In addition to

continuing to provide him with therapy, she also referred Mr. Melnyk to an intensive outpatient

program with defendants Foundations Recovery Network, LLC, and its subsidiary, Foundations

Chicago, LLC (collectively, Foundations).

¶8     At Foundations, defendants Biana Mavasheva, a licensed professional counselor, and

                                                -2-
No. 1-22-1736

Burke Halinovych, a licensed clinical social worker (now known as Burke Baldwin), provided Mr.

Melnyk with counseling and psychotherapy. Defendant Dr. Zachary Kordik, a psychiatrist, served

as the medical director at Foundations, performed a psychiatric evaluation of Mr. Melnyk, and

prescribed Mr. Melnyk medications. A document, titled “Face Sheet,” indicates that Mr. Melnyk

was diagnosed with major depressive disorder, alcohol use disorder, and unspecified cannabis

related disorder.

¶9     During intensive outpatient therapy sessions, Mr. Baldwin recommended that Mr. Melnyk

use the “Wim Hof method.” The Wim Hof method is a breathing exercise that combines shorter

and longer breaths with periods of holding one’s breath while exposed to cold water.

¶ 10   On July 10, 2017, Mr. Melnyk’s mother found Mr. Melnyk dead in his apartment with a

belt looped around his neck and the other end attached to a doorknob. The Office of the Medical

Examiner in Cook County ruled Mr. Melnyk’s death a suicide.

¶ 11   Patricia O’Donnell, administrator of Mr. Melnyk’s estate, filed the underlying complaint

on behalf of his parents and two brothers. Ms. O’Donnell asserted a claim for wrongful death

against each defendant based on the theory that the individual defendants breached their duty of

care to Mr. Melnyk. She asserted a separate claim under the Survival Act against each defendant

for Mr. Melnyk’s suffering. 755 ILCS 5/27-6 (West 2016).

¶ 12   Ms. O’Donnell alleged that defendants breached their duty by failing, despite Mr. Melnyk’s

symptoms, to properly assess him, appropriately treat his mental illness, or refer Mr. Melnyk for

emergent or additional psychiatric services. She additionally alleged that Dr. Kordick failed to

properly supervise Mr. Baldwin, allowing Mr. Baldwin to recommend the Wim Hof method,

which Ms. O’Donnell alleged was an inappropriate intervention. Ms. O’Donnell alleged that

Foundations and Bailey & Associates Counseling and Psychotherapy LLC were vicariously liable.

                                              -3-
No. 1-22-1736

¶ 13   Foundations and Ms. Mavasheva filed a motion for summary judgment. The remaining

defendants adopted the motion in full. Defendants asserted that, under Illinois law, suicide is an

independent intervening act that breaks any alleged chain of causation. According to defendants,

Illinois law recognizes only two exceptions to this “black letter rule.” These exceptions are (1)

where the defendant assumes custody and control of the decedent and (2) where the defendant

causes the decedent to become insane or bereft of reason. Because neither exception applied,

defendants argued “as a matter of law” that they could not be found to have breached any duty to

prevent the suicide, and plaintiff could not prove causation.

¶ 14   Plaintiff filed a response in opposition to defendants’ motions. She argued that Illinois

courts have made it clear that mental healthcare professionals owe a duty to their patients to take

reasonable steps to protect them from reasonably foreseeable self-harm and that this duty exists

even when the patient is being treated on an outpatient basis. Plaintiff attached affidavits from Dr.

Cheryl D. Wills and Dr. Richard J. Stride. These two doctors expressed the opinion that “it should

have been reasonably foreseeable to *** any mental health professional that Alex Melnyk would

commit suicide or act in a self-destructive manner.”

¶ 15   The circuit court granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment. The circuit court’s

oral ruling was not transcribed but it issued a brief written order in which it wrote that “in addition

to the reasons stated in open court, the Court specifically relied on the following cases and

citations.” The court then cited three cases, which the court summarized as follows:

                    “Stanphill v. Ortberg, 2018 IL 122974, ¶ 35, stating the general rule that ‘the

                injured party’s voluntary act of suicide is an independent intervening act, which is

                unforeseeable as a matter of law and breaks the causal link between any alleged

                negligent conduct and the injury.’

                                                 -4-
No. 1-22-1736

                     Winger v. Franciscan Medical Center, 299 Ill. App. 3d 364, 375 (1998), ***

                which states that ‘when the mental healthcare professional has assumed the custody

                or control of an individual, be it for a voluntary or involuntary admission, so that it

                is treating the individual and has knowledge of his suicidal tendencies, the

                defendant assumes the patient’s duty of self-care and must act reasonably to prevent

                self-inflicted harm’; and,

                     [Doe I v. Doe I], 2016 IL App (1st) 153272, ¶ 16, noting the general rule as

                stated by the First District Appellate Court that ‘the voluntary act of suicide “is an

                independent intervening act which is unforeseeable as a matter of law, and which

                breaks the chain of causation from the tortfeasor’s negligent conduct,” ’ and noting

                there are only two recognized exceptions to the general rule, when (1) ‘as the

                proximate cause of a physical injury caused by the tortfeasor, the injured party

                becomes insane or bereft of reason and while in that state commits suicide,’ and

                (2) ‘when a mental health professional who has assumed the care, custody or

                control over an individual with suicidal tendencies fails to act reasonable to prevent

                self-inflicted harm ***’(citing [Winger, 299 Ill. App. 3d at 375]).”

¶ 16   As the circuit court made clear in denying plaintiff’s motion to reconsider, which it did

with a court reporter present, the court viewed the exception to the suicide rule noted in Winger

and repeated in Doe as inapplicable in this case because Mr. Melnyk “was not in the [defendants’]

custody or control. He was not in the defendant[s’] facility.”

¶ 17                                     II. JURISDICTION

¶ 18   The circuit court denied plaintiff’s timely motion to reconsider on October 26, 2022.

Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal on November 18, 2022. This court has jurisdiction over the appeal

                                                 -5-
No. 1-22-1736

pursuant to Illinois Supreme Court Rules 301 (eff. Feb. 1, 1994) and 303 (eff. July 1, 2017),

governing appeals from final judgments entered by the circuit court in civil cases.

¶ 19                                      III. ANALYSIS

¶ 20          A. Suicide Is Not Unforeseeable As a Matter of Law for an Outpatient

¶ 21   The primary issue on appeal is whether the circuit court properly granted summary

judgment on the basis that suicide is an independent intervening cause that is unforeseeable as a

matter of law, such that, except in two limited exceptions that are not applicable here, mental health

professionals can never be liable for a failure to prevent suicide. More specifically, this case

requires us to determine whether the exception that this court has held applies in an inpatient setting

can also apply where, as in this case, the decedent dies by suicide while receiving care in an

outpatient setting.

¶ 22   A motion for summary judgment may only be granted when the right of the moving party

is clear and free from doubt. Pedersen v. Joliet Park District, 136 Ill. App. 3d 172, 175 (1985).

Summary judgment is appropriate where the pleadings, depositions, admissions, and affidavits

demonstrate that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that the moving party is entitled to

a judgment as a matter of law. 735 ILCS 5/2-1005(c) (West 2018). We review the circuit court’s

summary judgment decision de novo. Cohen v. Chicago Park District, 2017 IL 121800, ¶ 17.

¶ 23   Defendants’ argument, and the circuit court’s ruling, rest on the application of what our

supreme court has described as the “general rule.” Turcios v. The DeBruler Co., 2015 IL

117962, ¶ 20. Under this general rule, “the injured party’s voluntary act of suicide is an

independent intervening act which is unforeseeable as a matter of law, and which breaks the chain

of causation from the tortfeasor’s negligent [or intentional] conduct.” Id. As the supreme court

explained in Turcios, the “general rule” is based on policy considerations inherent in analyzing

                                                 -6-
No. 1-22-1736

legal cause. Any legal cause analysis is limited by an “assessment of foreseeability.” Id. ¶ 24.

“Courts ask whether the injury is the type of injury that a reasonable person would see as a ‘likely

result’ of his or her conduct, or whether the injury is so ‘highly extraordinary’ that imposing

liability is not justified.” Id. (quoting Lee v. Chicago Transit Authority, 152 Ill. 2d 432, 456

(1992)).

¶ 24   The Turcios court stated that the general rule was not absolute. Id. ¶ 40. It recognized that

a plaintiff could plead facts that “would overcome application of the general rule that suicide is

deemed unforeseeable as a matter of law.” Id. According to the court, those allegations must

include “facts demonstrating that the suicide was foreseeable, i.e., that it was a likely result of the

defendant’s conduct.” Id

¶ 25   The parties and the circuit court all recognize that this general suicide rule has exceptions.

But the defendants and the circuit court, relying on what we view as a misreading of our previous

cases, conclude that no exception can apply here. We find that such a conclusion would be at odds

with several decisions of our supreme court and is not at all compelled by the cases on which

defendants rely.

¶ 26   In Stanphill v. Ortberg, 2018 IL 122974, ¶ 35, the court cited Turcios’s “general rule” and

foreseeability exception and recognized that one situation in which liability could attach was where

a licensed professional was offering mental health services on an outpatient basis. In Stanphill, a

decedent’s son filed suit against a licensed clinical social worker who had provided outpatient

treatment to the decedent before the decedent died by suicide. Id. ¶ 3. The son alleged that the

social worker violated her duty of care by failing to properly assess for suicidality or refer for

emergent services. Id. He further alleged that the social worker’s breach of that duty was a

proximate cause leading to the decedent’s death. Id.

                                                 -7-
No. 1-22-1736

¶ 27   Our supreme court addressed whether the circuit court should have presented the jury with

an objective or subjective interrogatory—asking if the decedent’s suicide was foreseeable to a

reasonable provider or to the social worker personally. Id. ¶ 32. The assumption underlying this

question and the supreme court’s opinion was “where a plaintiff can show that the suicide was a

reasonably foreseeable result of the defendant’s conduct, liability will attach.” Id. ¶ 35. Thus,

Stanphill recognizes that suicide can be foreseeable to a provider offering mental health services

and that it is not unforeseeable as a matter of law. Because Stanphill occurred in an entirely

outpatient context, it is clear that our supreme court did not view the fact that the defendant did

not have custody over the decedent as a legal bar to recovery.

¶ 28   In Hobart v. Shin, 185 Ill. 2d 283 (1998), the decedent died after ingesting medications

prescribed by her primary care physician to treat her mental illness. Id. at 286-89. Our supreme

court addressed whether the decedent could be contributorily negligent in her own death by

suicide. Id. at 290. In holding that it was possible, our supreme court stated that “[t]he issue of

contributory negligence of a mentally disturbed person is a question of fact; unless, of course, the

evidence discloses that the person whose actions are being judged is completely devoid of reason.”

(Internal quotation marks omitted.) Id.

¶ 29   By holding that a decedent may be contributorily negligent in a tort related to her own

suicide, our supreme court necessarily recognized that the alleged tortfeasor also had potential

liability. As in this case, the potential liability existed for a healthcare professional providing

treatment on an outpatient basis. Id. at 286-89.

¶ 30   In Jinkins v. Lee, 209 Ill. 2d 320 (2004), the defendant psychiatrist decided not to admit

the decedent to a hospital, believing that the decedent was not at imminent risk of self-harm. Id. at

325-26. The decedent went home and shot himself in the head, dying later from the wound. Id.

                                                   -8-
No. 1-22-1736

The estate’s administrator sued, alleging the psychiatrist failed to properly diagnose or treat the

underlying mental illness. Id. at 323.

¶ 31   Our supreme court addressed whether the psychiatrist owed the decedent a duty of care

arising from his role as a state employee, which would trigger the doctrine of sovereign immunity,

or from his role as a healthcare provider. Id. at 336. In holding sovereign immunity did not apply,

the court stated, “the duties inherent in the doctor-patient relationship emanate from the standards

imposed by the profession itself. A physician’s duty is to exercise the same degree of knowledge,

skill, and care which a reasonably well qualified physician in the same or similar community would

use under similar circumstances.” Id.

¶ 32   In Jinkins—as in Hobart and Stanphill—our supreme court operated on the premise that

mental healthcare providers owe their patients a duty of care emanating from their “mental health

professional status.” Jinkins, 209 Ill. 2d at 335. The takeaway from these cases is that a healthcare

provider’s malpractice can be a basis for liability, even where, as in those cases and in this one,

the suicide occurs outside of an institutional setting.

¶ 33   Defendants argue that Stanphill, Hobart, and Jinkins, did not address the issue before us in

this case because the defendants in those cases conceded they owed their patients a duty of care.

The defendants reason that, because reviewing courts “do not address unbriefed issues,” the

necessary assumption that our supreme court made in arriving at those decisions does not provide

any guidance.

¶ 34   Without the briefs in those supreme court cases, we cannot be sure what issues were

presented. But even if we assume that the defendants conceded that they could have liability,

language from an opinion is nonbinding as obiter dictum only where it is a “remark or opinion that

a court uttered as an aside.” Lebron v. Gottlieb Memorial Hospital, 237 Ill. 2d 217, 236 (2010).

                                                 -9-
No. 1-22-1736

Obiter dictum is, by definition, “not essential to the outcome of the case” and “not an integral part

of the opinion.” Id. In each of the three above-cited cases, the assumption that healthcare

professionals can be liable for the suicides of their outpatients cannot properly be characterized as

dictum because it was an integral part of the analysis of each opinion. If, in fact, there could be no

liability in an outpatient setting, then there would be no need to decide whether foreseeability was

objective or subjective in Stanphill, or whether there could be contributory negligence in Hobart,

or whether sovereign immunity protected the psychiatrist in Jinkins. The potential for liability was

an integral part of the opinion.

¶ 35   Defendants counter this supreme court authority with language we used in Doe I v. Doe I,

2016 IL App (1st) 153272, ¶ 16, which was also relied on by the circuit court in this case. In Doe,

we stated:

       “[O]ur supreme court has reaffirmed the proposition that the voluntary act of suicide ‘is an

       independent intervening act which is unforeseeable as a matter of law, and which breaks

       the chain of causation from the tortfeasor’s negligent conduct.’ (Emphasis added [by Doe].)

       Turcios, 2015 IL 117962, ¶ 20 [citation shortened]. Our research has revealed only two

       recognized exceptions to this rule: (1) when, as the proximate result of a physical injury

       caused by the tortfeasor, the injured party becomes insane or bereft of reason and while in

       that state commits suicide [citations] and (2) when a mental health care professional who

       has assumed the care, custody or control over an individual with known suicidal tendencies

       fails to act reasonably to prevent self-inflicted harm, and the individual commits suicide

       (Winger, 299 Ill.App.3d at 374-75) [citation shortened].” Id.

¶ 36   Doe was a suit against the parents of two minors. Id. The minors were alleged to have

fraudulently communicated to the decedent that one of the minors had a desire to end his own life.

                                                - 10 -
No. 1-22-1736

Id. ¶ 2. The decedent became greatly distressed and died by suicide. Id. The decedent’s

representative sued, arguing the fraudulent communications negligently caused the death. Id. ¶ 3.

Using the above-quoted rule, we held that the suicide was an intervening and independent action

that broke the chain of causation. Id. ¶ 16.

¶ 37   Doe does not address healthcare malpractice in any way. The quotation above is an accurate

description of the general rule that suicide is an independent act by the decedent that is not

foreseeable as a matter of law. It says nothing directly about foreseeability or liability in the mental

healthcare context.

¶ 38   To the extent that Doe says anything about liability in the healthcare context, it does so by

citing Winger, 299 Ill. App. 3d at 374-75. According to defendants, until Winger, Illinois courts

recognized only one exception to the suicide rule—when, due to the defendant’s actions, the

injured party became insane, and for that reason took her own life. Defendants’ argument is that

Winger created the only other exception to this “black letter” rule when the mental healthcare

professional assumes the custody or control of the individual.

¶ 39   In Winger, the victim was hospitalized for suicidality and died by hanging himself with his

shoelaces. Id. at 366. His parents sued the hospital and attending psychiatrist for wrongful death.

Id. at 367-68. This court held that the defendants owed a duty to “act reasonably to prevent self-

inflicted harm.” Id. at 375. While we agree that Winger specifically recognizes an exception, in

the context of inpatient care, to the general rule that suicide is unforeseeable as a matter of law, we

disagree that the case should be read to bar any liability for professionals treating outpatients.

¶ 40   When discussing mental illness, the Winger court used broad language that is equally

applicable here:

       “Where it is reasonably foreseeable that a patient by reason of his mental or emotional

                                                 - 11 -
No. 1-22-1736

       illness may attempt to injure himself, those in charge of his care owe a duty to safeguard

       him from his self-damaging potential. This duty contemplates the reasonably foreseeable

       occurrence of self-inflicted injury regardless of whether it is the product of the patient’s

       volitional or negligent act.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Id. at 374.

¶ 41   The Winger court went on to describe Illinois’s conception of mental illness. Id. Unlike

with other illnesses, where a patient’s noncompliance with treatment usually exculpates the

provider if harm results, Winger recognizes that a measure of noncompliance may be expected

when treating certain mental illnesses. Id. As we stated, “the patient, by the nature of his illness,

may be working at cross-purposes to his doctor’s suggestions.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.)

Id. at 372. Inasmuch as Winger provides guidance, it recognizes that suicide is not necessarily an

independent and intervening act in the context of mental healthcare.

¶ 42   Defendants insist that Winger must be cabined to the inpatient context because we

described the doctor-patient relationship there as a “special relationship.” Id. at 374. They then

claim we used these two words as a term of art, implicitly referencing the Second Restatement of

Torts. Restatement (Second) of Torts § 314A (1965). The Second Restatement recognizes only

four types of “special relationships,” one of which is a “voluntary custodian.” Id. Defendants

therefore argue that Winger only applies in custodial contexts.

¶ 43   But we did not cite this section of the Restatement in Winger, 299 Ill. App. 3d at 374. Nor

is there any reason to think that we used the phrase “special relationship” as a term of art that was

meant to conform to the four special relationships listed in the restatement. The rationale of Winger

supports plaintiff’s claim that there can be liability in this case, and nothing in the holding or the

language of that case suggests otherwise.

¶ 44   We also think it is significant that, in the Doe court’s description of Winger, it referenced

                                                - 12 -
No. 1-22-1736

“a mental health care professional who has assumed the care, custody or control over an

individual.” (Emphases added.) Doe I, 2016 IL App (1st) 153272, ¶ 16. Since “care, custody or

control” are stated in the alternative, “care” of a patient could certainly include outpatient care. We

do not, therefore, read Doe to say that the second exception noted there is limited to inpatient care.

¶ 45   In any event, to the extent that either of these appellate court cases suggest that suicide is

unforeseeable as a matter of law in the context of mental health treatment unless the defendant is

hospitalized, we disagree and find such a statement at odds with the supreme court cases cited

above. See supra ¶¶ 26-34.

¶ 46   Cases outside of Illinois go both ways. Defendants cite cases from jurisdictions that have

applied the “suicide rule” to preclude liability for outpatient mental healthcare providers. See, e.g.,

Lee v. Corregedore, 925 P.2d 324, 337 (Haw. 1996) (“Regardless of whether [the decedent’s]

suicide was foreseeable, it would be inappropriate to impose a duty on counselors to prevent

suicides—which might stifle all such counseling ***.”); Christian v. Counseling Resources

Associates, No. N09C-10-202 EMD, 2014 WL 4100681, at *10 (Del. Super. Ct. July 16, 2014)

(“there is not sufficient evidence in the record of either custody or control over [the decedent] to

find that a special relationship existed that would trigger the duty to act”).

¶ 47   There are also a number of cases that find that liability is possible in this context. For

example, in Kockelman v. Segal, 71 Cal. Rptr. 2d 552, 555 (Ct. App. 1998), the California appellate

court addressed this issue as follows:

       “[Mental health providers] owe a duty of care, consistent with standards in the professional

       community, to provide appropriate treatment for a potentially suicidal patient, whether the

       patient is hospitalized or not. ***

                                                ***

                                                - 13 -
No. 1-22-1736

                *** If those who are caring for and treating mentally disturbed patients know of

        facts from which they could reasonably conclude that the patients would be likely to inflict

        harm on themselves in the absence of preventative measures, then those caretakers must

        use reasonable care under the circumstances to prevent such harm from occurring.”

        (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Id. at 558, 561.

¶ 48    In Morris v. Corder, 866 S.E.2d 66, 67 (W. Va. 2021), West Virginia’s supreme court

determined that “[i]t would defy logic” to impose liability only in the inpatient setting. Id. at 71.

Providers could thereby avoid responsibility by refusing to involuntarily hospitalize or admit

suicidal clients and then argue that liability could not attach “on the basis that the patient was not

admitted.” (Emphasis in original.) Id.; see also Perez v. United States, 883 F. Supp. 2d 1257, 1286

(S.D. Fla. 2012) (“[I]t would be peculiar, and seemingly contrary to the intent of Florida’s law on

medical negligence, to absolve a treating psychiatrist of liability for all negligent acts simply

because the patient is being seen on an outpatient basis.”); Smits as Trustee for Short v. Park

Nicollet Health Services, 979 N.W.2d 436, 447 (Minn. 1997) (“We will not absolve [the defendant]

of the duty to meet the standard of care because its patient committed suicide.”); Edwards v. Tardif,

692 A.2d 1266, 1270 n.7 (Conn. 1997) (“In our view, the circumstances in which a physician may

be liable for a patient’s suicide are not limited only to when the patient is in the physician’s

custody”); Champagne v. United States, 513 N.W.2d 75, 76-77 (N.D. 1994) (“[i]f the patient’s act

of suicide is a foreseeable result of the medical provider’s breach of duty to treat the patient, the

patient’s act of suicide cannot be deemed a superseding cause of the patient’s death that breaks the

chain of causation between the medical provider and the patient, which absolves the medical

provider of liability”).

¶ 49    We find the latter group of cases are in keeping with Illinois law, which also recognizes

                                                - 14 -
No. 1-22-1736

that a mental health professional can have liability in an outpatient context. Thus, the circuit court

erred in holding that defendants were entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

¶ 50                           B. Defendants’ Alternative Argument

¶ 51   As an alternative basis to affirm, defendants argue plaintiff “failed to produce evidence of

a prima facie negligence claim sufficient to present to a jury.” Defendants are, of course, correct

that ultimately the plaintiff will have the burden of proving all elements of her claims. As a general

rule, “expert testimony is necessary in professional negligence cases to establish the standard of

care and that its breach was the proximate cause of the plaintiff’s injury.” Snelson v. Kamm, 204

Ill. 2d 1, 43-44, (2003). Defendants contend that plaintiff has failed to make a timely disclosure of

the necessary experts. Defendants also contend that the record contains no evidence of the

standards of care, the precise nature of any breach or of the causal connection between any action

by a defendant and Mr. Melnyk’s suicide. These alleged deficiencies may prove fatal, but they are

simply not before us given the nature of the motion that defendants filed.

¶ 52   Defendants first raised this alternative argument in the reply memorandum in support of

their summary judgment motion. Defendants did not seek at that point to expand their motion and

neither plaintiff (who had already filed her response to the motion) nor the circuit court ever

addressed this argument.

¶ 53   A defendant moving for summary judgment has the initial burden of production, which can

be met by either (1) introducing evidence that, if uncontroverted, would disprove the plaintiff’s

case (see Purtill v. Hess, 111 Ill. 2d 229, 240-41 (1986)), or (2) establishing that a lack of evidence

will prevent the plaintiff from proving an essential element of the cause of action (CZ Driving

Horses, Inc. v. Horse Powered Equestrian, Inc., 2022 IL App (3d) 190509, ¶ 41). When this

second kind of motion, sometimes described as a “Celotex” motion (see Celotex Corp. v. Catrett,

                                                - 15 -
No. 1-22-1736

477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986)) is filed, the burden then shifts to the plaintiff to show a factual basis to

support the elements of her claim. Hutchcraft v. Independent Mechanical Industries, Inc., 312 Ill.

App. 3d 351, 355 (2000).

¶ 54   As we have made clear, “[t]he grounds for summary judgment should be pleaded with

sufficient specificity to alert the opposing party to what he must answer and the trial judge to what

he may be expected to pass on.” Tongate v. Wyeth Laboratories, 220 Ill. App. 3d 952, 956 (1991).

Only where a defendant files a motion for summary judgment based on a lack of evidence, i.e., a

Celotex motion, is the plaintiff obligated to come forward with evidence on all aspects of the claim.

See Williams v. Covenant Medical Center, 316 Ill. App. 3d 682, 689 (2000) (“Only if a defendant

satisfies its initial burden of production does the burden shift to the plaintiffs to present some

factual basis that would arguably entitle them to a judgment under the applicable law.”); Hallmark

Insurance Co. v. Chicago Transit Authority, 179 Ill. App. 3d 260, 264, 267 (1989) (where a moving

defendant fails in showing there was no genuine issue of material fact to try, plaintiffs “had no

duty to present evidence in support of their allegations”).

¶ 55   Here, the only argument defendants made in their motion for summary judgment was that

the decedent’s suicide was unforeseeable as a matter of law. Plaintiff responded to this argument,

and the circuit court decided the motion on that basis. Plaintiff was under no obligation to submit

any affidavits or other evidence to support all elements of her cause of action.

¶ 56   At oral argument, defendants cited cases not cited in their brief which they contend allow

us to consider this argument. Those cases offer no support to defendants here. In Cohen v. Chicago

Park District, 2017 IL 121800, ¶ 34, our supreme court affirmed the circuit court’s grant of

summary judgment for the defendant on the basis that there was no evidence that the park district’s

conduct was willful and wanton. In Fabiano v. City of Palos Hills, 336 Ill. App. 3d 635, 641

                                                - 16 -
No. 1-22-1736

(2002), we reversed a grant of summary judgment based on the same point that we repeat here:

that a “defendant meets its burden by producing evidence that would clearly entitle the defendant

to judgment as a matter of law” and “[o]nly if defendant[] satisf[ies] [this] initial burden of

production does the burden shift to [the plaintiff] to present some factual basis that would arguably

entitle them to a favorable judgement.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Neither of these cases

suggest in any way that this court should consider defendants’ alternative argument or comb the

record to see if plaintiff can prove her case.

¶ 57   While alternative arguments are certainly permitted, and we can affirm on any basis present

in the record (City of Chicago v. Holland, 206 Ill. 2d 480, 491-92 (2003)), the record in this case

discloses that there was no obligation on the part of the plaintiff to provide evidence of the standard

of care, the precise nature of any breach, or the alleged causal connection between the two. This

argument offers us no “alternative” basis on which to affirm.

¶ 58                                     IV. CONCLUSION

¶ 59   For the forgoing reasons, we reverse the circuit court’s grant of summary judgment in favor

of defendants and remand for proceedings consistent with this opinion.

¶ 60   Reversed and remanded.

                                                 - 17 -
No. 1-22-1736

             O’Donnell v. Bailey & Associates Counseling & Psychotherapy LLC,
                                 2023 IL App (1st) 221736

Decision Under Review:        Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook County, No. 2019-L-
                              7393; the Hon. Daniel A. Trevino, Judge, presiding.

Attorneys                     Milo W. Lundblad, of Brustin & Lundblad, Ltd., of Chicago, for
for                           appellant.
Appellant:

Attorneys                     Lawrence S. Gosewisch and Richard C. Harris, of Hinshaw &
for                           Culbertson LLP, Gretchen Harris Sperry, of Gordon Rees Scully
Appellee:                     Mansukhani LLP, Scott L. Howie, John M. McGarry, and
                              Zachary A. Kutsulis, of Donohue Brown Mathewson & Smyth
                              LLC, and Thomas B. Orlando and Douglas J. Palandech, of
                              Foran Glennon Palandech Ponzi & Rudloff PC, all of Chicago,
                              for appellees.

                                           - 18 -