Aylward v. Settecase
409 Ill. App. 3d 831
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2011Background
- Plaintiff alleges defendant failed to diagnose lung cancer timely while treated at MPG defendants.
- Defendant employed by MPG; other MPG staff treated plaintiff but were not named defendants.
- Plaintiff alleged chest congestion and related symptoms; no chest X-ray or referrals ordered timely.
- Initial complaint included an affidavit from a physician stating cancer would have been diagnosed with imaging.
- MPG sought ex parte communications with MPG employees; plaintiff initially resisted.
- Trial court granted then reversed, prohibiting ex parte contact; certified question sought under Rule 308.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| May defense counsel ex parte with MPG employees not named as defendants? | Aylward | Settecase | No; Petrillo line bars such ex parte contact |
Key Cases Cited
- Petrillo v. Syntex Laboratories, Inc., 148 Ill.App.3d 581 (1986) (physician-patient privilege shields disclosures to defense)
- Ritter v. Rush-Presbyterian St. Luke's Medical Center, 177 Ill.App.3d 313 (1988) (hospital defense rights but privilege with non-liable employees remains)
- Testin v. Dreyer Medical Clinic, 238 Ill.App.3d 883 (1992) (privilege protects plaintiff from disclosures by non-liability employees)
- Morgan v. County of Cook, 252 Ill.App.3d 947 (1993) (Petrillo bars ex parte with non-liable employee physicians)
- Porter v. Decatur Memorial Hospital, 227 Ill.2d 343 (2008) (amendment relation back; sufficiently close relationship to original claim)