Brown v. Advocate Health and Hospitals Corporation
2017 IL App (1st) 161918
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2017Background
- Joyce Hobson died after treatment at Advocate South Suburban Hospital; her estate (Brown) sued for medical malpractice in 2013.
- Plaintiff sought Advocate’s insurance-related documents; Advocate claimed it was self-insured and produced only limited, mostly redacted material.
- The trial court ordered Advocate to produce its full self-insured trust agreement and an unredacted endorsement for in camera review, under a confidentiality protective order.
- Advocate refused production, asked to be held in "friendly contempt" to enable interlocutory appeal, and was fined $100; Advocate appealed under Ill. S. Ct. R. 304(b)(5).
- The appellate court reviewed whether insurance/self-insurance documents are discoverable, whether an in camera inspection was appropriate, and whether contempt was warranted.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Discoverability of insurance/self-insurance documents | Insurance/trust documents are relevant and may lead to admissible evidence; production justified | Insurance documents not relevant in tort discovery; inadmissible at trial so need not be produced | Discovery is broader than admissibility; insurance/self-insurance documents can be discoverable and Fisher permits such inquiry |
| Nature of the self-insured trust (insurance vs. confidential financial document) | Trust likely functions like insurance and may benefit injured parties; in camera review appropriate to assess content | Trust is confidential financial/trade-secret material not equivalent to an insurance policy; Manns protects such financial documents | Court: trust resembles insurance more than mere private finances; in camera inspection is proper to determine discoverability |
| Use of in camera inspection | Necessary to determine relevance and to protect confidentiality; protective order limits dissemination | In camera review unnecessary; document is proprietary and should be shielded | Trial court did not abuse discretion in ordering in camera review; protective order mitigates disclosure risk |
| Contempt fine for nonproduction | Advocate’s refusal hindered discovery; contempt appeal proper under Rule 304(b)(5) | Advocate acted in good faith to preserve appellate rights; refusal not contemptuous | Discovery order affirmed; contempt finding and $100 fine vacated because refusal was made in good faith to enable appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- People ex rel. Terry v. Fisher, 12 Ill.2d 231 (recognizes pretrial discovery of liability insurance may be proper though not necessarily admissible at trial)
- Monier v. Chamberlain, 35 Ill.2d 351 (production of insurance policy and related materials may be ordered)
- Anderson v. St. Mary’s Hospital, 101 Ill. App.3d 596 (in camera inspection required when nature/content of document in genuine dispute)
- Chicago Trust Co. v. Cook County Hospital, 298 Ill. App.3d 396 (vacating contempt where refusal to produce was not contemptuous)
- Maxwell v. Hobart Corp., 216 Ill. App.3d 108 (pretrial discovery has broader relevance scope than trial admissibility)