Cleeton v. SIU Healthcare, Inc.
2023 IL 128651
| Ill. | 2023Background
- Decedent Donald, a quadriplegic, had a Medtronic SynchroMed II intrathecal baclofen pump to treat spasticity; a refill on Oct. 25, 2017, was problematic.
- After the refill Donald developed headache, abdominal pain, increased spasms and was admitted Oct. 29–30; pump interrogation in the ER reported proper function.
- On Oct. 30 Donald was transferred to the ICU under Dr. Mouhamad Bakir; Medtronic faxed emergency procedures for baclofen withdrawal at 10:44 a.m., but Bakir testified he never received them.
- Neurology listed baclofen withdrawal vs sepsis on the differential; a code occurred about noon, intrathecal baclofen was administered about 2:05 p.m., and Donald died at 3:06 p.m.; postmortem testing showed holes in the pump catheter.
- Plaintiff (Carol Cleeton) sued for wrongful death, named Bakir a respondent in discovery and moved under 735 ILCS 5/2-402 to convert him to a defendant, attaching a certificate of merit alleging failure to timely recognize/treat baclofen withdrawal.
- The circuit court denied conversion (finding the evidence insufficient and Medtronic materials not dispositive); the appellate court affirmed; the Illinois Supreme Court reversed and remanded, holding the conversion threshold was met.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiff presented probable cause under section 2‑402 to convert a respondent in discovery to a defendant | Certificate of merit + medical records/depositions create an "honest and strong suspicion" that Bakir failed to timely recognize and treat baclofen withdrawal | Discovery and depositions refute the certificate; Medtronic emergency procedures do not set the governing standard of care | Reversed: evidence met the low probable‑cause threshold of section 2‑402; conversion should proceed for factfinding |
| Quantum/character of proof required at the 2‑402 stage (i.e., standard of care proof) | Section 2‑402 requires a low showing—affidavits, depositions, medical records may suffice; similar to 2‑622’s purpose | Plaintiff must show a more specific standard or prima facie case before conversion | Reversed: Court adopts a liberal, low threshold—plaintiff need not prove prima facie case; honest and strong suspicion is sufficient |
Key Cases Cited
- Freides v. Sani‑Mode Mfg. Co., 33 Ill.2d 291 (Ill. 1965) (defines "probable cause" as an honest and strong suspicion standard)
- Ingle v. Hospital Sisters Health System, 141 Ill. App.3d 1057 (Ill. App. 1986) (affidavits, X‑rays, depositions held sufficient for probable cause under section 2‑402)
- Moscardini v. Neurosurg, S.C., 269 Ill. App.3d 329 (Ill. App. 1994) (interprets section 2‑402 with reference to section 2‑622; similar evidentiary purpose)
- Williams v. Medenica, 275 Ill. App.3d 269 (Ill. App. 1995) (physician affidavit creating honest and strong suspicion satisfies section 2‑402)
- Coley v. St. Bernard’s Hosp., 281 Ill. App.3d 587 (Ill. App. 1996) (probable cause standard is low and not equivalent to summary judgment or prima facie proof)
- Addison Ins. Co. v. Fay, 232 Ill.2d 446 (Ill. 2009) (de novo review applies when only documentary evidence is considered)
- Jackson‑Baker v. Immesoete, 337 Ill. App.3d 1090 (Ill. App. 2003) (gives deference to trial court only when live testimony and credibility determinations are made)