DEPT. OF FINANCIAL v. Walgreen Co.
361 Ill. Dec. 186
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2012Background
- Petitioner issued three subpoenas on July 1, 2010 for all incident reports of medication error involving three Walgreens pharmacists.
- Walgreen moved to dismiss under 2-619(a), asserting privilege under the Patient Safety Act and the Medical Studies Act.
- Walgreens maintained STARS reports in a confidential system, transmitted to PSOs as patient safety work product.
- Petitioner argued subpoenas could reach incident reports outside STARS and questioned applicability of the Medical Studies Act to pharmacies.
- Circuit court granted the motion to dismiss, ruling STARS reports were privileged and that the Medical Studies Act applied to pharmacies; petitioner appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the Patient Safety Act prohibit disclosure of incident reports documenting medication error? | Petitioner argues the Act does not prohibit seeking disclosure of all incident reports. | Walgreen contends STARS reports are patient safety work product and thus privileged. | Yes; STARS reports are privileged patient safety work product under the Act. |
| Are all Walgreens incident reports necessarily privileged patient safety work product? | Petitioner contends records could exist outside STARS and may not be privileged. | Walgreen asserts only STARS reports exist as incident reports of medication error. | The evidence shows the only incident reports are STARS reports, which are privileged. |
| Does the Medical Studies Act apply to pharmacies? | Petitioner argues the Act does apply to pharmacies. | Walgreen argues the Act provides privilege for medical studies applicable to its context. | No; the Medical Studies Act does not apply to pharmacies. |
| Was petitioner entitled to further discovery or continuance to respond to the motion to dismiss? | Petitioner sought more discovery to challenge the privilege determination. | Walgreen maintains no continuance was requested, so Rule 191(b) forfeiture applies. | Petitioner forfeited the argument; discovery would not cure the defects. |
Key Cases Cited
- Krautsack v. Anderson, 223 Ill. 2d 541 (2006) (statutory interpretation presumption against reading exceptions into clear text)
- People v. Jamison, 229 Ill. 2d 184 (2008) (plain meaning governs; avoid unavailable exceptions)
- Taylor v. Pekin Insurance Co., 231 Ill. 2d 390 (2008) (plain-language interpretation of statutes; avoid extrinsic limitations)
- Kedzie & 103rd Currency Exchange, Inc. v. Hodge, 156 Ill. 2d 112 (1993) (standard for appellate review of dismissal under 2-619)