Foster v. Hillsboro Area Hospital, Inc.
2016 IL App (5th) 150055
Ill. App. Ct.2016Background
- Danny and Kathleen Foster sued multiple medical providers and entities after Danny suffered a perforated gastric ulcer that was not diagnosed at Hillsboro Area Hospital; suit filed in Madison County.
- The principal events (treatment, CT scan) occurred in Montgomery and Sangamon Counties; defendants and witnesses are spread across multiple counties (Madison, Montgomery, Sangamon, Du Page, Michigan entity).
- Most defendants (except Dr. Wynn and Clinical Radiologists) moved to transfer the case to Montgomery County under intrastate forum non conveniens; trial court denied transfer.
- Defendants argued Montgomery County was more convenient because care occurred there and key witnesses/residents were local; plaintiffs argued defendants failed to show the chosen forum was inconvenient and public/private factors did not strongly favor transfer.
- The trial court made detailed findings on private- and public-interest factors and declined to disturb plaintiffs’ forum; defendants obtained permissive appeal and the appellate court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court abused discretion in denying intrastate forum non conveniens transfer | Foster: defendants failed to meet burden to show Madison County is inconvenient and that Montgomery County is more convenient for all parties | Defendants: most operative events/witnesses are in Montgomery County so transfer is warranted | Affirmed — trial court did not abuse discretion; defendants did not show balance of factors strongly favored transfer |
| Level of deference to plaintiffs’ chosen forum | Plaintiffs: chosen forum deserves deference even if not current residence | Defendants: less deference because plaintiffs did not reside in Madison County and events occurred elsewhere | Court: plaintiffs’ choice entitled to somewhat less deference but still receives deference; not displaced here |
| Weight of private-interest factors (convenience, access to evidence, witness attendance) | Foster: records and witnesses are accessible; travel distances short; modern tech reduces inconvenience | Defendants: affidavits show hardship for physicians and hospital staff; easier to view premises in Montgomery | Court: private factors do not strongly favor transfer — travel distances small, records are easily shared, affidavits were conclusory |
| Weight of public-interest factors (localized controversy, jury burden, docket congestion) | Foster: Madison County has real connections (resident defendants, services by defendant entities) and docket not shown to be prohibitive | Defendants: controversy localized to Montgomery; residents there have greater interest; Madison docket more congested | Court: public factors do not strongly favor transfer — controversy not solely localized, Madison has legitimate interests, no showing transfer would relieve congestion |
Key Cases Cited
- Langenhorst v. Norfolk Southern Ry. Co., 219 Ill. 2d 430 (Ill. 2006) (standards and deference for intrastate forum non conveniens)
- First America Bank v. Guerine, 198 Ill. 2d 511 (Ill. 2002) (forum non conveniens doctrine and heavy deference to plaintiff’s forum choice)
- Purtill v. Hess, 111 Ill. 2d 229 (Ill. 1986) (similar-locality rule for medical standard of care)
- Griffith v. Mitsubishi Aircraft Int’l, Inc., 136 Ill. 2d 101 (Ill. 1990) (distance between forums and convenience analysis)
- Kwasniewski v. Schaid, 153 Ill. 2d 550 (Ill. 1992) (defendants cannot claim inconvenience of their own home forum)
- Hackl v. Advocate Health & Hospitals Corp., 382 Ill. App. 3d 442 (Ill. App. Ct. 2008) (jury view rarely necessary in medical negligence cases)