Holloway v. Chicago Heart & Vascular Consultants, Ltd.
2017 IL App (1st) 160315
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2017Background
- Agnes Holloway, as special administrator of her husband Byron Byars’ estate, filed a pro se wrongful-death/medical-negligence complaint after Byars died from cardiac tamponade following a venogram.
- Holloway filed the complaint on the statute-of-limitations deadline after failing to secure counsel; she was appointed special administrator the same day and served defendants.
- Holloway did not attach a §2-622 health-professional affidavit or report when she filed; she attempted to retain counsel afterward and eventually obtained counsel before the court ruled.
- Defendants moved to dismiss under section 2-619, arguing (1) the pro se filing was a nullity under the unauthorized-practice-of-law/nullity rule because the suit was brought in a representative capacity, and (2) Holloway failed to comply with §2-622.
- The trial court granted dismissal with prejudice, finding the complaint a nullity and that Holloway had not shown good cause to excuse or extend the §2-622 requirement.
- The appellate court reversed and remanded, holding the nullity rule was improperly applied and the trial court abused its discretion by refusing to allow amendment/extra time to comply with §2-622 given Holloway’s demonstrated diligence and lack of prejudice to defendants.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether pro se filing by special administrator is a nullity under the unauthorized-practice-of-law rule | Holloway argued she filed pro se only to preserve the statute of limitations and did not engage in general prosecution; courts should not apply nullity where no prejudice or harm results | Defendants argued a layperson cannot represent an estate; filing in a representative capacity by a nonlawyer is void ab initio and warrants dismissal | Court held nullity rule should not apply given no prejudice, Holloway’s limited acts to preserve claims, and the harshness of the sanction; reversal of dismissal on this ground |
| Whether failure to attach a §2‑622 health‑professional affidavit/report warranted dismissal with prejudice | Holloway argued she diligently sought counsel and should be allowed time to secure and file the §2‑622 report; equitable relief and liberal amendment rules support permitting amendment | Defendants argued mandatory §2‑622 compliance and Holloway’s failure to seek the specific 90‑day affidavit/extension justified dismissal | Court held §2‑622 is a pleading requirement to be liberally construed; trial court abused discretion in denying leave to amend/good-cause extension given plaintiff’s diligence and absence of prejudice |
| Whether dismissal with prejudice was appropriate and whether alternative remedies existed | Holloway argued dismissal was excessive and alternative relief (permit counsel to amend complaint and file §2‑622 report) was available | Defendants supported dismissal as final remedy for noncompliance and for nullity | Court held alternative remedies (allow amendment/extension) existed and should have been used; dismissal with prejudice reversed |
Key Cases Cited
- Applebaum v. Rush University Medical Center, 231 Ill. 2d 429 (supreme court of Illinois) (nullity rule and limits on unauthorized practice of law)
- Colmar, Ltd. v. Fremantlemedia North America, Inc., 344 Ill. App. 3d 977 (appellate court) (general rule treating unauthorized-representation filings as nullities)
- Pratt-Holdampf v. Trinity Medical Center, 338 Ill. App. 3d 1079 (appellate court) (standard of review for de novo legal questions)
- Schroeder v. Northwest Community Hospital, 371 Ill. App. 3d 584 (appellate court) (§2‑622 is a screening/pleading requirement, to deter frivolous claims)
- Walter v. Hill, 156 Ill. App. 3d 708 (appellate court) (§2‑622 imposes a meritoriousness requirement; courts should not use it as a substantive bar)
- Grove v. Carle Foundation Hospital, 364 Ill. App. 3d 412 (appellate court) (medical-malpractice plaintiffs afforded liberal amendment opportunities)
- Vision Point of Sale, Inc. v. Haas, 226 Ill. 2d 334 (supreme court of Illinois) (Rule 183/good cause standard for enlarging time)