Holzrichter v. Yorath
987 N.E.2d 1
Ill. App. Ct.2013Background
- Plaintiff Scott Holzrichter, pro se, sues numerous defendants including Dr. Yorath and RFU/Scholl, alleging medical battery, malpractice, and antitrust claims arising from a Z scarf osteotomy in Feb. 2003.
- Plaintiff signed a consent form for the bunionectomy that described bone cutting but did not expressly prohibit tendon cutting; plaintiff later claimed tendon cutting exceeded consent.
- During preoperative discussions, plaintiff objected to cutting the extensor hallucis brevis tendon, but the surgery proceeded with tendon-related steps.
- The circuit court dismissed multiple counts for failure to comply with 2-622, and later summary judgment on medical battery against Yorath was granted; on appeal, the court affirmed.
- The court analyzed whether Section 2-622 requires an expert health professional’s report for medical battery, and whether consent precludes battery or failure to warn theories; it also addressed fraudulent concealment, antitrust, and mandamus claims and their dismissals.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether summary judgment on medical battery was proper | Holzrichter contends he did not authorize tendon cutting and that the claim should go to trial | Yorath argues the consent covers the procedure and expert testimony is required to assess deviation | Yes; summary judgment affirmed on medical battery; expert testimony required to prove substantial deviation from consent is lacking here |
| Whether 2-622 applies to medical battery claims | 2-622 should allow plaintiff to proceed without a physician's report | 2-622 requires an affidavit and written report from a health professional for medical malpractice-type claims | Yes; 2-622 applies; dismissal with prejudice of related counts proper for failure to comply |
| Whether fraudulent concealment was properly dismissed | Concealment of a material fact justified the claim | No concealment occurred; claim subsumed by other theories | Yes; dismissed for failure to plead all elements of fraudulent misrepresentation/concealment |
| Whether antitrust claims against AMA/PMAs were properly dismissed | AMA and PMAs engaged in conspiracy to suppress his malpractice claims | Conclusory allegations insufficient to plead antitrust injury or conspiracy | Yes; counts IV, X, XI dismissed with prejudice |
| Whether mandamus claim against IDPR was properly dismissed | IDPR must be compelled to proceed under contested-case provisions | IDPR proceedings discretionary; private citizen lacks standing to mandate action | Yes; mandamus claim properly dismissed; no clear right to mandated contested-case relief |
Key Cases Cited
- Lane v. Anderson, 345 Ill. App. 3d 256 (2004) (expert testimony not always required for battery if implicit in treatment)
- Schindel v. Albany Medical Corp., 252 Ill. App. 3d 389 (1993) (medical judgment requires expert testimony for standard of care; implied part of treatment needs expert)
- Wasielewski v. Gilligan, 189 Ill. App. 3d 945 (1989) (opportunity to provide physician’s report; limits on extensions as to compliance with 2-622)
- Bloom v. Guth, 164 Ill. App. 3d 475 (1987) (2-622 applies to medical malpractice claims regardless of label; broad pleading rule)
- Holzrichter v. County of Cook, 231 Ill. App. 3d 256 (1992) (antitrust claim against AMA/PMAs dismissed for lack of injury to market or specific acts)