Lawler v. The University of Chicago Medical Center
51 N.E.3d 1053
Ill. App. Ct.2016Background
- Decedent Jill Prusak timely filed a medical-malpractice complaint in August 2011 alleging misdiagnosis by ophthalmologist Dr. Jager and related providers; the complaint was within the 2-year limitations and 4-year repose periods of 735 ILCS 5/13-212(a).
- Defendants answered and discovery proceeded; Prusak disclosed recurrences of lymphoma and ocular lymphoma in interrogatory responses.
- Prusak died November 24, 2013 (after the four-year repose period ran). Her daughter, Sheri Lawler, obtained leave to amend and filed an amended complaint (April 2014) substituting as representative and adding wrongful-death counts (plus survival counts).
- Defendants moved to dismiss the wrongful-death counts under section 2-619(a)(5), arguing the 4-year medical-malpractice statute of repose barred the wrongful-death claims because they were added after repose had expired.
- The trial court dismissed the wrongful-death counts with prejudice, holding the relation-back doctrine did not save the wrongful-death claims; Lawler appealed.
- The appellate court reversed, holding the relation-back statute (735 ILCS 5/2-616(b)) permits the wrongful-death counts to relate back to Prusak’s timely original complaint and therefore are not barred by the 4-year repose.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the relation-back statute allows wrongful-death claims added after repose to relate back to a timely-filed malpractice complaint | Lawler: wrongful-death counts arise from same transaction as the original timely complaint; relation-back saves them because defendants had timely notice | Defendants: wrongful-death claims are a distinct cause; the medical-malpractice 4-year statute of repose is substantive and precludes relation-back; Hayes and related cases control | Relation-back applies; wrongful-death counts relate back to the original complaint and are not barred by the 4-year repose |
| Whether the Wrongful Death Act’s requirement that the decedent have had a right to sue at death bars the amended wrongful-death claim | Lawler: decedent had already filed a timely malpractice action before death, so the condition precedent was satisfied | Defendants: wrongful-death is a new action that must independently comply with repose; Real and Durham cited to support exclusion | Court: because Prusak had an active, timely malpractice suit at death, beneficiaries could pursue wrongful-death claims that relate back; Real/Durham inapposite where no timely suit existed at death |
Key Cases Cited
- Hayes v. Mercy Hospital & Medical Center, 136 Ill. 2d 450 (superseding interpretation of the medical-malpractice repose as broadly limiting actions against health-care providers)
- Zeh v. Wheeler, 111 Ill. 2d 266 (relation-back test focuses on whether amended claim grows out of same transaction or occurrence)
- Wyness v. Armstrong World Industries, Inc., 131 Ill. 2d 403 (distinguishing the injury that supports personal-injury suits from the death-based injury supporting wrongful-death suits)
- Sompolski v. Miller, 239 Ill. App. 3d 1087 (wrongful-death claim may relate back to decedent’s timely personal-injury complaint when both arise from same occurrence)
- Anderson v. Wagner, 79 Ill. 2d 295 (historical context for the malpractice-repose provision)
- Porter v. Decatur Memorial Hospital, 227 Ill. 2d 343 (assessing relation-back where events are close in time and subject matter)