Lawler v. The University of Chicago Medical Center
104 N.E.3d 1090
| Ill. | 2017Background
- Jill Prusak timely filed a medical-malpractice complaint on August 4, 2011 alleging negligent ophthalmologic care from Nov. 5, 2007 through July 2009.
- Prusak discovered CNS lymphoma on August 7, 2009; the discovery (two-year) limitations period was therefore triggered and the original complaint was timely.
- Prusak died on November 24, 2013 (after the four-year repose period that began in July 2009 had run). Her daughter Sheri Lawler substituted as plaintiff and filed an amended complaint on April 11, 2014 adding wrongful-death counts based on the same alleged malpractice.
- Defendants moved to dismiss the wrongful-death counts under section 2-619(a)(5), arguing the four-year medical-malpractice statute of repose barred any wrongful-death claim accruing after that repose period.
- The trial court granted dismissal; the appellate court reversed, and the Illinois Supreme Court affirmed the appellate court, holding the amendment related back under section 2-616(b).
Issues
| Issue | Lawler's Argument | Defendants' Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an amended wrongful-death claim that accrued after the 4-year medical-malpractice repose can relate back to a timely-filed original malpractice complaint under 735 ILCS 5/2-616(b) | Relation back applies; original complaint was timely and the wrongful-death claim arises from the same transaction or occurrence, so the amendment is not barred by lapse of time | The 4-year statute of repose "extinguished" any wrongful-death cause of action that accrued after repose expired; relation back cannot revive a claim that did not exist before repose ran | Held for Lawler: relation back applies; the wrongful-death counts were not time-barred because the amendment related back to the timely original complaint |
| Whether the relation back statute improperly conflicts with or creates an exception to the statute of repose | Relation back is a procedural rule governing amendments and operates where its requirements are met; it does not conflict with the repose statute | Relation back would impermissibly undermine the repose policy and create an unstated exception to repose | Held for Lawler: no conflict; statutes construed as compatible — relation back governs amendments to pending complaints and does not negate repose for standalone late-filed claims |
| Whether concerns about notice/prejudice (traditionally tied to limitations) are irrelevant to repose in relation-back analysis | Notice/prejudice considerations relevant because the relation-back test focuses on whether the defendant was alerted to the transaction or occurrence within the original filing period | Notice/prejudice are inapposite to repose, which extinguishes rights regardless of notice | Held for Lawler: references to notice/prejudice are appropriate to relation-back analysis; relation back statute explicitly covers amendments despite lapse of time under any statute |
| Whether precedent (Evanston Ins., Real) forecloses relation back when cause of action accrued after repose | Relation-back is distinguishable; prior cases did not present an amendment to a pending timely complaint and therefore do not control | Prior cases show repose extinguishes claims and prevent plaintiffs from evading repose | Held for Lawler: prior cases are distinguishable and do not bar application of relation back in these circumstances |
Key Cases Cited
- Zeh v. Wheeler, 111 Ill. 2d 266 (explaining the same-transaction-or-occurrence relation-back standard)
- Boatmen’s National Bank of Belleville v. Direct Lines, Inc., 167 Ill. 2d 88 (relation-back two‑part test: timely original pleading and same transaction/occurrence)
- Bryson v. News America Publications, Inc., 174 Ill. 2d 77 (liberal construction of relation back to resolve cases on the merits)
- Anderson v. Wagner, 79 Ill. 2d 295 (background on discovery rule and rationale for repose)
- Hayes v. Mercy Hospital & Medical Ctr., 136 Ill. 2d 450 (policy reasons for medical-malpractice statute of repose)
- Sompolski v. Miller, 239 Ill. App. 3d 1087 (appellate decision permitting wrongful-death amendment to relate back)
- Avakian v. Chulengarian, 328 Ill. App. 3d 147 (appellate decision allowing malpractice-related amendments to relate back)
- Sisson v. Lhowe, 954 N.E.2d 1115 (Mass. SJC: allowed timely malpractice complaint to be amended to add wrongful death after repose expired)
- Wesley Chapel Foot & Ankle Ctr., LLC v. Johnson, 650 S.E.2d 387 (Ga. Ct. App.: similar holding allowing relation-back of wrongful-death claim)