Lawler v. University of Chicago Medical Center
2017 IL 120745
| Ill. | 2018Background
- Jill Prusak (decedent) timely filed a medical malpractice complaint on August 4, 2011, alleging negligent eye care between November 5, 2007 and July 2009 and diagnosis of central nervous system lymphoma on August 7, 2009.
- Prusak died on November 24, 2013; her daughter Sheri Lawler was substituted as plaintiff and filed an amended complaint on April 11, 2014 adding wrongful death and survival claims based on the same alleged malpractice.
- The statutory issue: the medical-malpractice statute of repose bars actions more than four years after the act or omission (735 ILCS 5/13-212(a)); the Wrongful Death Act gives a two-year limitations period measured from death (740 ILCS 180/2); the relation-back statute allows an amendment to relate to the date of a timely original pleading if it grows out of the same transaction or occurrence (735 ILCS 5/2-616(b)).
- Defendants moved under section 2-619(a)(5) to dismiss the wrongful death claim as time-barred by the four-year repose because the death and wrongful-death claim arose after the repose period expired.
- The circuit court dismissed the wrongful death claim; the appellate court reversed, holding the amended wrongful death claim related back to the timely original malpractice complaint; the Illinois Supreme Court affirmed the appellate court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the relation-back statute can preserve a wrongful-death claim that accrued after the four-year medical-malpractice statute of repose expired | Lawler: Yes — the wrongful-death claim relates back to the timely original complaint under 735 ILCS 5/2-616(b) because it arises from the same transaction or occurrence | Defendants: No — the repose "extinguished" any wrongful-death right before it accrued, so relation back cannot create or preserve it | Held: Yes — relation back applies; the amendment adding wrongful-death relates to the original timely complaint and is not time-barred by the repose |
| Whether the statute of repose conflicts with and controls over the relation-back statute | Lawler: Relation-back is a procedural rule that applies to amendments; no conflict when both are read as written | Defendants: Repose is the specific substantive limit and should prevail; legislature only provided fraudulent-concealment exception | Held: No conflict — statutes are reconcilable; relation-back governs amendments to pending timely complaints and does not improperly create an exception to repose |
| Whether concerns of notice/prejudice (typically tied to limitations rules) are irrelevant to repose in the relation-back analysis | Lawler: Notice/prejudice considerations (same transaction/occurrence test) are relevant to whether defendant was alerted to the claim | Defendants: These are limitations concerns and shouldn't affect repose application | Held: Notice/prejudice concepts are appropriate to relation-back analysis because the statute requires the amended claim to grow out of the same transaction or occurrence; relation-back statute applies to any time bar |
| Whether prior cases (Real v. Kim, Evanston Ins. Co.) bar relation-back here | Lawler: Those cases are distinguishable; neither involved an amendment to a pending timely complaint | Defendants: Those decisions support that repose cannot be circumvented | Held: Distinguishable — those cases did not present a relation-back amendment to a pending timely complaint, so they don’t preclude relation-back here |
Key Cases Cited
- Wyness v. Armstrong World Indus., 131 Ill.2d 403 (explains accrual of wrongful-death action and that cause is the wrongful act causing death)
- Anderson v. Wagner, 79 Ill.2d 295 (discusses purpose of repose to curtail long-tail malpractice exposure)
- Hayes v. Mercy Hosp. & Med. Ctr., 136 Ill.2d 450 (statutory repose policy and purpose)
- Zeh v. Wheeler, 111 Ill.2d 266 (interpretation and legislative history of relation-back statute; same transaction or occurrence test)
- Orlak v. Loyola Univ. Health Sys., 228 Ill.2d 1 (statutory construction principles; repose vs. discovery rule discussion)
- Boatmen’s Nat’l Bank of Belleville v. Direct Lines, Inc., 167 Ill.2d 88 (relation-back requirements explained)
- Bryson v. News Am. Publ’ns, Inc., 174 Ill.2d 77 (liberal construction of relation-back to resolve merits over form)
- Solon v. Midwest Med. Records Ass’n, 236 Ill.2d 433 (statutory interpretation rules; avoid absurd results)