Meherg v. Rush University Medical Center
2025 IL App (1st) 231102-U
Ill. App. Ct.2025Background
- Anthony Jacob Meherg, a minor, through his mother Angela Prieto, sued Rush University Medical Center (Rush) for alleged perinatal injuries caused by medical negligence during his 2014 birth.
- Central to the dispute was plaintiff's request for comprehensive audit trail and revision history data from Prieto’s and Anthony’s electronic health records (EHRs).
- Over a multi-year discovery process, Rush produced EHRs and access logs in various formats but did not provide a word-for-word revision log, claiming their systems could not generate such a log for records maintained during the relevant period.
- The trial court initially sanctioned Rush by striking its defenses and later, after Illinois Supreme Court intervention, held Rush in "friendly contempt" and imposed a $50 penalty, staying proceedings pending appeal.
- On appeal, the primary issue was whether Rush’s productions were compliant with the court’s discovery orders and if the contempt finding was justified.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Failure to produce full EHR revision history | Rush must produce a word-for-word revision log as required by law | Already produced all versions; system cannot generate such a log | Rush produced all available; no evidence such log possible |
| Failure to produce original glucose test | Original test results and audit data not fully produced | Test records, including original and revised, already produced | Rush produced originals; court erred |
| Failure to produce telephone encounter record | A specific March 14, 2014 encounter record was never produced | The disputed entry was in fact produced in earlier disclosures | Rush produced the record; court erred |
| Failure to produce Cerner system records | All medical records, not just EPIC system, requested and not produced | Prieto did not move to compel Cerner records; not raised earlier | Rush failed to produce; grounds for discovery violation |
Key Cases Cited
- 7-Eleven, Inc. v. Dar, 363 Ill. App. 3d 41 (order vacatur has effect of void order)
- Ostendorf v. International Harvester Co., 89 Ill. 2d 273 (party must object or produce responsive discovery or act as if it does not exist)
- Shimanovsky v. General Motors Corp., 181 Ill. 2d 112 (dismissal/default as sanction is drastic, reserved for willful misconduct)