Mitsias v. I-Flow Corp.
355 Ill. Dec. 66
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2011Background
- In 2001, Mitsias underwent shoulder surgery with a Marcaine pain pump, later diagnosed with glenohumeral chondrolysis.
- Mitsias filed a medical malpractice suit against Dr. Levin in 2003, without asserting product-liability claims at that time.
- During discovery in 2006–2007, expert Romeo testified that pain pumps could be linked to cartilage loss and later hinted at literature supporting such a link.
- Mitsias nonsuited the malpractice action in 2008 and refiled in 2009, adding strict-liability and negligence product-liability claims against the pump manufacturers.
- Product-liability defendants moved to dismiss as untimely under 735 ILCS 5/13-213(d); the trial court granted the motions.
- The appellate court reversed and remanded, adopting a delayed-discovery approach tolling the product-liability claim until the second deposition (2007) when the link to pain pumps became discoverable.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| How the discovery rule applies to multiple potential causes | Mitsias tolls second claim until discoverable; one source known does not bar others | Once injured, inquiry duty runs to all potential sources; discovery triggers for all claims | tolling allowed for undiscoverable second source; not barred until discoverable |
| Whether the relevant limitations period began by 2003 or was tolled until 2007 | Period began when scientifically discoverable link appeared; 2007 date controls | Period began in 2003 with initial malpractice filing, or at latest by 2006 deposition | Period tolled until discoverability of product linkage in 2007; not time-barred |
| Relation to 13-213(d) – discovery rule vs repose implications | Discovery rule tailored to not bar untimely-but-reasonable claims; not convert to a fixed repose | Treat as broad discovery for all sources; risks undermining statute | Discovery rule aligned with statute; does not convert two-year window into a general repose |
Key Cases Cited
- Knox College v. Celotex Corp., 88 Ill.2d 407 (1982) (discovery rule—know injury and its wrongful cause)
- Nolan v. Johns-Manville Asbestos, 85 Ill.2d 161 (1981) (diligence and wrongful-causation knowledge trigger)
- Kubrick v. United States, 444 U.S. 111 (1979) (discovery governed by discoverability of claim; inability to know may toll)
- Golla v. General Motors Corp., 167 Ill.2d 353 (1995) (discovery rule applied to product liability contexts)
- Hoffman v. Orthopedic Systems, Inc., 327 Ill.App.3d 1004 (2002) (diligent inquiry affects timeliness despite one source known)
- McCormick v. Uppuluri, 250 Ill.App.3d 386 (1993) (lack of diligence can bar later product-liability claims)
- Wells v. Travis, 284 Ill.App.3d 282 (1996) (continued investigation may affect timeliness when initial expert opinions shift)
- Fox v. Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc., 35 Cal.4th 797 (2005) (delayed discovery rule: accrual deferred until reasonable investigation would reveal basis)