Moon v. Rhode
2016 IL 119572
| Ill. | 2017Background
- Kathryn Moon (age 90) underwent surgery and post-op CT scans in May 2009; she deteriorated and died on May 29, 2009. A radiologist, Dr. Rhode, read CTs on May 24, 2009.
- Randall Moon (son and executor) obtained Kathryn’s records in March 2010. He retained consultants; an initial consultant provided an oral opinion in April 2011 and a written report May 2, 2011, criticizing other treating surgeons. Moon sued those surgeons May 2011.
- In February 2013 a radiology consultant reviewed the 2009 CTs and opined Dr. Rhode missed findings that contributed to Kathryn’s death. Moon then filed this wrongful-death and survival suit against Dr. Rhode and her employer March 18, 2013.
- Defendants moved to dismiss under section 2-619(a)(5), arguing the two-year statute (Wrongful Death Act §2(c) and medical-malpractice limitations 735 ILCS 5/13-212(a)) ran from the date of death; plaintiff’s suit was therefore untimely.
- Trial court dismissed; appellate majority affirmed, holding the discovery rule ( §13-212(a)) did not apply to wrongful-death/survival actions and that Moon’s claims were time-barred. This Court granted review.
- The Supreme Court reversed and remanded, holding the medical-malpractice discovery rule applies to wrongful-death and survival claims and that whether Moon timely filed is a factual question not resolved as a matter of law on the record.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §13-212(a)’s discovery rule applies to wrongful-death claims based on medical malpractice | Moon: the two-year malpractice period begins when claimant knows (or should know) of the death and also that it was wrongfully caused | Rhode: limitations run from decedent’s date of death (Wrongful Death Act §2(c)); discovery of wrongful conduct not required | Court: §13-212(a) applies; statute runs when claimant knows or should know of the death and that it was wrongfully caused (follow Witherell interpretation) |
| Whether the discovery rule applies to Survival Act claims | Moon: representative steps into decedent’s shoes; discovery rule should govern when decedent was incapacitated before death | Rhode: limitations should be measured by date decedent would have known (per Advincula) | Court: discovery rule applies to survival claims here; representative benefits from discovery rule where decedent could not discover wrongdoing before death |
| Whether the Wrongful Death Act §2(c) (2-year from death) controls over §13-212(a) | Moon: §13-212(a) is the more specific malpractice statute and controls; §2(c) would be superfluous if controlling | Rhode: §2(c) plainly states two years after death; it should govern wrongful-death suits | Court: §13-212(a) governs malpractice-based wrongful-death actions because it is more specific and contains a 4-year repose provision; §2(c) does not displace it |
| Whether Moon’s complaint was untimely as a matter of law | Moon: he filed within two years of first consultant’s report (May 2011); factual dispute exists about when he was on notice | Rhode: Moon had notice earlier (at death, when records received, or via deposition statements) and suit is untimely | Court: timing is a factual question; on this record cannot conclude as a matter of law that limitations expired—remand for factual determination |
Key Cases Cited
- Rozny v. Marnul, 43 Ill.2d 54 (1969) (articulated purpose and balancing behind the discovery rule)
- Witherell v. Weimer, 85 Ill.2d 146 (1981) (statute begins to run when plaintiff knows or reasonably should know of injury and that it was wrongfully caused)
- Advincula v. United Blood Servs., 176 Ill.2d 1 (1996) (survival actions: representative succeeds to decedent’s accrual dates; limitations may be measured by decedent’s discovery when applicable)
- Knox College v. Celotex Corp., 88 Ill.2d 407 (1981) (question of when plaintiff was on notice is typically factual; remand required when facts do not permit a single legal conclusion)
- Nolan v. Johns-Manville Asbestos, 85 Ill.2d 161 (1981) (refused to decide limitations start as matter of law where knowledge and causation are disputed; factual inquiry required)