Owens v. VHS Acqusition Subsidiary Number 3
2017 IL App (1st) 161709
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2017Background
- Owens sued Weiss Hospital and two ER physicians within the statute of limitations for care given in December 2011; he named Dr. Ahmed Raziuddin based on hospital records.
- Service difficulties and a later affidavit by Raziuddin stated he did not treat Owens and that Dr. Seema Elahi was the treating physician; plaintiff then amended to add Elahi after the limitations period.
- Elahi moved to dismiss under the statute of limitations (735 ILCS 5/13-212(a)) and §2-619, arguing the amended complaint did not relate back because there was no “mistake” as to her identity and she had no notice during the limitations period.
- The trial court denied dismissal, certified a Rule 308 question about relation-back when the new defendant’s signature appears in medical records and the new defendant lacked actual knowledge, and the appellate court accepted interlocutory review.
- The appellate court held: (1) §2-616(d) can apply even if the added defendant’s (handwritten/illegible) name/signature appears in medical records; the focus is on what the prospective defendant knew or should have known, not plaintiff’s knowledge; and (2) a defendant may be charged with constructive notice (shared counsel, identity of interest, or insurer/claims handler), but the record here is insufficient to decide whether constructive notice existed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an amended complaint adding a new defendant after the statute of limitations relates back under §2-616(d) when the new defendant’s signature appears in plaintiff’s medical records | Owens: he mistakenly named Raziuddin because hospital records misidentified the treating doctor; amendment relates back because the suit targeted the treating physician | Elahi: presence of her signature in records (and a prescription) put plaintiff on notice; no identity mistake | Relation-back can apply despite the new defendant’s (handwritten/illegible) name/signature in records; the correct inquiry is what the prospective defendant knew or should have known, not what plaintiff knew. |
| Whether the added defendant received sufficient notice under §2-616(d) within the limitations period | Owens: Elahi had constructive notice (shared counsel, employer relationship, insurer/claims handler) so she was not prejudiced and knew or should have known she would be sued but for a mistake | Elahi: she had no actual notice during the limitations period and was prejudiced by late addition | A defendant may be deemed to have constructive notice via shared counsel, identity of interest with an original defendant, or insurer/claims handler; but here the record is factually undeveloped, so the trial court must determine whether constructive notice existed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Krupski v. Costa Crociere S.p.A., 560 U.S. 538 (U.S. 2010) (relation-back inquiry focuses on what the prospective defendant knew or should have known, not plaintiff's knowledge)
- Morr-Fitz, Inc. v. Blagojevich, 231 Ill. 2d 474 (Ill. 2008) (§2-619 dismissal standard — accept well-pleaded facts and inferences)
- DeLuna v. Burciaga, 223 Ill. 2d 49 (Ill. 2006) (affirmative matter may defeat claim on §2-619 motion)
- Solaia Technology, LLC v. Specialty Publishing Co., 221 Ill. 2d 558 (Ill. 2006) (de novo review of §2-619 dismissals)
- Compton v. Ubilluz, 351 Ill. App. 3d 223 (Ill. App. 2004) (legislative history and alignment of §2-616(d) with Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(c))
- Polites v. U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n, 361 Ill. App. 3d 76 (Ill. App. 2005) (constructive notice methods for relation-back: actual notice to party, notice to agent, or constructive notice via shared counsel/identity of interest/insurance handler)