Pierce v. Cherukuri
2022 IL App (1st) 210339-U
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2022Background
- Susan Pierce filed medical-malpractice claims in Cook County on behalf of her husband, Craig Pierce, alleging negligent dialysis care (April 2016) provided by Fresenius entities and Dr. Sudha Cherukuri in McDonough and Knox Counties that caused a stroke and severe disability.
- Defendants (Fresenius group and Dr. Cherukuri with other provider defendants) moved to transfer venue to McDonough County under the forum non conveniens doctrine and Illinois Supreme Court Rule 187, arguing the dispute and most witnesses were local to McDonough.
- The parties exchanged Rule 213 witness disclosures listing 70 potential witnesses located across multiple counties (6 in McDonough, 14 in Peoria, 44 in Cook, plus out-of-state witnesses); defendants submitted affidavits quantifying travel distances and costs for several local witnesses.
- Plaintiff emphasized Fresenius’s extensive Cook County presence (over 55 facilities) and post-stroke treatment of Craig in Cook County, arguing Cook was a proper forum and no other county had a dominant connection.
- The circuit court denied transfer after weighing private and public interest factors, concluding defendants failed to show the factors "strongly favor" transfer; defendants sought interlocutory review and this court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court abused discretion denying transfer under forum non conveniens | Pierce: Cook County is a proper forum; Fresenius has significant contacts in Cook and relevant witnesses/treatment occurred there | Defendants: McDonough is the more convenient forum; witnesses and the alleged negligence are local to McDonough; public and private factors strongly favor transfer | Affirmed — no abuse of discretion; defendants failed to show factors strongly favor transfer |
| Deference to plaintiff’s chosen forum | Pierce: Choice entitled to deference (though less if nonresident forum) | Defendants: Plaintiff’s nonresident choice deserves far less deference and court gave too much deference | Court applied reduced (but not zero) deference appropriately and did not err in placing deference in overall balance |
| Private-interest factors (convenience, witnesses, evidence, costs, view of premises) | Pierce: Witnesses and proof are scattered; Fresenius’s Cook ties and electronic records reduce inconvenience | Defendants: Most key witnesses and the alleged malpractice are local to McDonough; travel/time costs much greater for McDonough-area witnesses if tried in Cook | Court: Factors are mixed/neutral except slight support for transfer as to site view; overall private factors do not strongly favor transfer |
| Public-interest factors (congestion, local interest, jury burden) | Pierce: Cook County has an interest because Fresenius treats many Cook residents and post-stroke care occurred in Cook | Defendants: McDonough has stronger local interest and less congested docket; Cook citizens should not bear jury duty | Court: Congestion and local-interest factors favor McDonough but not strongly; Cook also has a legitimate interest — public factors do not strongly favor transfer |
Key Cases Cited
- Langenhorst v. Norfolk Southern Ry. Co., 219 Ill. 2d 430 (framework for abuse-of-discretion review in forum non conveniens)
- Fennell v. Illinois Central R.R. Co., 2012 IL 113812 (weight of plaintiff's forum choice; intrastate forum non conveniens principles)
- Dawdy v. Union Pacific R.R. Co., 207 Ill. 2d 167 (deference to plaintiff's forum is one factor in total balancing)
- First American Bank v. Guerine, 198 Ill. 2d 511 (plaintiff's forum choice generally entitled to deference)
- Vinson v. Allstate, 144 Ill. 2d 306 (forum non conveniens allows a court to decline jurisdiction where another forum is more appropriate)
- Quaid v. Baxter Healthcare Corp., 392 Ill. App. 3d 757 (witnesses scattered among forums weakens argument for transfer)
- Ammerman v. Raymond Corp., 379 Ill. App. 3d 878 (documentary evidence location less significant due to electronic records)
- Hackl v. Advocate Health & Hospitals Corp., 382 Ill. App. 3d 442 (local interest when defendant provides services in forum county)