Simpkins v. HSHS Medical Group, Inc.
2017 IL App (5th) 160478
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2017Background
- Judith Simpkins underwent lumbar surgeries by Dr. Nicholas Poulos; a Medtronic plate at L4-L5 was found displaced in April 2011 and pressing on the aorta.
- Dr. Poulos performed a revision fusion on May 13, 2011 at St. Elizabeth’s Hospital; postoperative nursing assessments documented progressive neurologic/vascular decline overnight.
- Early morning May 14, 2011, vascular surgeons diagnosed aortoiliac occlusion and performed emergent thromboembolectomy and repair; Judith suffered ischemia and permanent lower-extremity nerve injury.
- Plaintiffs sued in April 2013 for medical negligence against Dr. Poulos, his group, the Hospital Sisters Health System, and St. Elizabeth’s Hospital; original complaint alleged delayed revision surgery by Dr. Poulos caused the injury and asserted respondeat superior against the Hospital.
- After discovery (including depositions of Dr. Poulos and an ICU nurse), plaintiffs amended to add Count IV alleging direct negligence by Hospital personnel (ICU nurses) for failing to adequately assess/monitor/document/report postoperative neurovascular deterioration and failing to request a vascular consult sooner.
- The trial court dismissed Count IV insofar as it alleged negligence by ICU nurses as time-barred; the appellate court reversed, holding the amended allegations related back to the timely original complaint and remanding for further proceedings (except for claims against the Hospital for Poulos’s conduct, previously dismissed by summary judgment).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Count IV (alleging direct negligence by Hospital ICU personnel) relates back to the timely original complaint under §2-616(b) (relation-back) | Amended allegations grew out of the same transaction/occurrence (postoperative neurovascular compromise after May 13 surgery) and thus relate back; Hospital had notice via discovery and records | The allegations against ICU nurses are new, independent claims that do not arise from the same transaction and are barred by the statute of limitations/statute of repose | Reversed dismissal: allegations sufficiently close in time, subject matter, and injury to relate back; Hospital had adequate notice — Count IV reinstated (except respondeat superior claims for Poulos already dismissed) |
| Whether the trial court should admonish or direct discovery practices and condemn boilerplate/dump-truck responses in this record | Plaintiffs criticized Hospital’s “general” and boilerplate objections, large undirected document productions, and failure to identify witnesses/pages, arguing these impede discovery and harmed plaintiff’s ability to timely amend | Hospital defended its responses in discovery (implicitly) but the court treated these practices as improper | Appellate court rebuked such boilerplate/general objections and “dump truck” production; emphasized strict adherence to Supreme Court discovery rules and discouraged those practices (though one concurring justice warned against intruding on trial court discretion in discovery enforcement) |
Key Cases Cited
- Porter v. Decatur Memorial Hospital, 227 Ill. 2d 343 (Illinois 2008) (relation-back and liberal construction of pleadings to resolve cases on merits)
- Boatmen’s Nat’l Bank of Belleville v. Direct Lines, Inc., 167 Ill. 2d 88 (Illinois 1995) (relation-back doctrine purpose and liberal construction)
- Simmons v. Hendricks, 32 Ill. 2d 489 (Illinois 1965) (defendant not prejudiced if on notice of facts forming basis of claim)
- In re Olympia Brewing Co. Sec. Litig., 612 F. Supp. 1370 (N.D. Ill. 1985) (sufficiently-close-relationship test for relation-back)
- Buehler v. Whalen, 70 Ill. 2d 51 (Illinois 1977) (discovery obligations and trial court discretion on discovery matters)