Ulm v. Memorial Medical Center
964 N.E.2d 632
Ill. App. Ct.2012Background
- Ulm sued Memorial Medical Center in March 2007 for retaliatory discharge, Whistleblower Act violation, intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress, and negligent supervision/training.
- Ulm, after 23 years, was the operations manager of the health information management department and was discharged on June 21, 2006.
- Her department certified medical records released under subpoena; after director termination in 2005, Ulm assumed certification responsibility.
- In 2005-2006 Ulm raised concerns about a new electronic records system allegedly noncompliant with legal and accreditation standards.
- Following internal disagreements, Ulm was allegedly subjected to retaliatory actions and ultimately fired after a meeting was canceled.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for Memorial on all counts in May 2011; Ulm appeals.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether retaliatory discharge requires a public-policy violation | Ulm contends discharge violated public policy. | Memorial argues no clearly mandated public policy was violated. | No genuine public-policy violation; summary judgment for Memorial affirmed. |
| Whether firing for refusing to certify records violated the Whistleblower Act | Ulm claims she refused to certify potentially noncompliant records and was retaliated against. | No law would have been violated by certification; no Act violation proved. | Whistleblower Act not violated; summary judgment affirmed. |
| Whether the IIED claim survives | Ulm asserts extreme and outrageous conduct by Memorial. | Conduct was not extreme or outrageous given employment context. | IIED not established; summary judgment affirmed. |
| Whether NIED and negligent supervision/train conduct are preempted by Workers' Compensation Act | Claims are not preempted; injuries occurred outside purely accidental scope. | Claims preempted; damages limited to workers' compensation. | Preemption upheld; summary judgment affirmed. |
| Whether preemption was forfeited or barred by laches | Defense of preemption was not properly raised timely and prejudiced Ulm. | Court properly allowed amendment; no prejudice shown. | No reversible error; preemption defense properly considered. |
Key Cases Cited
- Turner v. Memorial Medical Center, 233 Ill.2d 494 (2009) (at-will employment; retaliatory discharge framework)
- Palmateer v. International Harvester Co., 85 Ill.2d 124 (1981) (public policy limits on retaliatory discharge; citizen crime-fighter concept)
- Milton v. Illinois Bell Telephone Co., 101 Ill.App.3d 75 (1981) (employer coercion to commit crime as extreme conduct)
- Hayes v. Illinois Power Co., 225 Ill.App.3d 819 (1992) (extreme and outrageous conduct standard in IIED)
- Public Finance Corp. v. Davis, 66 Ill.2d 85 (1976) (employment-employer duties within at-will context; outrageous standard)
- Reilly v. Wyeth, 377 Ill.App.3d 20 (2007) (outcry on employment-relationship conduct requirements)
- Lewis v. School District #70, 523 F.3d 730 (7th Cir. 2008) (employment-relations sensitivities; limits on outrageous conduct in workplace)