Williams v. Athletico, Ltd, 74 N.E.3d 1047

On Oct. 4, 2013, high‑school player Drew Williams suffered a significant on‑field collision and continued playing; later in the game he exhibited signs (dazed, seizure) and sustained catastrophic brain injury.
Plaintiffs sued Athletico, ARC, and athletic trainer Albert (Wojciech) Buzun for negligence alleging failure to assess/evaluate/recognize concussion and head trauma.
Defendants moved to dismiss under section 2‑619 arguing the claims sound in "healing art malpractice" and plaintiffs failed to attach the section 2‑622 affidavit/report required for medical‑malpractice actions.
The trial court denied dismissal but certified three Rule 308 questions about (1) whether a 2‑622 certificate is required against athletic trainers, (2) whether it’s required for alleged failure to evaluate for concussion, and (3) whether the certifying health professional must be in the same profession/license class as the defendant.
The appellate court reframed the first two questions into a single question and answered: yes, 2‑622 applies; plaintiffs must be given a reasonable opportunity to comply.
The court answered the third question no: the section 2‑622 report for "all other defendants" must be authored by a physician licensed to practice medicine in all its branches (not an athletic trainer with the same license class).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does the complaint against licensed athletic trainers for failing to assess/evaluate/recognize concussion sound in "healing art malpractice" such that §2‑622 affidavit/report is required?	Williams: claims are ordinary negligence for failure to perform contracted tasks (no medical judgment); §2‑622 not required.	Athletico/ARC/Buzun: athletic trainers are licensed professionals; assessing/evaluating concussions involves medical judgment and specialized skill beyond a lay juror, so §2‑622 applies.	Held: yes. The court applies Jackson/Lyon factors and finds the duty, medical judgment, and likely need for expert proof mean §2‑622 applies; plaintiffs must be allowed to cure.
If §2‑622 applies, must the reviewing health professional who prepares the written report be in the same profession/class of license as the defendant athletic trainer?	Williams: not argued (plaintiffs accepted statutory scheme).	Defendants: contend the report should come from an athletic trainer or a physician tailored to athletic training because standard‑of‑care review requires same‑profession expertise.	Held: no. Statute requires that for "all other defendants" the report come from a physician licensed to practice medicine in all its branches; requiring same‑profession reports would conflict with the statute.

De Bouse v. Bayer AG, 235 Ill. 2d 544 (procedural standards for Rule 308 interlocutory appeals)
Jackson v. Chicago Classic Janitorial & Cleaning Serv., 355 Ill. App. 3d 906 (2005) (three‑factor test to decide whether claim sounds in healing‑art malpractice)
Lyon v. Hasbro Indus., 156 Ill. App. 3d 649 (1987) (definition of "healing art" and when medical judgment is implicated)
Advincula v. United Blood Servs., 176 Ill. 2d 1 (standard that professional‑negligence cases generally require expert proof of standard of care)
Studt v. Sherman Health Sys., 2011 IL 108182 (Illinois Supreme Court on requirement of expert proof in professional negligence)
Kramer v. Milner, 265 Ill. App. 3d 875 (1994) (failure‑to‑diagnose analogy for professional liability)