Wilson v. Edward Hospital
2012 IL 112898
| Ill. | 2012Background
- Plaintiff Brandon Wilson sustained anoxic brain injury during surgery at Edward Hospital, allegedly due to doctors’ negligence.
- Plaintiffs alleged the doctors were agents of the hospital, making the hospital liable for their acts.
- Trial court granted partial summary judgment that the doctors were not the hospital’s actual agents, but found a question of fact as to apparent agency.
- Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the case and refiled, alleging the doctors as apparent agents of the hospital.
- Hospital movd to dismiss as barred by res judicata, citing finality of the prior actual-agency ruling and claim-splitting concerns.
- Appellate court certified and answered that actual and apparent agency are separate claims for res judicata and claim-splitting purposes; Illinois Supreme Court granted review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether res judicata bars the refilled action. | Wilson argues a single negligence claim remains, with evidence of apparent agency; prior ruling on actual agency does not bar apparent-agency claims. | Edward Hospital contends final judgment on actual agency bars all subsequent related claims, including apparent agency, under res judicata and claim-splitting rules. | No final bar; res judicata does not apply to apparent agency as a separate claim. |
| Whether actual agency and apparent agency are separate claims for res judicata purposes. | The theories are not separate claims; they are theories of the same negligence claim. | Actual and apparent agency are distinct theories requiring different proof and thus separate claims. | Actual agency and apparent agency are not separate claims; they are part of one negligence claim. |
| Whether the trial court’s partial summary judgment on actual agency was a final judgment on the merits. | That order disposed of only part of the controversy and left agency allegations intact, so not final. | Partial summary judgment on actual agency addressed a separate branch of the case and was final. | The order was not a final judgment on the merits for res judicata purposes. |
Key Cases Cited
- Rein v. David A. Noyes & Co., 172 Ill. 2d 325 (1996) (refusal to allow refiling of related counts bars later action under res judicata)
- Hudson v. City of Chicago, 228 Ill. 2d 462 (2008) (reinforces Rein rule; voluntary dismissal followed by refiling barred by res judicata)
- Williams v. Ingalls Memorial Hospital, 408 Ill. App. 3d 360 (2011) (apparent agency as separate theory; exception to claim-splitting discussed)
- Piagentini v. Ford Motor Co., 387 Ill. App. 3d 887 (2009) (partial dismissal not a final order where no count dismissed entirely; same theory)
- Hull v. City of Chicago, 165 Ill. App. 3d 732 (1987) (finality analysis for Rule 304(a); separate branch concept)
- River Park, Inc. v. City of Highland Park, 184 Ill. 2d 290 (1998) (identity of cause of action includes same facts/evidence for multiple theories)
- Burris v. Progressive Land Developers, Inc., 151 Ill. 2d 285 (1992) (single cause of action may have multiple theories of recovery)
- Nowak v. St. Rita High School, 197 Ill. 2d 381 (2001) (res judicata elements and identity of action principles discussed)
- DeLuna v. Treister, 185 Ill. 2d 565 (1999) (res judicata framework and elements reaffirmed)
- Oliveira-Brooks v. Re/Max International, Inc., 372 Ill. App. 3d 127 (2007) (elements of actual agency analysis)