Evans v. St. Joseph's Hospital

Digitally signed by
Reporter of
Decisions
Reason: I attest to
Illinois Official Reports the accuracy and
integrity of this
document
Appellate Court Date: 2021.04.13
11:32:56 -05'00'
Evans v. St. Joseph’s Hospital, 2020 IL App (5th) 190414Appellate Court PAULETTE EVANS, as Special Administrator of the Estate of Darrell
Caption Evans, Deceased, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ST. JOSEPH’S HOSPITAL,
BREESE, OF THE HOSPITAL SISTERS OF THE THIRD ORDER
OF ST. FRANCIS; UROLOGY CONSULTANTS, LTD., a
Corporation; JEFFREY A. PARRES, M.D.; DUGAN RADIOLOGY
ASSOCIATES, LTD., a Corporation; and THOMAS B. DOYLE,
M.D., Defendants (St. Joseph’s Hospital, Breese, of the Hospital
Sisters of the Third Order of St. Francis; Dugan Radiology Associates,
Ltd.; and Thomas B. Doyle, M.D., Defendants- Appellants).
District & No. Fifth District
Nos. 5-19-0414, 5-19-0465 cons.
Rule 23 order filed April 28, 2020
Motion to
publish allowed May 18, 2020
Opinion filed May 18, 2020
Decision Under Appeal from the Circuit Court of St. Clair County, No. 17-L-694; the
Review Hon. Heinz M. Rudolf, Judge, presiding.
Judgment Affirmed.
Counsel on Michael E. Donelson, of Fox Smith, LLC, of St. Louis, Missouri, for
Appeal appellants Dugan Radiology Associates, Ltd., and Thomas B. Doyle.
Michael J. Nester, Chi-Yong Throckmartin, and Jason M. Gourley, of
Donovan Rose Nester, P.C., of Belleville, for other appellant.
Thomas Q. Keefe Jr. and Kelly T. Crosby, of Keefe, Keefe & Unsell,
P.C., of Belleville, for appellee.
Panel JUSTICE MOORE delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion.
Justices Overstreet and Boie concurred in the judgment and opinion.
OPINION
¶1 In this consolidated appeal, the defendants—St. Joseph’s Hospital, Breese, of the Hospital
Sisters of the Third Order of St. Francis (St. Joseph’s), Dugan Radiology Associates, Ltd.
(Dugan), and Thomas B. Doyle, M.D. (Dr. Doyle)—appeal the September 3, 2019, and
October 9, 2019, orders of the circuit court of St. Clair County, which denied their motions to
transfer this cause to Clinton County on the basis of forum non conveniens. For the following
reasons, we affirm.
¶2 FACTS
¶3 On December 4, 2018, the plaintiff, Paulette Evans, as special administrator of the estate
of Darrell Evans, deceased, filed a first amended complaint in the circuit court of St. Clair
County, alleging a cause of action for medical malpractice against St. Joseph’s, Dugan, and
Dr. Doyle, as well as Urology Consultants, Ltd. (Urology Consultants), and Jeffrey A. Parres,
M.D. The complaint alleges that the defendants negligently failed to timely diagnose the
decedent’s recurrent kidney cancer, contributing to the cause of his death. Specifically, the
plaintiff’s complaint alleges that the defendants were negligent in failing to read, interpret,
report, and communicate the results of a February 2, 2016, MRI that was critical to the
decedent’s diagnosis. St. Joseph’s filed a motion to transfer venue to Clinton County on the
grounds of forum non conveniens.
¶4 According to St. Joseph’s motion to transfer, the plaintiff is a resident of Clinton County,
the alleged medical malpractice occurred in Clinton County, and all pertinent records regarding
the events surrounding the plaintiff’s allegations of medical malpractice are in Clinton County.
St. Joseph’s argued that because the parties reside and/or work outside of St. Clair County and
the plaintiff’s cause of action has no connection to St. Clair County, the relevant private and
public interest factors strongly favor transfer to Clinton County. In support of its motion,
St. Joseph’s attached several documents. First, records from the Illinois Department of
Financial and Professional Regulation indicate that Dr. Doyle works in Clinton County and
Dr. Jeffrey Parres works in Madison County. Second, the affidavit of St. Joseph’s vice
president and general counsel attests that St. Joseph’s is a not-for-profit corporation with its
exclusive place of business in Clinton County.
-2-
¶5 Third, the affidavit of St. Joseph’s radiology director states that employees of St. Joseph’s
report for duty in Breese and that medical records, department records, and imaging studies
concerning medical treatment rendered at St. Joseph’s are maintained at that location. The
affidavit identifies four individuals, in addition to the director himself, who were involved in
registering the decedent for treatment and obtaining the MRI report at issue and states that all
these individuals reside in Clinton County. The affidavit sets forth with particularity the
difficulties in the operations of the radiology department at St. Joseph’s that would arise if
these employees are required to travel to the St. Clair County courthouse, as opposed to the
Clinton County courthouse.
¶6 Finally, St. Joseph’s attached the “Annual Report of the Illinois Courts Statistical
Summary—2016,” which indicates that in calendar year 2016, 100 civil cases were filed in
Clinton County, one of which was terminated by verdict. As of 2016, the average time between
the filing of a civil case and a verdict in Clinton County was 60.2 months. In contrast, 2925
cases were filed in St. Clair County, 12 of which were terminated by verdict. As of 2016, the
average time between the filing of a civil case and a verdict in St. Clair County was 66.9
months.
¶7 On June 10, 2019, the plaintiff filed a response to St. Joseph’s motion to transfer. In her
response, the plaintiff focused on Urology Consultants, a Missouri corporation with its
principal location in St. Louis. The plaintiff explained that Urology Consultants and its
employee, Dr. Parres, who also resides in St. Louis, practices medicine in St. Clair County and
Madison County. In addition, the plaintiff pointed out that Dr. Doyle resides in St. Louis.
According to the plaintiff, the Clinton County courthouse is twice as far from St. Louis as the
St. Clair County courthouse. Finally, the plaintiff argued that she had many damage witnesses
in St. Clair County, including the decedent’s family, coworkers, and friends. In support of the
response, the plaintiff attached the affidavit of her counsel, who averred to the foregoing facts.
¶8 On July 31, 2019, the circuit court held a hearing on St. Joseph’s motion to transfer. On
August 7, 2019, Dugan and Dr. Doyle filed a motion to join in St. Joseph’s motion to transfer.
On August 29, 2019, the plaintiff filed a supplemental exhibit in response to the motions to
transfer. According to the supplemental exhibit, the plaintiff had deposed two additional
occurrence witnesses. These two witnesses are employees of Urology Consultants and work in
Maryville. Maryville is located in Madison County, 37 miles closer to St. Clair County than
Clinton County.
¶9 On September 3, 2019, the circuit court entered an order denying St. Joseph’s motion to
transfer. On October 1, 2019, St. Joseph’s filed a petition for leave to appeal, pursuant to
Illinois Supreme Court Rule 306(a)(2) (eff. Oct. 1, 2019). On October 9, 2019, the circuit court
entered an order denying the motion to transfer that was filed by Dugan and Dr. Doyle. On
October 28, 2019, this court allowed St. Joseph’s petition for leave to appeal. On November 7,
2019, Dugan and Doyle filed a petition for leave to appeal pursuant to Rule 306(a)(2). On
January 3, 2020, this court allowed Dugan and Doyle’s petition and entered an order
consolidating the appeals.
¶ 10 ANALYSIS
¶ 11 This court recently set forth, in detail, the standards to be employed by the circuit court and
by this court on review when the issue is whether to transfer a cause based on the doctrine of
forum non conveniens set forth in Illinois Supreme Court Rule 187(c)(2) (eff. Jan. 4, 2013):
-3-
“ ‘A trial court’s decision on a forum non conveniens motion will be reversed only if it
can be shown that the trial court abused its discretion in balancing the various factors
at issue.’ Gridley v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 217 Ill. 2d 158, 169
(2005). A circuit court abuses its discretion where no reasonable person would take its
adopted view. Dawdy v. Union Pacific R.R. Co., 207 Ill. 2d 167, 177 (2003).
‘Forum non conveniens is an equitable doctrine founded in considerations of
fundamental fairness and the sensible and effective administration of justice.’
Langenhorst v. Norfolk Southern Ry. Co., 219 Ill. 2d 430, 441 (2006). The doctrine
permits the circuit court to decline jurisdiction over a case when trial in another forum
would better serve the ends of justice. Id. If jurisdiction is so declined, the case must
be dismissed because the circuit court lacks the authority to transfer it. Fennell v.
Illinois Central R.R. Co., 2012 IL 113812, ¶ 13. ‘The dismissal is conditioned on the
plaintiff timely filing the action in the other forum; and the defendant accepting service
of process from that court, and waiving any available statute of limitations defense.’
Id.; see also Ill. S. Ct. R. 187(c)(2) (eff. Jan. 4, 2013). ‘Each forum non conveniens case
must be considered as unique on its facts.’ Langenhorst, 219 Ill. 2d at 443. ‘Every
request for transfer based upon forum non conveniens must be decided pursuant to an
“individualized, case-by-case consideration of convenience and fairness.” ’ Gridley,
217 Ill. 2d at 168 (quoting Van Dusen v. Barrack, 376 U.S. 612, 622 (1964)).
In determining whether to grant or deny a motion to dismiss on the basis of
forum non conveniens, the circuit court must balance private interest factors affecting
the litigants and public interest factors affecting the administration of the courts.
Dawdy, 207 Ill. 2d at 172. The private interest factors include the convenience of the
parties; the relative ease of access to sources of testimonial, documentary, and real
evidence; the availability of compulsory process to secure the attendance of unwilling
witnesses; the cost of obtaining the attendance of willing witnesses; the possibility of
viewing the premises, if appropriate; and all other practical considerations that make a
trial easy, expeditious, and inexpensive. Id. The public interest factors include the
interest in having local controversies decided locally, the administrative difficulties
caused when litigation is handled in congested venues instead of being handled at its
origin, and the unfairness of imposing jury duty upon residents of a county with no
connection to the litigation. Id. at 173.
The defendant has the burden of showing that the balance of the relevant public and
private interest factors strongly favors a dismissal and transfer (id.), and the circuit
court must evaluate the totality of the circumstances when determining whether that
burden has been met (Fennell, 2012 IL 113812, ¶ 17). The relevant factors are not
weighed against each other, and no single factor should be emphasized. Langenhorst,
219 Ill. 2d at 443-44.
‘An additional consideration under the forum non conveniens doctrine is deference
to the plaintiff’s choice of forum.’ Dawdy, 207 Ill. 2d at 173. It is generally assumed
that the plaintiff’s choice of forum is convenient, and unless the balance of the relevant
factors strongly favor a dismissal, the plaintiff’s choice should rarely be disturbed. Id.‘However, when the plaintiff is foreign to the chosen forum and when the action giving
rise to the litigation did not occur in the chosen forum, the plaintiff’s choice of forum
is accorded less deference.’ Fennell, 2012 IL 113812, ¶ 18. Moreover, when the
-4-
plaintiff is foreign to the chosen forum and the action that gives rise to the litigation
did not occur in the chosen forum, ‘it is reasonable to conclude that the plaintiff
engaged in forum shopping to suit his individual interests, a strategy contrary to the
purposes behind the venue rules.’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Dawdy, 207 Ill.
2d at 174. ‘A plaintiff’s right to choose a forum “cannot be permitted to override the
public interest in, and need for, an orderly, efficiently operated judicial system.” ’ Id.
at 175 (quoting Espinosa v. Norfolk & Western Ry. Co., 86 Ill. 2d 111, 123 (1981)).”
Shaw v. Haas, 2019 IL App (5th) 180588, ¶¶ 15-19.
¶ 12 Here, unlike in Shaw, the circuit court did not abuse its discretion by denying the motions
to transfer on the basis of forum non conveniens because, considering some deference is given
to the plaintiff’s choice of forum, a balance of the relevant factors does not strongly favor
transfer to Clinton County. See Gridley, 217 Ill. 2d at 169. Accordingly, the record does not
reflect that a trial in Clinton County would better serve the ends of justice, as well as the
convenience of the parties. See Dawdy, 207 Ill. 2d at 177. Beginning with the private interest
factors, and specifically the relative ease of access to sources of evidence, the alleged medical
malpractice occurred among and between St. Joseph’s in Clinton County and Urology
Consultants in St. Louis, Missouri. Accordingly, some, but not all, of the evidence of the
alleged malpractice is in Clinton County. Rather, some of the evidence of the alleged
malpractice is in St. Louis, Missouri, which is half the distance to St. Clair County as it is to
Clinton County. This is the same for the occurrence witnesses, who are scattered among
Clinton County, Madison County, and St. Louis, Missouri. Finally, the decedent’s treating
providers are largely located in St. Louis. Again, St. Louis, Missouri, and Madison County are
closer to St. Clair County than to Clinton County. The analysis is similar regarding the
convenience of the parties, as Urology Consultants and Dr. Parres are in St. Louis and have
not filed a motion to transfer or averred that a trial in St. Clair County would be inconvenient
to them.
¶ 13 “The next private interest factor is the possibility of viewing the premises, if appropriate.”
Shaw, 2019 IL App (5th) 180588, ¶ 27. While we recognize a viewing of the premises is
unlikely in a medical malpractice case, if the circuit court were to decide that such a viewing
would be appropriate, that viewing may need to occur at St. Joseph’s in Clinton County or
Urology Consultants in St. Louis, which is much closer to St. Clair County. Accordingly,
although relatively insignificant, this private interest factor does not weigh in favor of Clinton
County over St. Clair County. Neither party points to any other practical considerations that
make a trial easy, expeditious, and inexpensive. Viewing the private interest factors as a whole,
we cannot say they strongly favor Clinton County over St. Clair County.
¶ 14 Turning to the public interest factors—which include court congestion and judicial
administration, imposing jury duty on residents of a community that is not related to the
litigation, and the local interest in local controversies—we do not find that such factors strongly
support Clinton County. See id. ¶ 29 (citing Dawdy, 207 Ill. 2d at 180-81). In Shaw we
recognized that, while court congestion in and of itself is relatively insignificant if no other
relevant factors are in favor of transfer, it is nevertheless appropriate to consider it in the
plaintiff’s chosen forum. Id. (citing Dawdy, 207 Ill. 2d at 181). Here, unlike in Shaw, the other
factors do not strongly favor transfer, and accordingly, court congestion is not significant.
¶ 15 Another public interest factor is the local interest in local controversies. See id. ¶ 32. We
recognize the plaintiff resides in Clinton County and part of the alleged medical malpractice
-5-
and circumstances related thereto occurred in Clinton County. As such, this is a controversy
local to Clinton County that would be of interest to the citizens of Clinton County who rely on
the defendants for their medical treatment. See Gundlach v. Lind, 353 Ill. App. 3d 677, 683
(2004). However, some of the alleged malpractice is alleged to have occurred on the part of
Urology Consultants, an entity that provides medical care to residents of St. Clair County. As
such, the controversy is not entirely foreign to St. Clair County. By the same token, while it
would not be unfair to burden the citizens of Clinton County with jury duty in this case (see
Shaw, 2019 IL App (5th) 180588, ¶ 33), neither would it be an unfair burden to the citizens of
St. Clair County, due to the medical care that Urology Consultants provides to St. Clair County
residents. See Foster v. Hillsboro Area Hospital, Inc., 2016 IL App (5th) 150055, ¶ 55.
Accordingly, the public interest factors do not strongly favor transfer. Because neither the
public interest factors nor the private interest factors strongly favor transfer, we cannot say the
circuit court abused its discretion in denying the motions to transfer.
¶ 16 CONCLUSION
¶ 17 For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the orders of the circuit court of St. Clair County that
denied the motions to transfer this action to Clinton County.
¶ 18 Affirmed.
-6-