Paige-Myatt v. Mount Sinai Hospital Medical Center

Citations: 729 N.E.2d 908; 313 Ill. App. 3d 482; 246 Ill. Dec. 257; 2000 Ill. App. LEXIS 377Docket: 1-99-2479

Court: Appellate Court of Illinois; May 17, 2000; Illinois; State Appellate Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

In the case of Karen Paige-Myatt v. Mount Sinai Hospital Medical Center, the Illinois Appellate Court addressed the dismissal of Paige-Myatt's medical malpractice lawsuit. The trial court dismissed the case with prejudice due to the plaintiff's failure to demonstrate reasonable diligence in serving the defendant hospital, a point which the plaintiff did not contest. The core issue was whether the dismissal should be with or without prejudice. The appellate court determined that the statute of limitations had not expired prior to the dismissal. Consequently, it reversed the trial court's decision, amending the dismissal to be without prejudice, allowing the plaintiff the opportunity to refile the lawsuit.

The facts reveal that Paige-Myatt filed her original complaint on September 23, 1997, against Dr. Bunn, Dr. Clark, and Mount Sinai, alleging damage to her femoral nerve during surgery on September 25, 1995. The initial complaint lacked a required physician's written report, prompting the plaintiff's attorney to submit an affidavit stating that obtaining a consultation was impossible before the statute of limitations expired. An amended complaint filed on August 5, 1998, included information about a diagnostic procedure indicating nerve injury, along with a letter from Dr. Pantle-Fisher detailing the plaintiff's ongoing symptoms and treatment history following the surgery.

On September 20, 1996, lumbar spine films were normal, but a subsequent EMG on September 26 raised suspicions of lumbar radiculopathy. A November MRI revealed degenerative disc disease, while a December myelogram showed minimal lumbar defects and a cerebrospinal fluid examination indicated no abnormalities. A February 17, 1997, neurological consultation noted normal results except for decreased sensitivity to pinprick in specific areas of the right thigh and leg. An orthopedic consultation on the same day also yielded normal results. In March 1997, Paige-Myatt began taking Tegretal for suspected neurological pain, which initially alleviated her symptoms but was discontinued due to side effects. Dr. Pantle-Fisher diagnosed her with neuropathic pain affecting the medial femoral cutaneous and saphenous branches of the femoral nerve, with no motor involvement. 

On August 13, 1997, at the University of Chicago Pain Management Center, Paige-Myatt reported decreased sensation in her thigh, leading to a diagnosis of right femoral neuropathy without motor involvement. A diagnostic differential epidural test on September 3 provided no relief, leading to a presumptive diagnosis of neuropathic pain and possible central pain syndrome. A diagnostic femoral nerve block performed on September 30 confirmed femoral nerve involvement, providing complete pain relief temporarily, suggesting an injury to the nerve potentially occurring during surgery. Dr. Pantle-Fisher indicated it was a presumptive conclusion due to lack of direct knowledge of the surgical procedure. Additionally, Dr. Benjamin Johnson corroborated that Paige-Myatt’s post-operative issues resulted from surgical trauma to the femoral nerve. 

On August 5, 1998, summonses were issued for the defendants, with Mount Sinai served on August 12, Dr. Bunn on February 2, 1999, and Dr. Clark never served. Mount Sinai filed an appearance on October 8, 1998, and subsequently moved to dismiss the complaint on November 5, citing a lack of reasonable diligence in serving the defendants under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 103(b).

On March 5, 1999, the court granted Mount Sinai's motion to dismiss Paige-Myatt's complaint, noting her failure to serve Mount Sinai for 11 months after filing. The court highlighted that Paige-Myatt's diagnosis of her injury, confirmed on September 30, 1997, did not excuse the delay in serving the summons, nor did it prevent her from alleging negligence related to her surgery on September 25, 1995. The dismissal was with prejudice because the statute of limitations for medical malpractice, a two-year period, began on the surgery date, and the court dismissed Paige-Myatt's discovery argument as implausible.

Following the dismissal, Paige-Myatt filed a motion to modify the order, seeking a dismissal without prejudice. She attached an affidavit summarizing her treatment and indicating that she only learned of the potential fault for her injury after a consultation on September 3, 1997. Despite this, the court denied her motion and granted Mount Sinai a finding of appealability under Supreme Court Rule 304(a) on June 14, 1999.

On appeal, Paige-Myatt did not provide justification for the 11-month delay, and the appellate court upheld the trial court's dismissal as correct, focusing on whether the dismissal should have been with prejudice. The appellate court reviewed the trial court's decision for abuse of discretion, referencing Rule 103(b), which stipulates that lack of diligence in obtaining service after the statute of limitations expires results in a dismissal with prejudice. The amended rule allows for a dismissal without prejudice if the plaintiff fails to act diligently before the expiration of the statute of limitations.

The 1997 amendment to 177 Ill.2d R. 103(b) changed the basis for determining if a dismissal operates with prejudice. Previously, the date of the plaintiff's lack of diligence was considered; now, the dismissal date is the critical factor. The Committee Comments clarify that whether a dismissal extinguishes claims depends on whether it occurs before or after the statute of limitations has expired. If the dismissal is prior to the expiration, the plaintiff can refile; if after, the claims are time-barred.

In Paige-Myatt's case, the trial court dismissed her complaint against Mount Sinai on March 5, 1999. To assess her ability to refile, it must be determined whether the two-year medical malpractice statute of limitations had elapsed before this dismissal. According to 735 ILCS 5/13-212(a), a malpractice action must be initiated within two years of when the claimant knew or should have known of the injury. Illinois courts interpret this "discovery rule" to mean that the limitations period starts when the plaintiff becomes aware of the injury and its wrongful cause.

In Allen v. Thorek Hospital, the court noted that the plaintiff was aware of her arm injury immediately post-surgery and understood it to be wrongfully caused when she sought further medical advice six weeks later. The court determined that the limitations period began in the summer of 1991, making the plaintiff's claim of later discovery unreasonable. Thus, the latest date she could assert her claims was before the dismissal date in Paige-Myatt's situation.

In Licka v. William A. Sales, Ltd., the Illinois Appellate Court held that a medical malpractice complaint was timely due to the discovery rule, as the plaintiff only realized the need for further treatment after being informed his surgery had been performed at the wrong spinal location. The court noted that the plaintiff's ongoing pain post-surgery could be attributed to either normal postoperative effects or negligence, and that he could not have reasonably known of his injury at the time, given that even his surgeon was unable to explain the pain.

Paige-Myatt's case parallels Licka's, as she experienced pain after her hysterectomy and received assurances from her surgeon that it was normal. Her pain persisted, leading to 18 months of tests that ultimately revealed issues related to her femoral nerve. The potential discovery dates for her injury were identified as August 13, 1997, when a possible connection to surgical trauma was noted, and September 30, 1997, when a confirmatory nerve block was performed. The trial court dismissed Paige-Myatt's complaint, claiming she did not exercise reasonable diligence in identifying the cause of her pain, a position that was contested. 

The appellate court disagreed, emphasizing that Paige-Myatt's extensive efforts to determine the cause of her pain were reasonable and that any discovery of the wrongful cause, based on the evidence, occurred no earlier than August 1997, thereby allowing her to file within the statute of limitations. The court also rejected the argument that an affidavit from her attorney constituted a judicial admission regarding the date of discovery. As a result, the trial court's dismissal was affirmed in part but reversed regarding the prejudice of the dismissal, allowing her to refile her complaint without prejudice.