Court: Appellate Court of Illinois; March 29, 1996; Illinois; State Appellate Court
Roy David Peterson, as the father and next friend of his minor son Daniel, initiated legal action against Hinsdale Women’s Clinic and Dr. Donald A. Amsler in Cook County, seeking damages for future medical expenses stemming from the defendants' alleged failure to diagnose and treat rubella contracted by Daniel’s mother during her pregnancy in 1977. The original complaint filed on July 20, 1990, included claims of wrongful life and a claim under the Rights of Married Persons Act, but did not name the defendants in the Act claim. The trial court dismissed this complaint for failure to state a cause of action but allowed amendments.
Subsequent amended complaints continued to assert wrongful life and wrongful birth claims, with the trial court dismissing the wrongful life claim as non-recognized in Illinois law and ruling that the claim under the Act was barred by the statute of limitations. After further amendments, including a third amended complaint focused on wrongful birth, the defendants filed additional motions to dismiss, citing the statute of limitations and the addition of a new plaintiff, Roy, after the limitations period had expired.
The trial court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss, leading to an appeal by the plaintiff. The central issue on appeal was whether the wrongful birth claim could relate back to the original complaint. Under Illinois law, an amended pleading can relate back to the date of the original filing if the original was timely and the new claims arise from the same transaction or occurrence. However, the defendants contended that the original complaint was untimely, which the court would need to consider. The appellate court applied a de novo standard of review and ultimately affirmed the trial court's dismissal of the third amended complaint.
Section 13.212(a) of the Code of Civil Procedure establishes that actions for damages against licensed physicians or hospitals related to patient care must be initiated within two years of the claimant's awareness of the injury or death, with a maximum limit of four years from the date of the alleged malpractice. The defendants assert that a complaint filed in 1990, which was over 13 years after the alleged malpractice in 1977, is time-barred under this statute. Previously, a tolling provision existed for plaintiffs under 18 years old at the time of the malpractice, but amendments in 1987 limited the period to eight years post-incident. To mitigate the impact of this change on minors, the General Assembly provided an extension allowing those under 18 at the time of accrual to file within three years after July 20, 1987, if their claims were barred or had less than three years remaining.
In this case, the plaintiff Daniel's claim was affected by the 1987 amendment, but he filed his original complaint on July 20, 1990, which would have been timely had it been a valid cause of action. However, the claim raised was not recognized in Illinois law. Furthermore, a wrongful birth claim introduced by a new party, Roy, cannot relate back to Daniel’s claim since it constitutes a new cause of action. The precedent set in McGinnis v. A.R. Abrams, Inc. and Mann v. City of Chicago supports the principle that relation back is not permitted for new parties, emphasizing that Roy’s wrongful birth claim must stand on its own merits. Defendants contend that this claim cannot relate back to the earlier claim for two reasons: it was untimely and not brought against the same defendants.
Claims under the Act are considered derivative claims, governed by the limitations period outlined in section 13.203 (735 ILCS 5/13.203). Historically, courts have ruled that extended limitations for minors did not apply to derivative claims brought by others. However, an amendment in November 1987 allows for the tolling or extension of limitations for derivative claims when the injured person's own claims are extended under other sections of the Act. The key issue is whether this amendment applies to extend the statute of limitations for derivative claims related to injuries to minors, potentially allowing claims to be filed up to three years from July 20, 1987.
The Illinois Supreme Court has established that amendments extending limitations periods apply to all actions not previously barred. In this case, the alleged malpractice occurred in 1977, and at that time, the limitations period for claims under section 13.203 was governed by the predecessor to section 13.212(a), which required claims to be filed within two years of knowledge of the injury, or four years maximum from the injury date. Therefore, since the malpractice claim was barred by 1981, the 1987 amendment does not apply, rendering the claim untimely when brought in 1990.
Consequently, the wrongful birth claim cannot relate back to the original cause of action due to its untimeliness, negating the need to consider whether the claim was properly directed against the defendants. The judgment of the circuit court of Cook County is affirmed.
