Find Court Cases > Go Back to List > Diaz v. Provena Hospitals

Diaz v. Provena Hospitals

Case Date: 10/15/2004
Court: 2nd District Appellate
Docket No: 2-03-0895, 2-03-0975 cons. Rel

Nos. 2--03--0895 & 2--03--0975 cons.

IN THE

APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS

SECOND DISTRICT


EVELYN DIAZ,

          Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

PROVENA HOSPITALS, d/b/a Provena Saint
Joseph Hospital; THE LOCAL GOVERNING
BOARD OF PROVENA HOSPITALS, d/b/a
Provena, and BARBARA AMSLER,
THOMAS M. JOHANNESEN, MARGARET
MUETERTIES, PEGGY KIRBY, ROBERT
GILLIAM, JERRY CAIN, LEO NELSON,
MARGARET GAVIGAN, ROBERT
SCHWAB, JOHN SHALES, ALAN HEFNER;
and WILLIAM BROWN, Indiv. and as
Members of the Local Governing Board,

          Defendants-Appellants.

 )
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)		 Appeal from the Circuit Court
of Kane County.


No. 03--CH--570











Honorable
Gene L. Nottolini,
Judge, Presiding.

EVELYN DIAZ,

          Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

PROVENA HOSPITALS, d/b/a Provena Saint
Joseph Hospital,

          Defendant and Contemnor-Appellant

(The Local Governing Board of Provena
Hospitals, d/b/a Provena, and Barbara Amsler,
Thomas M. Johannesen, Margaret Mueterties,
Peggy Kirby, Robert Gilliam, Jerry Cain, Leo
Nelson, Margaret Gavigan, Robert Schwab,
John Shales, Alan Hefner, and William Brown,
Indiv. and as Members of the Local Governing
Board, Defendants-Appellants).

 )
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)		 Appeal from the Circuit Court
of Kane County.


No. 03--CH--570












Honorable
Gene L. Nottolini,
Judge, Presiding.

 

JUSTICE BOWMAN delivered the opinion of the court:

Defendant Provena Hospitals, d/b/a Provena Saint Joseph Hospital (Hospital), appeals froman order of the circuit court of Kane County finding it in indirect civil contempt for failing to retracta report it made to the National Practitioner Data Bank regarding plaintiff, Evelyn Diaz, M.D. Thecourt imposed upon the Hospital a monetary penalty of $500 per day for the first 14 days ofnoncompliance and $1,000 per day thereafter. The Hospital argues on appeal that we should vacatethe contempt order and the monetary penalty because (1) its report did not violate the language ofan earlier temporary restraining order, (2) federal law required it to report Dr. Diaz's failure to renewher privileges, and (3) Dr. Diaz has no private right of action to enjoin the Hospital from fulfillingits reporting obligation.

We allowed the United States Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), as amicuscuriae, to file a brief in support of the Hospital. HHS argues that the trial court's orders arepreempted by federal law to the extent that they require the Hospital to void a report made incompliance with the Health Care Quality Improvement Act of 1986 (HCQIA) (42 U.S.C.A.