Find Legal Information

Docket No. 92691-Agenda 27-September 2002.

BETTY LOU EADS, Appellee, v. HERITAGE ENTERPRISES, 
INC., et al., Appellants.

Opinion filed February 21, 2003.

JUSTICE RARICK delivered the opinion of the court:

The sole issue in this case is whether a plaintiff asserting aprivate right of action under the Nursing Home Care Act (210ILCS 45/1-101 et seq. (West 2000)) must attach to her complaintthe certificate of merit and supporting report required by section2-622 of the Code of Civil Procedure (735 ILCS 5/2-622 (West2000)), popularly known as the Healing Arts Malpractice Act. Ona permissive interlocutory appeal brought pursuant to SupremeCourt Rule 308 (155 Ill. 2d R. 308), the appellate court answeredthis question in the negative, holding that section 2-622 isinapplicable to claims arising under the Nursing Home Care Act.325 Ill. App. 3d 129. One justice dissented. We granted leave toappeal from the appellate court's judgment (177 Ill. 2d R. 315) andnow affirm.

The litigation which gave rise to this appeal commenced whenplaintiff, Betty Lou Eads, brought an action in the circuit court ofSangamon County to recover damages for personal injuries shesustained in a fall at Memorial ContinuCare (ContinuCare), a for-profit, extended-term nursing facility located in Springfield,Illinois. Named as defendants were ContinuCare's three owners,Heritage Enterprises, Inc.; Rutledge Joint Ventures, L.L.C.; andMemorial Health Ventures.

Plaintiff's complaint, as amended, alleged that she resided atContinuCare for approximately one week in July of 1998. Plaintiffhad gone to the facility following her release from MemorialMedical Center, where she had been hospitalized for transientischemic attacks. At the time she arrived at ContinuCare, plaintiffwas weak, unsteady, and suffering from confusion. Shesubsequently became feverish, which caused additional confusion,hallucinations, weakness, unsteadiness, and an inability tocomprehend instructions given to her by the facility's staff.

Plaintiff's amended complaint alleged that defendants, as theowners and operators of ContinuCare, by and through their staff,agents or employees, were aware that she was suffering from theforegoing problems. The complaint further alleged that defendantswere aware that plaintiff repeatedly got out of bed withoutassistance to go to the bathroom. On one such trip, she fell. Thefall caused her to fracture her hip and produced severe bruises onher head and body.

Plaintiff sought to impose liability on defendants for herinjuries pursuant to the Nursing Home Care Act (210 ILCS45/1-101 et seq. (West 2000)). Specifically, plaintiff asserted that,under the Act, defendants owed her a duty to "ensure that [she]was assisted at all times when she needed to ambulate from herbed to the bathroom." Plaintiff contended that defendants breachedthat duty by failing to provide adequate surveillance andsupervision; failing to promptly respond to her call light, whichforced her to attempt to use the bathroom without assistance;failing to equip her bed with a pressure-release alarm that wouldhave alerted the facility's staff when she got out of bed so that theycould come and assist her; failing to provide adequate staff toensure that residents, including plaintiff, would have assistancewhen they required it; failing to attend to plaintiff's needs; andallowing plaintiff to fall in her room as she attempted to go to thebathroom. For her relief, plaintiff sought an award of damagesplus her costs and attorney fees.

Defendants moved to dismiss plaintiff's cause of action undersection 2-619.1 of the Code of Civil Procedure (735 ILCS5/2-619.1 (West 2000)). As grounds for their motion, defendantsargued that plaintiff should be precluded from proceeding with herclaims because she did not attach to her complaint the certificateof merit and supporting report required by section 2-622 of theCode of Civil Procedure (735 ILCS 5/2-622 (West 2000)), theHealing Arts Malpractice Act. The circuit court found thiscontention to be meritorious. It therefore dismissed plaintiff'scomplaint with leave to replead.

On plaintiff's motion, the circuit court subsequently made awritten finding pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 308(a) (155 Ill. 2dR. 308(a)) that its dismissal order involved a question of law as towhich there is substantial ground for difference of opinion and thatimmediate appeal from the order may materially advance theultimate termination of the litigation. The specific question of lawidentified by the court was as follows:

"In a case where the Plaintiff has sued a nursing homefor injuries sustained as a result of alleged violations bythe nursing home, its staff and employees, of the IllinoisNursing Home Care Act [210 ILCS 45/1-101 et seq.(West 2000)], and the regulations promulgated pursuantthereto at 77 Illinois Administrative Code Section 300, etseq., is the Plaintiff required to comply with the mandatesof *** the Healing Arts Malpractice Act [735 ILCS5/2-622 (West 2000)]?

Once the circuit court made its written finding, plaintiffapplied to the appellate court for leave to appeal from the circuitcourt's dismissal order. The appellate court granted herapplication. Over the dissent of one justice, the court thenanswered the foregoing question of law in the negative, holdingthat actions brought under the Nursing Home Care Act are notsubject to the mandates of the Healing Arts Malpractice Act. 325Ill. App. 3d at 138.

Defendants subsequently petitioned our court for leave toappeal from the appellate court's judgment. We granted thatpetition, and the matter is now before us for review. Because theappeal concerns a question of law certified by the circuit courtpursuant to Supreme Court Rule 308, because it presents aquestion of statutory interpretation, and because it arose in thecontext of an order granting a section 2-619 motion to dismiss,our review is de novo. Weatherman v. Gary-Wheaton Bank of FoxValley, N.A., 186 Ill. 2d 472, 480 (1999); Michigan AvenueNational Bank v. County of Cook, 191 Ill. 2d 493, 503 (2000);Nowak v. St. Rita High School, 197 Ill. 2d 381, 389 (2001).

The Nursing Home Care Act, upon which plaintiff's cause ofaction is founded, was adopted more than 20 years ago "amidconcern over reports of 'inadequate, improper and degradingtreatment of patients in nursing homes.' " Harris v. ManorHealthcare Corp., 111 Ill. 2d 350, 357-58, quoting SenateDebates, 81st Ill. Gen. Assem., May 14, 1979, at 184 (statementsof Senator Karl Berning). It was described by one of its principalsponsors as a " 'full reform of the nursing home industry.' "Harris, 111 Ill. 2d at 358, quoting Senate Debates, 81st Ill. Gen.Assem., May 14, 1979, at 181 (statements of Senator Richard M.Daley).

The Act repealed the nursing homes, sheltered care homes andhomes for the aged act (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1977, ch. 111