Illinois Public Acts of the 97th General Assembly (2011-2012)
HB 5151, Act 097-1145
AN ACT concerning civil law.
Be it enacted by the People of the State of Illinois, represented in the General Assembly:
(a) In Best v. Taylor Machine Works, 179 Ill.2d 367 (1997), the Illinois Supreme Court held that Public Act 89-7 was void in its entirety.
In Lebron v. Gottlieb Memorial Hospital, 237 Ill.2d 217 (2010), the Illinois Supreme Court held that Public Act 94-677 was void in its entirety.
(b) The purpose of this Act is to re-enact and repeal statutory provisions so the text of those provisions conforms to the decisions of the Illinois Supreme Court in Best v. Taylor Machine Worksand Lebron v. Gottlieb Memorial Hospital.
(c) Except as explained in subsection (h) of this Section 1, this Act is not intended to supersede any Public Act of the 97th General Assembly that amends the text of a statutory provision that appears in this Act.
(d) If Public Act 89-7 or Public Act 94-677 amended the text of a Section included in this Act, the text of the Section is shown in this Act with the changes made by those Public Acts omitted, as existing text (without striking and underscoring), with the exception of changes of a substantive nature.
(e) Provisions that were purportedly added to the statutes by Public Act 89-7 and Public Act 94-677 are repealed in this Act to conform to the decisions of the Illinois Supreme Court.
(f) If Public Act 89-7 or Public Act 94-677 purportedly amended the text of a Section of the statutes and that Section of the statutes was later repealed by another Public Act, the text of that Section is not shown in this Act.
(g) This Act is intended to re-enact and repeal only those statutory provisions affected by Public Act 89-7 or Public Act 94-677 which concern civil procedure for medical malpractice cases.
(h) This Act also makes substantive changes to the Code of Civil Procedure unrelated to Public Act 89-7 or Public Act 94-677, specifically by amending Sections 2-622 and 2-1114 and by adding Section 2-1306.
(735 ILCS 5/2-622) (from Ch. 110, par. 2-622)
Sec. 2-622. Healing art malpractice.
(a) In any action, whether in tort, contract or otherwise, in which the plaintiff seeks damages for injuries or death by reason of medical, hospital, or other healing art malpractice, the plaintiff's attorney or the plaintiff, if the plaintiff is proceeding pro se, shall file an affidavit, attached to the original and all copies of the complaint, declaring one of the following:
1. That the affiant has consulted and reviewed the facts of the case with a health professional who the affiant reasonably believes: (i) is knowledgeable in the relevant issues involved in the particular action; (ii) practices or has practiced within the last 6 years or teaches or has taught within the last 6 years in the same area of health care or medicine that is at issue in the particular action; and (iii) is qualified by experience or demonstrated competence in the subject of the case; that the reviewing health professional has determined in a written report, after a review of the medical record and other relevant material involved in the particular action that there is a reasonable and meritorious cause for the filing of such action; and that the affiant has concluded on the basis of the reviewing health professional's review and consultation that there is a reasonable and meritorious cause for filing of such action. If the affidavit is filed as...
