Clemens v. Greenberg

224 N.E.3d 762

2022 IL App (1st) 201129

Michelle CLEMENS, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.David GREENBERG, M.D.; Tri-County Emergency Physicians, Ltd.; Advocate Health and Hospitals Corporation, d/b/a Advocate Good Shepherd Hospital; Michael Landrum, M.D.; and Bellin Health Systems, Inc. d/b/a Bellin Health Infectious Disease, Defendants

(Michael Landrum, M.D., and Bellin Health Systems, Inc., Defendants-Appellants).

No. 1-20-1129

Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, FIFTH DIVISION.

Filed July 22, 2022

Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook County. No. 19 L §362, Honorable Christopher E. Lawler, Judge Presiding.

Julie A. Teuscher, John J. Reid, and Ruth Anne B. Waldrop, of Cassiday Schade LLP, of Chicago, for appellants.

Robert J. Napleton and Bradley Z. Schulman, of Motherway & Napleton, LLP, of Chicago, and Lynn D. Dowd, of Naperville, for appellee.

OPINION

JUSTICE CONNORS delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion.

¶ 1 Plaintiff, Michelle Clemens, alleged a negligence action against defendants, Michael Landrum, M.D., and Bellin Health Systems, Inc., doing business as Bellin Health Infectious Disease (Bellin), among others. Landrum and Bellin are located in Wisconsin, and Landrum treated Clemens for an infection. The circuit court denied Landrum and Bellin’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. On appeal, Landrum and Bellin contend that they do not have sufficient minimum contacts with Illinois to satisfy the requirements for personal jurisdiction. We agree and reverse and remand with directions.

¶ 2 I. BACKGROUND

¶ 3 Initially, Clemens named Landrum and Bellin respondents in discovery in a medical malpractice action that Clemens filed in March 2019 against Dr. David Greenberg, Tri-County Emergency Physicians, Ltd., and Advocate Health and Hospitals Corporation, doing business as Advocate Good Shepherd Hospital, all three of which were alleged to be located in Illinois. Clemens stated in part that on May 9, 2017, she presented to Greenberg with calf pain. After an ultrasound revealed a deep vein thrombosis (DVT), Greenberg ordered a shot of Lovenox and started Clemens on Eliquis, which was a nonreversible anticoagulant. Clemens later developed a massive brain bleed, but her surgery had to be delayed because she was on, Eliquis. Clemens later experienced severe and nonreversible neurologic symptoms.

¶ 4 Landrum and Bellin filed a motion to terminate their status as respondents in discovery and dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. Landrum and Bellin stated in part that Landrum provided care to Clemens exclusively in Green Bay, Wisconsin. Attached to Landrum and Bellin’s motion was an affidavit from Peter G. Vanden-houten, the senior vice president and general counsel for Bellin Memorial Hospital, who averred in part that Landrum practiced in an office and at Bellin Memorial Hospital, both of which were in Green Bay. Bellin had offices and facilities exclusively in northeastern Wisconsin and the upper peninsula of Michigan. Landrum never provided any care and treatment to Clemens in Illinois, never practiced medicine in Illinois, and was not licensed to practice medicine in Illinois. Landrum did not have a significant number of Illinois patients compared to his Wisconsin patient population. Neither Landrum nor Bellin advertised their services in Illinois or solicited any business in Illinois from Illinois residents.

¶ 5 In her response to Landrum and Bellin’s motion, Clemens recalled the care she received from Landrum, citing in part to progress notes that are not in the record but were stated to be available for in camera review. In April 2017, Clemens was treated at Bellin Memorial Hospital for endocarditis. Clemens informed Landrum that once she was released, she would move home to Illinois and return for her remaining treatments. Landrum completed a referral to Coram CVS Specialty Infusion Services in Peoria, Illinois, so that Clemens could receive home infusion antibiotic therapy. Landrum and Bellin were paid under a Blue Cross Blue Shield of Illinois insurance policy. Before Clemens could complete Landrum’s treatment, she supposedly suffered a DVT for which she was inappropriately anticoagulated, resulting in a massive brain bleed. Landrum was consulted when Clemens went to the emergency room for the DVT and may have amended Clemens’s ongoing treatment accordingly. Clemens asserted that Landrum and Bellin’s services were fundamentally interstate in nature from the inception of the relationship.

¶ 6 In reply, Landrum and Bellin asserted in part that they did not have any contacts with Illinois to satisfy the requirements for personal jurisdiction. The case involved the unilateral activity of Clemens, who sought medical care from a non-Illinois doctor and then returned to Illinois, where she claimed that she later received improper medical care from an unrelated Illinois hospital and Illinois doctor.

¶ 7 On August 6, 2019, the circuit court denied Landrum and Bellin’s motion and ordered them to comply with discovery. The court stated that, viewed in a light most favorable to Clemens, an Illinois resident, her relationship to Landrum and Bellin was fundamentally interstate in nature. Landrum and Bellin purposefully directed certain care and treatment. The court noted that Clemens sought to discover information about injuries that Landrum and Bellin’s care and treatment may have contributed to or caused. The state had a significant interest in determining whether certain activities affect a resident’s health. The court found it fair, just, and reasonable to assert specific jurisdiction and compel Landrum and Bellin to participate in discovery.

¶ 8 Landrum and Bellin filed a motion to reconsider, stating in part that none of the activities that the court relied on were alleged to be a cause of Clemens’s injuries. Also, Clemens’s unilateral travel to Illinois did not support a finding that Landrum availed himself of the privilege of conducting activities or the protections of Illinois law. The court denied the motion to reconsider on October 22, 2019.

¶ 9 Clemens moved to amend the complaint and convert Landrum and Bellin from respondents in discovery to defendants, which the court granted. Clemens’s first amended complaint asserted a negligence claim against Landrum and Bellin, stating that "[o]n information and belief," Greenberg and Landrum "discussed the need to anticoagulate [Clemens] given the alleged DVT and her infective endocarditis." On May 9, 2017, "and continuing thereafter," Bellin and Landrum deviated from the standard of care by providing an anticoagulant, failing to admit Clemens and/or order serial ultrasounds, and failing to prescribe Lovenox or warfarin if in fact anticoagulation was needed.

¶ 10 Attached to the first amended complaint was a medical report from a certified internist and infectious disease specialist. According to the report, "the record [revealed] that Dr. Greenberg had a conversation with Dr. Landrum in the Emergency Department *** and informed him of the DVT and how he was going to treat the patient." Greenberg then gave Clemens an injection of Lovenox and Eliquis, an oral anticoagulant. The report further stated that "[i]f in fact Dr. Landrum was told of the plan to anticoagulate the patient, it was a deviation from the standard of care by Dr. Landrum to approve any such anticoagulation in this case," especially a nonreversible anticoagulant like Eliquis. Under the standard of care, Landrum should have informed the emergency department doctor to monitor the DVT with serial ultrasounds and not start anticoagulation.

¶ 11 On October 23, 2019, Landrum and Bellin filed a motion to dismiss the first amended complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction. Landrum and Bellin asserted in part that the only allegation that tried to connect Wisconsin-based Landrum and Bellin to the care Clemens received in Illinois was Clemens’s unfounded claim that "on information and belief," Greenberg and Clemens discussed the need to anticoagulate Clemens. There was no foundation for the allegation that Greenberg discussed DVT treatment with Landrum, and in any event, that discussion would not satisfy the requirements for personal jurisdiction. Landrum’s care was provided exclusively in Green Bay, and his interaction with Clemens was the result of her unilateral acts.

¶ 12 On January 7, 2020, the court entered an order that Landrum would be deposed over his objection. In a subsequent motion for a protective order, Landrum and Bellin noted that Clemens had requested leave to depose Landrum.

¶ 13 At his deposition on July 14, 2020, Landrum stated in part as follows. Landrum was Clemens’s infectious disease physician for her endocarditis. At some point, Clemens stated that she would be going to Illinois periodically to spend time with her parents. Landrum told Clemens that he would continue to take care of her endocarditis, including her antibiotic care and management, but Clemens would need to receive all of her medical care in Green Bay. Also, Clemens would need to seek care for emergent issues in Illinois. A case manager made arrangements for Clemens to receive ongoing IV antibiotics and complete her labs, and Landrum’s office received the results of those labs for monitoring purposes.

¶ 14 Landrum farther recalled that on May 9, 2017, he received a phone call from Greenberg. Landrum described the call as "a brief maybe a couple minute phone call that was informative." Greenberg stated that Clemens was in the emergency room, Clemens’s mother had asked Greenberg to call Landrum to update him on Clemens’s status, tell Landrum that Clemens had what appeared to be a DVT in her leg, and that Greenberg was going to start Clemens on some anticoagulation. Landrum did not recall Greenberg mentioning what medicine Clemens would receive. According to Landrum, not enough information was shared for Landrum to have given a consult. Landrum did not ask Greenberg for more information, and...