Meier v. Ryan

2023 IL App (1st) 211674

222 N.E.3d 284

469 Ill.Dec. 71

Mary Ellen MEIER, Individually and as Independent Executor of the Estate of Edmund Meier, Deceased, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.Paul D. RYAN, M.D. ; Barry J. Sidorow, M.D.; Paul A. Freier, M.D.; Adventist Health Parnters, Inc., d/b/a Suburban Cardiologists, d/b/a Adventist Heart and Vascular Institute, a/k/a Amita Health Medical Group Heart and Vascular; John C. Conroy, D.O.; Alexian Brothers AHS Midwest Region Health Company, d/b/a Amita Health Medical Group; Michael Milani, D.O.; Risha M. Foster, M.D.; UroPartners, LLC, d/b/a Uro-Partners Lagrange Urology; Melissa M. Kelly, D.O.; Stephen M. Sloan, M.D.; Ali H. Bawamia, M.D. ; Advance Inpatient Medicine, LLC ; Jaime Belmares Avalos, M.D. ; Metro Infectious Disease Consultants, P.I.I.C.; and Adventist Midwest Health d/b/a Adventist Hinsdale Hospital d/b/a Amita Health Adventist Medical Center Hinsdale, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 1-21-1674

Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, SIXTH DIVISION.

Filed March 17, 2023

Rehearing denied April 20, 2023

Patricia E. Raymond, Clark M. Raymond, Robert L. Raymond, and Timothy R. Borchardt, of Raymond & Raymond, Ltd., of Schaumburg, for appellant.

Aiju C. Thevatheril, Catherine Basque Weiler, and Kristine M. Reveille, of Swanson, Martin & Bell, LLP, of Chicago, for appellees Melissa M. Kelly, Stephen M. Sloan, Ali Bawamia, and Advance Inpatient Medicine, LLC.

Steven C. Steinback and Jason D. Gluskin, of Barker, Castro & Steinback, LLC, of Chicago, for appellees Adventist Health Partners, Inc., Alexian Brothers AHS Midwest Region Health Company, Adventist Midwest Health, Paul D. Ryan, Barry J. Sidorow, Paul A. Freier, and John C. Conroy.

No brief filed for other appellees.

OPINION

JUSTICE ODEN JOHNSON delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion.

¶ 1 This is a permissive interlocutory appeal with a single issue: whether the trial court abused its discretion when it granted defendants’ forum non conveniens motion to transfer this medical malpractice case from Cook County to Du Page County, where the alleged malpractice occurred. As plaintiff acknowledges, she faces a high burden on this appeal. To obtain a reversal, she must show that no rational person could take the view taken by the trial court.

Langenhorst v. Norfolk Southern Ry. Co. , 219 Ill. 2d 430, 442, 302 Ill.Dec. 363, 848 N.E.2d 927 (2006). For the following reasons, we cannot make such a finding and affirm.

¶ 2 I. BACKGROUND

¶ 3 Plaintiff Mary Ellen Meier, the executor of the estate of the deceased, Edmund Meier (Edmund), alleges that Edmund began treatment in 2008 with defendant Adventist Health Partners Inc., and other defendants for cardiac issues. On January 7, 2018, Edmund was admitted to defendant Adventist Midwest Health, d/b/a Adventist Hinsdale Hospital (Hinsdale Hospital) and released 10 days later. On May 5, 2018, Edmund was again admitted to defendant Hinsdale Hospital and discharged two days later. On May 7, 2018, upon arriving home from the hospital, Edmund collapsed and was transported by ambulance back to Hinsdale Hospital, where he was pronounced dead. Hinsdale Hospital is located in Du Page County, where plaintiff continues to reside.

¶ 4 On May 6, 2020, plaintiff filed this suit in Cook County. On October 6, 2020, defendants filed the forum non conveniens motion to transfer the case to Du Page County. After both discovery and briefing, the trial court granted the motion on December 2, 2021. The trial court found that the following factors favored transfer to Du Page County: (1) convenience of the parties, (2) the relative ease of access to evidence, (3) settling local controversies locally, and (4) the unfairness of imposing expense and burden on a county with little connection to the litigation. The trial court found that the following factors were neutral: (1) compulsory process of unwilling witnesses, (2) the cost of obtaining the attendance of willing witnesses, (3) viewing the premises, and (4) other practical considerations that make a trial expeditious. The trial court found that only one factor favored Cook County—namely, that Cook County had the ability to dispose of cases faster.

¶ 5 The trial court concluded:

"[Plaintiff's] choice of forum is given little deference, but not no deference, because she is forum shopping. Further, a review of the relevant factors shows that four favor Du Page County, four are neutral, and only one favors Cook County. Moreover, the most significant factors—party and non-party convenience, locus of controversy, and burden shifting—each favors transfer to Du Page County. This one-sided tilt plainly meets the exceptional circumstances to justify the transfer of a case pursuant to the forum non conveniens doctrine."

¶ 6 The trial court then ordered that "[t]his matter is transferred to the Eighteenth Judicial Circuit in Du Page County" and that "defendants shall pay all the costs for the transfer." On December 30, 2021, plaintiff filed a petition for leave to appeal pursuant to Illinois Supreme Court Rule 306(a)(2) (eff. Oct. 1, 2020) (authorizing permissive interlocutory appeals from denials of forum non conveniens motions), which this court granted on February 1, 2022. After various motions for extensions of time, briefing was completed. The appeal is now ready for our consideration.

¶ 7 II. ANALYSIS

¶ 8 With a forum non conveniens motion, the issue for an appellate court is not what we would have done in the first instance. Vivas v. Boeing Co. , 392 Ill. App. 3d 644, 657, 331 Ill.Dec. 827, 911 N.E.2d 1057 (2009). The sole issue for us is whether the trial court abused its discretion in its ruling. See Langenhorst , 219 Ill. 2d at 441-42, 302 Ill.Dec. 363, 848 N.E.2d 927. An abuse of discretion occurs when no reasonable person could take the view that the trial court took, and we cannot find that here. Langenhorst , 219 Ill. 2d at 442, 302 Ill.Dec. 363, 848 N.E.2d 927.

¶ 9 As we explain in more detail below, in a case where most of the factors either favor transfer or are neutral, we cannot find that the trial court abused its discretion in granting defendants’ motion.

¶ 10 A. Standard of Review

¶ 11 "Forum non conveniens is an equitable doctrine founded in considerations of fundamental fairness and the sensible and effective administration of justice." Langenhorst , 219 Ill. 2d at 441, 302 Ill.Dec. 363, 848 N.E.2d 927 (citing Vinson v. Allstate , 144 Ill. 2d 306, 310, 162 Ill.Dec. 43, 579 N.E.2d 857 (1991) ). "This doctrine allows a trial court to decline jurisdiction when trial in another forum ‘would better serve the ends of justice.’ " Langenhorst , 219 Ill. 2d at 441, 302 Ill.Dec. 363, 848 N.E.2d 927 (quoting Vinson , 144 Ill. 2d at 310, 162 Ill.Dec. 43, 579 N.E.2d 857 ). "Forum non conveniens is applicable when the choice is between interstate forums as well as when the choice is between intrastate forums," such as in the case at bar. Glass v. DOT Transportation, Inc. , 393 Ill. App. 3d 829, 832, 332 Ill.Dec. 275, 912 N.E.2d 762 (2009).

¶ 12 The discretion afforded a trial court in ruling on a forum non conveniens motion is "considerable." Langenhorst , 219 Ill. 2d at 441, 302 Ill.Dec. 363, 848 N.E.2d 927. As a result, "[w]e will reverse the circuit court's decision only if defendants have shown that the circuit court abused its discretion in balancing the relevant factors." Langenhorst , 219 Ill. 2d at 442, 302 Ill.Dec. 363, 848 N.E.2d 927 (citing Dawdy v. Union Pacific R.R. Co. , 207 Ill. 2d 167, 176-77, 278 Ill.Dec. 92, 797 N.E.2d 687 (2003) ). "A circuit court abuses its discretion in balancing the relevant factors only where no reasonable person would take the view adopted by the circuit court." Langenhorst , 219 Ill. 2d at 442, 302 Ill.Dec. 363, 848 N.E.2d 927 (citing Dawdy , 207 Ill. 2d at 177, 278 Ill.Dec. 92, 797 N.E.2d 687 ); Glass , 393 Ill. App. 3d at 832, 332 Ill.Dec. 275, 912 N.E.2d 762.

¶ 13 "The issue, then, is not what decision we would have reached if we were reviewing the facts on a clean slate, but whether the trial court acted in a way that no reasonable person would." Vivas , 392 Ill. App. 3d at 657, 331 Ill.Dec. 827, 911 N.E.2d 1057 ; see also Hefner v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp. , 276 Ill. App. 3d 1099, 1103, 213 Ill.Dec. 532, 659 N.E.2d 448 (1995) ("the question on review is not whether the appellate court agrees with the circuit court's denial of a forum non conveniens motion, but whether the circuit court ‘acted arbitrarily, without employing conscientious judgment *** [and] exceeded the bounds of reason’ " (quoting Mowen v. Illinois Valley Supply Co. , 257 Ill. App. 3d 712, 714, 195 Ill.Dec. 868, 629 N.E.2d 176 (1994) )). In addition, "we may affirm a trial court's forum non conveniens order on any basis found in the record." Ruch v. Padgett , 2015 IL App (1st) 142972, ¶ 40, 396 Ill.Dec. 795, 40 N.E.3d 448.

¶ 14 When reviewing the trial court's decision, we must also keep in mind that the burden is always on the movant to show that the relevant factors strongly favor a transfer. Koss Corp. v. Sachdeva , 2012 IL App (1st) 120379, ¶ 106, 363 Ill.Dec. 434, 975 N.E.2d 236 (the burden is on the movant to show a transfer is strongly favored); Erwin v. Motorola, Inc. , 408 Ill. App. 3d 261, 275, 349 Ill.Dec. 1, 945 N.E.2d 1153 (2011) ; Woodward v. Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc. , 368 Ill. App. 3d 827, 833, 306 Ill.Dec. 839, 858 N.E.2d 897 (2006). In the case at bar, the trial court was clearly aware of the high burden on the movant when it found that this case exhibited the "exceptional circumstances" needed to justify transfer.

¶ 15 B. Plaintiffs’ Choice of Forum

¶ 16 "Before weighing the relevant factors, a court must first decide how much deference to give to a plaintiff's choice of forum." Vivas , 392 Ill. App. 3d at 657, 331 Ill.Dec. 827, 911 N.E.2d 1057 (citing Langenhorst , 219 Ill. 2d at 448, 302 Ill.Dec. 363, 848 N.E.2d 927 (the supreme court determined the appropriate amount of deference before weighing the relevant factors)).

...