People v. Gomez-Ramirez

2021 IL App (3d) 200121

192 N.E.3d 851

455 Ill.Dec. 1022

The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.Ismael GOMEZ-RAMIREZ, Defendant,

(AMITA Health Adventist Medical Center Bolingbrook and Alexian Brothers-AHS Midwest Region Health Company, Contemnors-Appellants).

Appeal No. 3-20-0121

Appellate Court of Illinois, Third District.

Opinion filed August 31, 2021

Steven F. Pflaum and Dana V. M. Engel, of Neal, Gerber & Eisenberg LLP, and John W. Whitcomb, Joseph T. Monahan, and Monique C. Patton, of Monahan Law Group, LLC, both of Chicago, for appellants.

James W. Glasgow, State's Attorney, of Joliet (Marie Quinlivan Czech, Assistant State's Attorney, of counsel), for the People.

Veronique Baker, Matthew Davison, and Laurel Spahn, of Illinois Guardianship and Advocacy Commission, of Chicago, amicus curiae.

Joseph A. Roselius, Michael Geller, and Eleni Christou, of DLA Piper LLP (US), of Chicago, for amici curiae Chicago Appleseed and the Chicago Council of Lawyers—The Collaboration for Justice.

Sarah L. Beuning, of Illinois Coalition Against Sexual Assault, of Springfield, Mallory Littlejohn, of Chicago Alliance Against Sexual Exploitation, of Chicago, and Terry Campos, of National Crime Victim Law Institute, of Portland, Oregon, amici curiae.

PRESIDING JUSTICE McDADE delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion.

¶ 1 The trial court held AMITA Health Adventist Medical Center Bolingbrook and Alexian Brothers-AHS Midwest Region Health Company (collectively, AMITA Health) in civil contempt for failing to comply with a subpoena order to produce medical records the State requested. AMITA Health challenges the subpoena as unenforceable because it required the hospital to violate the physician-patient privilege recognized and protected by the Illinois Constitution. The State argues that the privilege does not apply to AMITA Health and that the State's own duty under the United States Constitution requires production of the records. After considering the arguments from the parties and the briefs from the amici curiae¹ in this case, we vacate the trial court's contempt order.

¶ 2 I. BACKGROUND

¶ 3 The State charged Ismael Gomez-Ramirez with one count of aggravated battery, in violation of section 12-3.05(a)(1) of the Criminal Code of 2012 ( 720 ILCS 5/12-3.05(a)(1) (West 2018)), and one count of battery, in violation of section 12-3.2(a)(2) (id. § 12-3.2(a)(2)). The bill of indictment alleged that Gomez-Ramirez "knowingly and without legal justification caused great bodily harm to Evelyn Rodriguez, in that [he] stomped [her] about the body." Rodriguez received medical treatment from AMITA Health starting on October 6, 2018. In June 2019, the Will County State's Attorney issued a subpoena requesting that AMITA Health "produce medical records and documents related to Evelyn Rodriguez." AMITA Health responded to the request for the records by stating that it was "unable to comply with [the] request for the disclosure" until certain documents were provided.

¶ 4 On November 7, 2019, the trial court issued a subpoena order to AMITA Health to produce the records. The same day, AMITA Health filed a motion to quash the subpoena, raising two objections to production: (1) the documents are protected under the physician-patient privilege codified in section 8-802 of the Code of Civil Procedure ( 735 ILCS 5/8-802 (West 2018) ) and (2) the State failed to provide Rodriguez the notice and hearing required to overcome the privilege. The court heard arguments on the motion to quash on December 5, 2019.

¶ 5 The State argued that it was obligated to obtain the records. It contended that the defendant's due process and confrontation rights overrode the physician-patient privilege. It also argued that the privilege only applies when the defendant is trying to obtain the records sought. The State contended that because it—and not the defendant—was seeking the records, the privilege did not apply. On December 18, 2019, the trial court denied the motion to quash. The court noted that the "6th Amendment in the United States Constitution says that defendants in criminal cases are entitled to compulsory process." It ordered AMITA Health to produce the records by or on January 15, 2020 "for an in-camera inspection before [ruling] on whether or not the hospital is entitled to the protective order."

¶ 6 On January 7, 2020, counsel for AMITA Health sent a letter to Rodriguez regarding the subpoena and the trial court ruling. The letter notified her of the pending order and the court hearing scheduled for January 15, 2020. Included in the letter were a copy of the subpoena and a Spanish translation of the letter. Counsel requested that Rodriguez contact him or the State Attorney's office to express her wishes concerning disclosure of her records. In closing, the letter stated:

"If you do nothing, it is possible that the judge will require disclosure of your medical records at the January 15 hearing or hold AMITA Health in contempt of court for refusing to comply with the court's order requiring the records to be disclosed."

AMITA Health received no response from Rodriguez.

¶ 7 On January 9, 2020, AMITA Health filed a motion to reconsider. Included in the motion was the hospital's request that, if reconsideration were denied, the trial court find it in civil contempt for noncompliance in order to permit an immediate appeal. The court denied the motion to reconsider and held AMITA Health in civil contempt on February 19, 2020. First, the court found that Gomez-Ramirez had expressed a need for the medical records and that the "State's Attorney had subpoenaed the records, not the defendant." It then reasoned that the "State's Attorney has a continuing and ongoing duty to produce both inculpatory and exculpatory information and they must provide that on an ongoing basis pursuant to Supreme Court Rules on discovery." Finally, it concluded that the State had complied with article I, section 8.1(a)(2) of the Illinois Constitution. Ill. Const. 1970, art. I, § 8.1 (a)(2). The court ordered AMITA Health to pay $500 a day until it complied with the subpoena but stayed the order until after AMITA Health secured a decision from this court.

¶ 8 On February 28, 2020, AMITA Health filed its notice of appeal. On June 29, 2021, after briefing was completed and oral argument had been held, the State filed a motion to supplement the record. The State requested that we consider a disclosure authorization form, signed by Rodriguez on June 22, 2020. Included with the form are affidavits from Assistant State's Attorney Alexandra Molesky and Yadira Aparicio, an employee of the Will County State's Attorney's office. Both affidavits averred that the State notified Rodriguez of the litigation regarding her medical records and that she agreed to cooperate with the State. Aparicio averred that she spoke with Rodriguez on June 12, 2020, at which time she agreed to sign the form. Neither Molesky nor Aparicio stated when the State received the signed form or averred that AMITA Health had been made aware of a signed consent at any time prior to the State's disclosure of its existence at oral argument in this court.

¶ 9 II. ANALYSIS

¶ 10 When a party is held in civil contempt "for violating, or threatening to violate, a pretrial discovery order, the discovery order is subject to review." Norskog v. Pfiel , 197 Ill. 2d 60, 69, 257 Ill.Dec. 899, 755 N.E.2d 1 (2001). Thus, our task requires us to review the underlying order whose compliance the civil contempt order is designed to coerce. Id. "Where the underlying order cannot be complied with, there can be no finding of civil contempt." In re Marriage of Pavlovich , 2019 IL App (1st) 172859, ¶ 29, 433 Ill.Dec. 653, 133 N.E.3d 1. "In other words, civil contempt exists where (1) the contemnor has the ability to comply with the underlying court order and, (2) so long as the contemnor complies with the underlying order, no further sanctions are imposed." Id. If the underlying order turns on the applicability of the law to uncontroverted facts, the question is one of law, which we review de novo. People v. Damkroger , 408 Ill. App. 3d 936, 940, 349 Ill.Dec. 452, 946 N.E.2d 948 (2011).

¶ 11 A. The Requirements of Section 8-802

¶ 12 AMITA Health contends that the physician-patient privilege of the Illinois Constitution precludes it from complying with the subpoena order. The privilege is codified in Section 8–802 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which states in pertinent part:

"No physician or surgeon shall be permitted to disclose any information he or she may have acquired in attending any patient in a professional character, necessary to enable him or her professionally to serve the patient, except [enumerated exceptions]." 735 ILCS 5/8–802 (West 2018).

Thus, this case turns on our construction of section 8–802, a question of law that we review de novo. Palm v. Holocker , 2018 IL 123152, ¶ 21, 433 Ill.Dec. 104, 131 N.E.3d 462.

¶ 13 Our primary goal is to give effect to the legislature's intent, taking the language of section 8-802 as the best indication of that intent. People ex rel. Department of Professional Regulation v. Manos , 202 Ill. 2d 563, 570–71, 270 Ill.Dec. 43, 782 N.E.2d 237 (2002). " ‘To accomplish this goal, words used in the statutory provision should be given their plain and ordinary meaning.’ " Id. (quoting People v. Hicks , 164 Ill. 2d 218, 222, 207 Ill.Dec. 295, 647 N.E.2d 257 (1995) ). "Where statutory language is clear and unambiguous, it will be given effect without resort to other aids of construction." Holocker , 2018 IL 123152, ¶ 21, 433 Ill.Dec. 104, 131 N.E.3d 462. The language of section 8-802 is clear and unambiguous: it "provides that information acquired by physicians and surgeons in attending patients may not be disclosed except in the specifically enumerated situations provided in the statute." Id. ¶ 37. With this enumeration, "the legislature established a limited number of circumstances in which physicians and...