Professional Documents
Culture Documents
5
Procedure:
A.
Brandon
Wilson
and
Daphne
Wilson
(plaintiff)
v.
Edward
Hospital
(defendant)
B.
The
plaintiff,
Brandon
Wilson
and
Daphne
Wilson.
C.
In
the
circuit
court
of
Du
Page
County.
D.
The
trial
court
denied
the
motion,
but
certified
a
question
to
the
appellate
court
pursuant
to
Supreme
Court
Rule
308
(eff.
Feb.
1,
1994)
on
the
issue
of
whether
actual
agency
and
apparent
agency
are
separate
claims
for
purposes
of
res
judicata
and
the
prohibition
against
claim-splitting.
E.
In
2004,
Appeal
from
the
Appellate
Court
for
the
Second
District;
heard
in
that
court
on
appeal
from
the
Circuit
Court
of
Du
Page
County,
the
Hon.
Hollis
L.
Webster,
Judge,
presiding.
Facts:
A.
1. In
2003,
plaintiff
Brandon
Wilson,
who
was
then
a
minor,
broke
his
right
femur
in
an
automobile
accident.
2. He
was
taken
to
defendant
Edward
Hospital,
where
surgery
was
performed
to
repair
the
fractured
bone.
3. During
surgery,
Brandon
aspirated
vomit
into
his
lungs,
causing
cardiac
arrest,
which
resulted
in
an
anoxic
brain
injury.
4. In
2004,
Brandon
and
his
mother,
Daphne,
filed
a
complaint
for
medical
malpractice.
5. Their
complaint
alleged
that
the
surgery
was
not
of
an
emergency
nature
and
that
the
doctors
were
negligent
in
failing
to
provide
for
a
sufficient
period
of
fasting
prior
to
performing
surgery
on
Brandon.
6. Plaintiffs
alleged
that
all
persons
working
at
the
hospital
were
employees
and/or
agents
of
the
hospital.
7. In
a
single
count
of
their
second
amended
complaint,
plaintiffs
alleged
that
each
of
the
defendant
doctors
was
an
agent
in
law
or
in
fact
of
the
hospital
and
that
the
hospital
was
liable
for
the
wrongful
acts
and
omissions
of
the
doctors.
8. The
hospital
filed
a
motion
for
partial
summary
judgment,
arguing
that
the
doctors
were
neither
its
actual
nor
its
apparent
agents.
9. The
trial
court
granted
partial
summary
judgment
on
the
ground
that
the
doctors
were
not
actual
agents
of
the
hospital.
10.
The
court
found
that
a
question
of
fact
existed
as
to
whether
the
doctors
were
the
apparent
agents
of
the
hospital.
11.
In
2009,
plaintiffs
voluntarily
dismissed
their
complaint
pursuant
to
section
2-1009
of
the
Code
of
Civil
Procedure
(Code)
(735
ILCS
5/2-
1009
(West
2008)).
Case
5
12.
One
year
later,
plaintiffs
refilled
their
action.
13.
In
their
third
amended
complaint,
they
alleged,
as
to
the
hospital,
that
both
doctors
acted
as
apparent
agents
of
the
hospital.
14. The
hospital
argued
that
plaintiffs
refilled
action
was
barred
by
res
judicata
because:
- A
final
judgment
on
the
merits
was
rendered
on
plaintiffs
actual
agency
claim
- The
causes
of
action
against
the
hospital
pleaded
in
the
original
and
refilled
actions
are
identical.
- There
is
an
identity
of
parties.
15. The
trial
court
denied
the
hospitals
motion
to
dismiss
but
granted
its
motion
for
an
order
16. The
appellate
court
answered
the
certified
question
in
the
affirmative,
holding
that
actual
agency
and
apparent
agency
are
separate
claims.
17. The
appellate
court
here
rejected
plaintiffs
argument
that
they
had
only
a
single
claim
for
negligence
based
upon
vicarious
liability
that
was
supported
in
different
ways
by
allegations
of
actual
agency
and
apparent
agency.
18.
It
also
rejected
their
argument
that
the
trial
courts
determination
that
as
a
matter
of
law,
the
doctors
were
not
the
actual
agents
of
the
hospital,
did
not
affect
the
unitary
nature
of
the
negligence
claim.
B.
III.
Issues:
A.
The
issues
of
whether
actual
agency
and
apparent
agency
are
separate
claims
for
purposes
of
res
judicata
and
the
prohibition
against
claim
splitting,
B.
I
do
not
lean
to
agree
with
all
the
ways
that
the
court
framed
the
issues
until
I
know
what
exactly
harm
the
plaintiff,
weather
there
was
negligence
from
other
employees
before
the
doctors
saw
the
plaintiff.
Case
5
IV.
Holding:
A.
We
reject
the
hospitals
argument
that
actual
agency
and
apparent
agency
are
separate
and
distinct.
We
hold
that
apparent
agency
and
actual
agency
are
not
separate
claims
for
purposes
of
res
judicata
and
that
no
final
order
was
entered
here.
Plaintiffs
have
one
claim
or
cause
of
action
against
the
hospital,
negligence
based
upon
the
hospitals
responsibility
for
the
allegedly
negligent
acts
of
the
defendant
doctors.
B.
The
trial
courts
grant
of
partial
summary
judgment
did
not
dispose
of
the
rights
of
the
parties
on
a
separate
branch
of
the
controversy.
Therefore,
the
order
was
not
final
for
res
judicata
purposes,
and
plaintiffs
were
not
barred
from
asserting
their
allegations
of
apparent
agency
in
their
refilled
action.
C.
I
agree
with
letting
the
plaintiff
assert
their
allegations
because
the
hospitals
argument
had
been
already
rejected,
which
likely
showed
part
of
the
negligence
of
their
actions.
V.
Implications:
A.
This
case
has
an
impact
of
both
the
hospitals
and
physicians
at
the
same
time
because
the
strategy
of
the
appointment
that
some
hospitals
used
are
not
in
favor
of
them,
which
would
place
them
in
inappropriate
situation
with
the
patients
and
the
law,
so
there
should
not
be
any
complexity
of
being
clear
of
the
process
with
others.
B.
Its
implications
are
to
make
certain
that
all
or
most
of
your
staff
is
able
to
conduct
their
duties
without
making
any
mistakes
in
order
to
avoid
facing
problems
with
others.
C.
Healthcare
administrators
should
think
about
the
main
things
in
the
field
of
dealing
with
the
staff,
there
should
be
scheduled
training
for
the
staff,
the
hiring
and
retention
should
be
decided
carefully
to
keep
or
bring
the
right
people
to
the
field
to
provide
sufficient
services.
D.
If
the
case
had
been
decided
differently,
the
organizations
and
doctors
would
not
be
under
serious
oversight
of
their
actions
and
the
patients
would
be
more
neglected.
Case 5