{
  "id": 3494348,
  "name": "GILLIE CONLEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SPRINGFIELD CLINIC et al., Defendants-Appellees",
  "name_abbreviation": "Conley v. Springfield Clinic",
  "decision_date": "1985-01-24",
  "docket_number": "No. 4\u201484\u20140536",
  "first_page": "369",
  "last_page": "371",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "130 Ill. App. 3d 369"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "421 N.E.2d 864",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "85 Ill. 2d 161",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        5469841
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-2d/85/0161-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "421 N.E.2d 869",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "weight": 4,
      "year": 1981,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "85 Ill. 2d 146",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        5469943
      ],
      "weight": 4,
      "year": 1981,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-2d/85/0146-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 283,
    "char_count": 4126,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.715,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.5256601603679484e-07,
      "percentile": 0.6701626233807454
    },
    "sha256": "8abb28ff23e61b0da3d6ff94cd3c7df6b31dc8e202acb693d07a6f8fd4276951",
    "simhash": "1:06603a52efa30a3c",
    "word_count": 687
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:58:49.109718+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "GILLIE CONLEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SPRINGFIELD CLINIC et al., Defendants-Appellees."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "JUSTICE MILLS\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nMedical malpractice.\nGillie Conley appeals from a summary judgment in favor of the Springfield Clinic and Dr. Alan Rubenstein, granted on the grounds that the complaint was not timely filed.\nWe affirm.\nThe complaint, filed on September 2, 1983, alleged that Dr. Rubenstein negligently severed nerves in plaintiff\u2019s neck during an operation on June 9, 1981. Plaintiff maintained that as a result of the alleged negligence her shoulder drooped and she suffered pain in the shoulder area.\nIn a discovery deposition, plaintiff stated that she felt pain in her shoulder since the time of the operation. On July 17, 1981, plaintiff saw Dr. Rubenstein and complained to him that she was having trouble with her shoulder. The following day, July 18, plaintiff returned to the clinic to have the sutures and dressings removed. At that time, she told Dr. Rubenstein\u2019s nurse that \u201c[h]e\u2019s cut something that he shouldn\u2019t have.\u201d Plaintiff also suspected at that time that something had been done wrong in the surgical procedure. Plaintiff also stated in the deposition that, at the time she had the sutures removed, her husband thought the surgery had been performed improperly and that he said he wished she had never had the surgery. (Plaintiff filed no counteraffidavits.)\nIn ruling on the defendants\u2019 motion for summary judgment, the trial court concluded from plaintiff\u2019s deposition that she must have known by July 30, 1981, that her condition was caused by the defendants\u2019 conduct. The court found, therefore, that the filing of the complaint on September 2, 1983, was beyond the two-year limit provided by section 13\u2014212 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Ill. Rev. Stat. 1981, ch. 110, par. 13\u2014212.\nSection 13\u2014212 provides in part:\n\u201cNo action for damages for injury or death against any physician *** shall be brought more than 2 years after the date on which the claimant knew, or through the use of reasonable diligence should have known, *** of the existence of the injury or death for which damages are sought ***.\u201d\nIn many cases, the time at which an injured party knows or reasonably should have known both of his injury and that it was wrongfully caused will be a disputed question to be resolved by the finder of fact. (Witherell v. Weimer (1981), 85 Ill. 2d 146, 421 N.E.2d 869.) However, where it is apparent from the undisputed facts that only one conclusion can be drawn, the question becomes one for the court. Witherell v. Weimer (1981), 85 Ill. 2d 146, 421 N.E.2d 869; see Nolan v. Johns-Manville Asbestos (1981), 85 Ill. 2d 161, 421 N.E.2d 864.\nThe limitation period of section 13\u2014212 starts to run when a person knows or reasonably should know of his injury, and also knows or reasonably should know that it was wrongfully caused. (Witherell v. Weimer (1981), 85 Ill. 2d 146, 421 N.E.2d 869.) At that point, the burden is on the injured party to inquire further as to the existence of a cause of action. Witherell v. Weimer (1981), 85 Ill. 2d 146, 421 N.E.2d 869.\nIn the present case, the facts presented in plaintiff\u2019s deposition were undisputed. They showed that by July 18, 1981, plaintiff felt pain in her shoulder and her shoulder drooped; plaintiff attributed these symptoms to the surgery performed by Dr. Rubenstein; and plaintiff complained to Rubenstein\u2019s nurse that \u201c[h]e\u2019s cut something that he shouldn\u2019t have.\u201d It can only be concluded from these facts that\u2014within six weeks of the surgery\u2014plaintiff knew of her injury and attributed the injury to defendants\u2019 wrongful conduct. At that point, the burden was upon plaintiff to make further inquiry as to the existence of a cause of action.\nThe complaint, filed after July 18,1983, was untimely.\nAffirmed.\nGREEN, RJ., and TRAPP, J., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "JUSTICE MILLS"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Leahy & Leahy, of Springfield (Cheryl Redfield Jansen and Mary Lee Leahy, of counsel), for appellant.",
      "Heyl, Royster, Voelker & Allen, of Springfield (Gary L. Borah and Ray E. Alexander, of counsel), for appellees."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "GILLIE CONLEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SPRINGFIELD CLINIC et al., Defendants-Appellees.\nFourth District\nNo. 4\u201484\u20140536\nOpinion filed January 24, 1985.\nLeahy & Leahy, of Springfield (Cheryl Redfield Jansen and Mary Lee Leahy, of counsel), for appellant.\nHeyl, Royster, Voelker & Allen, of Springfield (Gary L. Borah and Ray E. Alexander, of counsel), for appellees."
  },
  "file_name": "0369-01",
  "first_page_order": 391,
  "last_page_order": 393
}