{ "id": 3620566, "name": "LEON BLALARK, Indiv. and as Special Adm. of the Estate of Rita Blalark, Deceased, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. B.U. CHUNG et al., Defendants (Harold Berner et al., Defendants-Appellants)", "name_abbreviation": "Blalark v. Chung", "decision_date": "1988-12-21", "docket_number": "Nos. 87\u2014314, 87\u2014325, 87\u2014555 cons.", "first_page": "541", "last_page": "543", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "177 Ill. App. 3d 541" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.", "id": 8837, "name": "Illinois Appellate Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "520 N.E.2d 293", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "121 Ill. 2d 188", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 3201319 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/121/0188-01" ] }, { "cite": "523 N.E.2d 1020", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "169 Ill. App. 3d 663", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 3550245 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/169/0663-01" ] }, { "cite": "497 N.E.2d 763", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "113 Ill. 2d 219", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 3173826 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/113/0219-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 341, "char_count": 4911, "ocr_confidence": 0.793, "pagerank": { "raw": 8.386523604454575e-08, "percentile": 0.48215475110711087 }, "sha256": "775d26b873cf1d57797963865c929f62ad6137fe40fc5173afefa53e289d7aa7", "simhash": "1:4bff94a0a78abdd5", "word_count": 805 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:06:39.846106+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "LEON BLALARK, Indiv. and as Special Adm. of the Estate of Rita Blalark, Deceased, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. B.U. CHUNG et al., Defendants (Harold Berner et al., Defendants-Appellants)." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "JUSTICE McNAMARA\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nPlaintiff Leon Blalark, individually and as special administrator of the estate of decedent Rita Blalark, filed a medical malpractice action against numerous defendants, including appellants Drs. Harold Berner, H.J. Kim, Gene Oh, R. Tolentino, and Solomon I. Secemsky. (Dr. Secemsky has been dismissed from this appeal.) The trial court denied defendants\u2019 motions to dismiss because of plaintiff\u2019s failure to file the attorney\u2019s affidavit and the medical report required by section 2\u2014622 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1985, ch. 110, par. 2\u2014622). The court granted plaintiff an extension of time, but certified the following question, and we accepted the appeal.\n\u201cWhether pursuant to section 2\u20141007 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the Court has the authority to extend the time allowed by section 2\u2014622 of the Code of Civil Procedure for the filing of the required affidavits and medical reports.\u201d\nDecedent died in the recovery room following surgery on a herniated disk, allegedly as the result of negligence relating to the anesthesia. On August 13, 1985, plaintiff filed the original complaint. On August 15, 1985, the section 2\u2014622 affidavit and medical report requirement became effective. On October 17, 1985, plaintiff filed a first amended complaint which added Drs. Berner and Kim as defendants. On June 20, 1986, in Bernier v. Burris (1986), 113 Ill. 2d 219, 497 N.E.2d 763, the supreme court upheld the constitutionality of the 1985 medical malpractice legislation.\nOn August 12, 1986, plaintiff filed, on his own motion and with leave of court, an affidavit and an internist\u2019s medical report regarding the alleged negligence of the doctors.\nOn October 16, 1986, the trial court struck the internist\u2019s medical report as to anesthesiologists Drs. Berner and Kim, and granted plaintiff leave to file another medical report within 60 days. On October 31, 1986, plaintiff filed an anesthesiologist\u2019s medical report, which was found to be in compliance with section 2\u2014622. On January 14, 1987, the trial court denied defendants\u2019 section 2\u2014619 motion to dismiss.\nSince the filing of this appeal, several opinions have addressed the issues raised by the certified question here. In Bassett v. Wang (1988), 169 Ill. App. 3d 663, 523 N.E.2d 1020, this court held that section 2\u2014622 applies to an amended complaint which names a new defendant and is filed after the effective date of the statute. Thus, we agree with defendants that plaintiff must comply with the new statute. Although the original complaint was filed two days prior to the statute\u2019s effective date, the defendants appearing in this appeal were all added after that effective date.\nHaving found section 2\u2014622 applicable, the only question is whether the trial court \u201chas authority to extend the time allowed by section 2\u2014622.\u201d Since the certification of this question, our supreme court has held that the trial court has the authority to exercise its discretion in deciding whether to extend the time allowed by section 2\u2014622 for filing the affidavit and medical report.\nIn McCastle v. Sheinkop (1987), 121 Ill. 2d 188, 520 N.E.2d 293, the court held that the legislature did not intend to require dismissal with prejudice for failure to comply with section 2\u2014622. The trial court may, in its discretion, grant leave to file an amended pleading in compliance with section 2\u2014622. We hold that the trial court had the authority to extend the filing time here.\nDefendants urge us to exceed the bounds of the certified question and address their contention that the trial court abused its discretion because it failed to determine whether plaintiff had good cause, under either section 2\u2014622 or section 2\u20141007, to delay filing the affidavit and medical report. Under Supreme Court Rule 308(a), however, we are restricted to the narrow limits of the certified question and we have no authority to venture beyond those limits. 107 Ill. 2d R. 308(a).\nFor the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the circuit court of Cook County is affirmed.\nAffirmed.\nWHITE, P.J., and RIZZI, J., concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "JUSTICE McNAMARA" } ], "attorneys": [ "Baker & McKenzie, of Chicago (Francis D. Morrissey, Peter J. Mone, Michael A. Pollard, Michael J. Wagner, and Luke L. Cauchot, of counsel), for appellant Harold Berner.", "Michael J. Gallagher, John N. Seibel, Mark P. Loftus, and Judith A. Schieber, of Cassiday, Schade & Gloor, Hugh C. Griffin and Robert Dennis Rasor, of Lord, Bissell & Brook, and Robert Marc Chemers, Michael G. Bruton, and William E. Kenny, of Pretzel & Stouffer, all of Chicago, for other appellants.", "Thomas P. Valenti, of Chicago, for appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "LEON BLALARK, Indiv. and as Special Adm. of the Estate of Rita Blalark, Deceased, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. B.U. CHUNG et al., Defendants (Harold Berner et al., Defendants-Appellants).\nFirst District (3rd Division)\nNos. 87\u2014314, 87\u2014325, 87\u2014555 cons.\nOpinion filed December 21, 1988.\nBaker & McKenzie, of Chicago (Francis D. Morrissey, Peter J. Mone, Michael A. Pollard, Michael J. Wagner, and Luke L. Cauchot, of counsel), for appellant Harold Berner.\nMichael J. Gallagher, John N. Seibel, Mark P. Loftus, and Judith A. Schieber, of Cassiday, Schade & Gloor, Hugh C. Griffin and Robert Dennis Rasor, of Lord, Bissell & Brook, and Robert Marc Chemers, Michael G. Bruton, and William E. Kenny, of Pretzel & Stouffer, all of Chicago, for other appellants.\nThomas P. Valenti, of Chicago, for appellee." }, "file_name": "0541-01", "first_page_order": 563, "last_page_order": 565 }