{ "id": 2532921, "name": "ELIZABETH F. CANFIELD, Ex'r of the Estate of Edith Dahlstrom, Deceased, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. STEVEN DELHEIMER, Defendant-Appellee", "name_abbreviation": "Canfield v. Delheimer", "decision_date": "1991-04-02", "docket_number": "No. 2-90-0929", "first_page": "1055", "last_page": "1059", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "210 Ill. App. 3d 1055" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.", "id": 8837, "name": "Illinois Appellate Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "85 Ill. 2d 253", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 5469019 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "259" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/85/0253-01" ] }, { "cite": "200 Ill. App. 3d 836", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 2462058 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "841" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/200/0836-01" ] }, { "cite": "103 Ill. 2d 536", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 3152590 ], "weight": 4, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "538-39" }, { "page": "538" }, { "page": "539" }, { "page": "539" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/103/0536-01" ] }, { "cite": "111 Ill. 2d 436", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 3166491 ], "year": 1984, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "441" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/111/0436-01" ] }, { "cite": "155 Ill. App. 3d 52", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 3464739 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "54" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/155/0052-01" ] }, { "cite": "84 Ill. App. 3d 538", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 3207506 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "541" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/84/0538-01" ] }, { "cite": "130 Ill. App. 3d 859", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 3493033 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "861" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/130/0859-01" ] }, { "cite": "143 Ill. App. 3d 688", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 5667947 ], "weight": 3, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "690" }, { "page": "690" }, { "page": "691" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/143/0688-01" ] }, { "cite": "104 Ill. 2d 287", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 3146727 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1986, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "293" }, { "page": "292-93" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/104/0287-01" ] }, { "cite": "180 Ill. App. 3d 95", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 2614862 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "96" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/180/0095-01" ] }, { "cite": "185 Ill. App. 3d 248", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 2646848 ], "year": 1988, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "250" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/185/0248-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 488, "char_count": 8541, "ocr_confidence": 0.696, "pagerank": { "raw": 6.592531564795702e-08, "percentile": 0.4033063317591103 }, "sha256": "78eed5d23f4df890c8b326223e8a913fa5aa62b241164b1f2ac2f99a2bc9be2d", "simhash": "1:e98eff5e6ea683d3", "word_count": 1424 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:48:57.765044+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "ELIZABETH F. CANFIELD, Ex\u2019r of the Estate of Edith Dahlstrom, Deceased, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. STEVEN DELHEIMER, Defendant-Appellee." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "JUSTICE INGLIS\ndelivered the opinion of the court;\nPlaintiff, Elizabeth Canfield, as executor of the estate of Edith Dahlstrom (decedent), appeals from an order of the circuit court of Winnebago County, which granted summary judgment in favor of defendant, Dr. Steven Delheimer. Plaintiff contends that there are genuine issues of material fact concerning informed consent and whether defendant breached the standard of care of a neurosurgeon when he operated on decedent.\nOn October 4, 1988, plaintiff filed a complaint seeking $950,000 in damages based upon defendant\u2019s alleged negligence during a surgical procedure. The complaint alleged that decedent entered Swedish-American Hospital on February 28, 1983, due to problems with dizziness. A tumor was discovered during an examination, and surgery was set for March 18, 1983. Defendant performed the surgery on this day, and a biopsy of the tumor revealed that it was a nonmalignant meningioma. Defendant continued with the surgery in an attempt to resect the tumor, but instead caused \u201ca vascular insult to [decedent\u2019s] right frontal lobe and caused hypothenic damages.\u201d Plaintiff alleged that defendant failed to inform decedent of the risks associated with the \u201cmassive\u201d surgery he performed. As a result of the surgery, decedent suffered permanent physical and mental injuries which required her to live in a nursing home.\nOn April 27, 1989, decedent died. Nearly one year later, plaintiff filed an amended complaint in which she alleged that defendant was also negligent by failing to utilize an anteriogram study prior to surgery and should have used an alternative surgical procedure due to the location of the tumor.\nOn May 16, 1990, plaintiff filed a second amended complaint in which she alleged that defendant also should not have operated on decedent because her potassium level was such that she was \u201cdangerously hypokalemic.\u201d\nPlaintiff filed a third amended complaint one week later in which she changed her damages requested to include $750,000 for pain and suffering and $230,833.74 for medical, hospital and nursing expenses. Also on this date, defendant filed two motions for summary judgment. The first motion concerned the informed consent issue, while the second one dealt with \u201cwhether [defendant\u2019s] \u2018approach\u2019 to this surgery was malpractice.\u201d\nOn May 30, 1990, the trial court heard arguments on both of defendant\u2019s motions for summary judgment and granted the motions \u201con all issues.\u201d This order was filed on June 22, 1990. On June 13, 1990, plaintiff filed a motion to vacate the court\u2019s order, arguing that legitimate questions of fact remained in the case.\nOn July 26, 1990, the court indicated that the evidence depositions of plaintiff\u2019s expert witnesses presented no testimony that defendant deviated from the standard of care. The court noted that one expert, Dr. Martins, simply indicated that it was a \u201cjudgment call\u201d and was not a deviation from the standard of care. The court then stated: \u201cSo anyway, the Plaintiff\u2019s Motion to Reconsider the Court\u2019s granting of the Defendant\u2019s Motion for Summary Judgment is heard and denied. I guess that makes our record on the matter.\u201d Defendant\u2019s attorney then informed the court that she could \u201cprepare an order to that effect.\u201d The court responded: \u201cAll right. Thank you.\u201d No written order concerning the court\u2019s denial of plaintiff\u2019s motion to vacate appears in the record on appeal. Plaintiff filed her notice of appeal on August 23,1990.\nBefore addressing the merits of this appeal, we must first determine whether we have jurisdiction to consider this appeal. Although neither party has questioned our jurisdiction, we have a duty to raise it sua sponte and dismiss the appeal if we determine that we do not have jurisdiction. (Waitcus v. Village of Gilberts (1989), 185 Ill. App. 3d 248, 250; Sutherland v. Norbran Leasing Co. (1988), 180 Ill. App. 3d 95, 96.) At issue in this case is whether the absence of a written order affects our jurisdiction.\nSupreme Court Rule 272 (134 Ill. 2d R. 272) provides:\n\u201cIf at the time of announcing final judgment the judge requires the submission of a form of written judgment to be signed by him, the clerk shall make a notation to that effect and the judgment becomes final only when the signed judgment is filed. If no such signed written judgment is to be filed, the judge or clerk shall forthwith make a notation of judgment and enter the judgment of record promptly, and the judgment is entered at the time it is entered of record.\u201d (134 Ill. 2d R. 272.)\nThe purpose of this rule is to remove any doubt regarding when a judgment is entered or becomes final. (Stoermer v. Edgar (1984), 104 Ill. 2d 287, 293; Ahn Brothers, Inc. v. Buttitta (1986), 143 Ill. App. 3d 688, 690.) Furthermore, Rule 272 provides for two alternatives: (1) either a written order is necessary; or (2) no written order is necessary and the judgment is entered when it becomes of record. Ahn Brothers, 143 Ill. App. 3d at 690; Hasty v. Kilpatrick (1985), 130 Ill. App. 3d 859, 861.\nIn the present case, the trial court orally denied plaintiffs motion for reconsideration, after which defense counsel stated that she would prepare an order. The court stated: \u201cAll right. Thank you.\u201d The clerk then made the following entry on the record sheet: \u201cMotion to reconsider heard and denied. See Order.\u201d No written order was ever filed.\nIt is our opinion that the trial court expected a written order to be submitted for its approval. In a situation such as this, the judgment becomes final only when the signed judgment is filed. (See Stoermer, 104 Ill. 2d at 292-93; 134 Ill. 2d R. 272; see also In re Marriage of Roberts (1980), 84 Ill. App. 3d 538, 541.) Until the written judgment is filed, the proceedings are in a \u201cstate of temporary abeyance and the bare announcement of the final judgment cannot be enforced.\u201d (In re Marriage of Black (1987), 155 Ill. App. 3d 52, 54.) Furthermore, in the time between the announcement of judgment and the entry of the order, the judgment cannot be appealed. (Ferguson v. Riverside Medical Center (1985), 111 Ill. 2d 436, 441; Archer Daniels Midland Co. v. Barth (1984), 103 Ill. 2d 536, 538-39.) Because no judgment was entered of record in this case, the filing of the notice of appeal on August 23, 1990, did not satisfy the jurisdictional requirements of Supreme Court Rule 303(a) (134 Ill. 2d R. 303(a)), which requires that the notice of appeal be filed within 30 days of the entry of the final judgment from which the appeal is taken. See Ahn Brothers, 143 Ill. App. 3d at 691.\nIt is well established that this court does not have jurisdiction to consider an appeal from a judgment which has yet to be entered. (See Illinois State Toll Highway Authority v. Marathon Oil Co. (1990), 200 Ill. App. 3d 836, 841.) Accordingly, we must dismiss this appeal.\nIn making this determination, we also note that this appeal must also be dismissed for another reason. It is undisputed that defendant\u2019s motions for summary judgment were granted on May 30, 1990, as the record sheet states: \u201cCourt enters Judgment in favor of defendant and against the plaintiff. See Order.\u201d This order was entered on June 22, 1990. However, plaintiff filed a motion to reconsider the court\u2019s order on June 13, 1990. A motion to reconsider a judgment must be filed within 30 days after the challenged judgment is entered. (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1989, ch. 110, par. 2 \u2014 1203; Barth, 103 Ill. 2d at 538.) Plaintiff\u2019s premature motion to reconsider the court\u2019s judgment was not filed within 30 days after the order granting defendant\u2019s motions for summary judgment was entered. Therefore, the June 13, 1990, motion to reconsider was untimely (see Barth, 103 Ill. 2d at 539), and an untimely post-judgment motion does not extend the time for filing a notice of appeal (103 Ill. 2d at 539; Sears v. Sears (1981), 85 Ill. 2d 253, 259). Consequently, the notice of appeal filed on August 23, 1990, filed more than 30 days after the June 22, 1990, order was entered, does not vest this court with jurisdiction, and we must dismiss the appeal.\nAppeal dismissed.\nWOODWARD and NICKELS, JJ., concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "JUSTICE INGLIS" } ], "attorneys": [ "James R. Canfield, of Canfield Law Offices, of Rockford, for appellant.", "Gregory P. Guth and Roberta L. Holzwarth, both of Holmstrom & Green, P.C., of Rockford, for appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "ELIZABETH F. CANFIELD, Ex\u2019r of the Estate of Edith Dahlstrom, Deceased, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. STEVEN DELHEIMER, Defendant-Appellee.\nSecond District\nNo. 2 \u2014 90\u20140929\nOpinion filed April 2, 1991.\n\u2014 Rehearing denied May 1, 1991.\nJames R. Canfield, of Canfield Law Offices, of Rockford, for appellant.\nGregory P. Guth and Roberta L. Holzwarth, both of Holmstrom & Green, P.C., of Rockford, for appellee." }, "file_name": "1055-01", "first_page_order": 1077, "last_page_order": 1081 }