{ "id": 5800788, "name": "BETTY JO ARMOUR, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. WALTER PETERSEN, Respondent in Discovery-Appellee", "name_abbreviation": "Armour v. Petersen", "decision_date": "1991-09-30", "docket_number": "No. 4\u201491\u20140299", "first_page": "289", "last_page": "291", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "219 Ill. App. 3d 289" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.", "id": 8837, "name": "Illinois Appellate Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "572 N.E.2d 1231", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "pin_cites": [ { "page": "1233" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "213 Ill. App. 3d 998", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 2606934 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "1001" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/213/0998-01" ] }, { "cite": "219 Ill. App. 3d 284", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 5797950 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/219/0284-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 244, "char_count": 3883, "ocr_confidence": 0.795, "pagerank": { "raw": 1.1863224033371136e-07, "percentile": 0.5903307490127803 }, "sha256": "60285dc3194d7bd384144f30af1c235635191ae82362faa0f7f3a9c8253ad3e1", "simhash": "1:73a13d950262be28", "word_count": 628 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:35:35.632923+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "BETTY JO ARMOUR, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. WALTER PETERSEN, Respondent in Discovery-Appellee." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "JUSTICE KNECHT\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nOn August 6, 1990, Betty Jo Armour filed a complaint in discovery against respondent in discovery, Dr. Walter Petersen. Armour sought discovery against Dr. Petersen to determine whether he should be named as a defendant \u201cin the above-captioned cause of action.\u201d On January 31, 1991, Armour filed a motion to add respondent in discovery, Dr. Petersen, as a defendant. Armour attached a complaint, naming Dr. Petersen as the defendant, to the motion.\nThe complaint alleged negligence and res ipsa loquitur. Armour claimed Dr. Petersen performed surgery on her left wrist on August 9, 1988, and failed to timely remove a Silastic drainage tube from the wrist, causing injury.\nDr. Petersen filed an objection to Armour\u2019s motion to add defendant and a motion to dismiss the complaint in discovery. He argued the complaint in discovery was substantially insufficient in law because it failed to name a defendant. He claimed section 2 \u2014 402 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Code) (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1989, ch. 110, par. 2 \u2014 402) allows the designation of a respondent in discovery only in the context of an existing lawsuit with a named defendant. Armour\u2019s failure to name a defendant rendered the pleading legally insufficient under section 2 \u2014 615 of the Code (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1989, ch. 110, par. 2 \u2014 615) and left the circuit court without subject-matter jurisdiction under section 2 \u2014 619 of the Code (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1989, ch. 110, par. 2 \u2014 619). Dr. Petersen claimed the proceedings were a nullity.\nThe motion to dismiss the complaint, which was filed with the motion to add defendant, alleged the two-year statute of limitations applicable to medical negligence suits (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1989, ch. 110, par. 13 \u2014 212) had expired before the motion to add defendant was filed.\nOn March 27, 1991, the Champaign County circuit court concluded it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction and granted the motions to dismiss pursuant to sections 2 \u2014 615 and 2 \u2014 619 of the Code. Armour appeals from this order. We affirm.\nSection 2 \u2014 402 of the Code (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1989, ch. 110, par. 2 \u2014 402) states, in pertinent part:\n\u201cThe plaintiff in any civil action may designate as respondents in discovery in his or her pleading those individuals or other entities, other than the named defendants, believed by the plaintiff to have information essential to the determination of who should properly be named as additional defendants in the action.\nPersons or entities so named as respondents in discovery shall be required to respond to discovery by the plaintiff in the same manner as are defendants and may, on motion of the plaintiff, be added as defendants ***.\u201d (Emphasis added.)\nThis court addressed this same issue in Gonzales v. Pro Ambulance Service (1991), 219 Ill. App. 3d 284, and held section 2 \u2014 402 clearly requires the naming of a defendant. Respondents in discovery may then be designated in addition to the named defendants. The Fifth District Appellate Court recently considered this issue and also concluded section 2 \u2014 402 \u201cclearly contemplates the existence of a named defendant.\u201d Jacobs v. Abbott Laboratories (1991), 213 Ill. App. 3d 998, 1001, 572 N.E.2d 1231, 1233.\nArmour\u2019s failure to name a defendant in her complaint for discovery deprived the circuit court of subject-matter jurisdiction. The motion to add Petersen as a defendant was filed after the statute of limitations had run. The court properly granted the motions to dismiss. The order of the circuit court is affirmed.\nAffirmed.\nLUND, P.J., and STEIGMANN, J., concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "JUSTICE KNECHT" } ], "attorneys": [ "Robert I. Auler, of Auler Law Offices, P.C., of Urbana, for appellant.", "David A. Bailie, of Thomas, Mamer & Haughey, of Champaign, for appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "BETTY JO ARMOUR, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. WALTER PETERSEN, Respondent in Discovery-Appellee.\nFourth District\nNo. 4\u201491\u20140299\nOpinion filed September 30, 1991.\nRobert I. Auler, of Auler Law Offices, P.C., of Urbana, for appellant.\nDavid A. Bailie, of Thomas, Mamer & Haughey, of Champaign, for appellee." }, "file_name": "0289-01", "first_page_order": 311, "last_page_order": 313 }