{ "id": 1295595, "name": "JESSIE WEIMANN, as Next Friend and Guardian for the Person and Estate of Rosalie Weimann, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MEADOW MANOR, INC., Defendant-Appellee", "name_abbreviation": "Weimann v. Meadow Manor, Inc.", "decision_date": "1996-12-12", "docket_number": "No. 5\u201496\u20140182", "first_page": "455", "last_page": "459", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "285 Ill. App. 3d 455" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.", "id": 8837, "name": "Illinois Appellate Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "669 N.E.2d 911", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1996, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "283 Ill. App. 3d 254", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 182716 ], "year": 1996, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/283/0254-01" ] }, { "cite": "134 N.E. 751", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.", "year": 1922, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "642 N.E.2d 1242", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1994, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "finding that expiration of a statute of limitations creates a vested right that is beyond legislative interference" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "162 Ill. 2d 249", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 477555 ], "year": 1994, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "finding that expiration of a statute of limitations creates a vested right that is beyond legislative interference" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/162/0249-01" ] }, { "cite": "483 N.E.2d 226", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1985, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "108 Ill. 2d 1", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 3129856 ], "year": 1985, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "20" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/108/0001-01" ] }, { "cite": "204 N.E.2d 4", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1965, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "6" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "32 Ill. 2d 138", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2841263 ], "year": 1965, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "142" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/32/0138-01" ] }, { "cite": "664 N.E.2d 36", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "weight": 6, "year": 1996, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "40" }, { "page": "40" }, { "page": "40" }, { "page": "40" }, { "page": "40" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "171 Ill. 2d 282", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 57335 ], "weight": 6, "year": 1996, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "289" }, { "page": "289" }, { "page": "290" }, { "page": "290" }, { "page": "290-91" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/171/0282-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 515, "char_count": 9309, "ocr_confidence": 0.792, "pagerank": { "raw": 1.2026946019050698e-07, "percentile": 0.5940539390520451 }, "sha256": "ec15b4f0f620aac7d59df81acbd156995c193c25efd9e3d49dae51b78c916103", "simhash": "1:8a9759dd3b75cb85", "word_count": 1542 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:02:27.033630+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "JESSIE WEIMANN, as Next Friend and Guardian for the Person and Estate of Rosalie Weimann, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MEADOW MANOR, INC., Defendant-Appellee." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "JUSTICE GOLDENHERSH\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nPlaintiff, Jessie O. Weimann, guardian of the person and estate of Rosalie Weimann, appeals from an order entered by the circuit court of Christian County striking plaintiff\u2019s prayer for treble damages for injuries Rosalie Weimann allegedly sustained while a resident at Meadow Manor, the facility of defendant, Meadow Manor, Inc. Plaintiff seeks treble damages under section 3 \u2014 602 of the Nursing Home Care Act (the Act) (210 ILCS 45/3 \u2014 602 (West 1994)) as it existed on March 6, 1995, when plaintiff filed his complaint, prior to the amendment of section 3 \u2014 602 by Public Act 89 \u2014 197, effective July 21, 1995 (see 210 ILCS 45/3 \u2014 602 (West Supp. 1995)). The circuit court entered an order certifying the question of treble damages for interlocutory appeal to this court. On appeal, the sole issue presented for our consideration is whether the amendment of section 3 \u2014 602 by Public Act 89 \u2014 197 shall be applied retroactively to actions occurring prior to July 21, 1995. We hold that the circuit court erred in applying the amended section 3 \u2014 602 of Public Act 89 \u2014 197 retroactively.\nI\nCount I of plaintiff\u2019s two-count complaint is premised upon liability under the Act and seeks treble damages and attorney fees. The complaint alleges that Rosalie Weimann, plaintiff\u2019s wife, was raped repeatedly by a licensed practical nurse employed by defendant and further alleges that defendant was warned repeatedly of the nurse\u2019s conduct and failed to prevent further sexual acts by the nurse against Rosalie Weimann. Count II alleges that plaintiff\u2019s injuries were caused by defendant\u2019s negligence and seeks compensatory and punitive damages.\nAt the time the alleged rapes occurred, from March 1993 through January 1995, and when plaintiff filed his complaint on March 6, 1995, section 3 \u2014 602 of the Act provided:\n\"\u00a7 3 \u2014 602. The licensee shall pay 3 times the actual damages, or $500, whichever is greater, and costs and attorney\u2019s fees to a facility resident whose rights, as specified in Part 1 of Article II of this Act, are violated.\u201d 210 ILCS 45/3 \u2014 602 (West 1994).\nThe General Assembly passed Public Act 89 \u2014 197 while plaintiffs complaint was pending. Public Act 89 \u2014 197, referred to as the \"Health Care Worker Background Check Act,\u201d amended section 3 \u2014 602 of the Act by repealing the treble damages provision. Section 3 \u2014 602 now reads as follows:\n\"\u00a7 3 \u2014 602. The licensee shall pay the actual damages and costs and attorney\u2019s fees to a facility resident whose rights, as specified in Part 1 of Article II of this Act, are violated.\u201d 210 ILCS 45/3\u2014 602 (West Supp. 1995).\nUpon enactment of Public Act 89 \u2014 197, defendant moved to strike plaintiffs request for treble damages. On February 27, 1996, the trial court entered an interlocutory order granting defendant\u2019s motion to strike treble damages and, pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 308 (155 Ill. 2d R. 308), certifying the following question of law:\n\"Shall treble damages be stricken from actions brought under the Illinois Nursing Home Act, 210 ILCS 45/3 \u2014 602, where the alleged facts supporting said actions occurred prior to the enactment of Public Act 89 \u2014 0197 on July 21, 1995.\u201d\nOn April 4, 1996, we accepted jurisdiction to answer this question pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 308.\nII\nPlaintiff contends that it was error for the trial court to apply Public Act 89 \u2014 197 retroactively to strike treble damages from plaintiffs complaint. Plaintiff maintains that in light of our supreme court\u2019s decision in First of America Trust Co. v. Armstead, 171 Ill. 2d 282, 664 N.E.2d 36 (1996), Public Act 89 \u2014 197 should not be applied retroactively because the amendments impose a new duty on plaintiff and create a new disability with respect to transactions and considerations already passed. We agree for the reasons set out below.\nGenerally, a reviewing court is to apply the law as it exists at the time of the appeal unless doing so interferes with a vested right. First of America Trust Co., 171 Ill. 2d at 289, 664 N.E.2d at 40. \"[Wjhere an amendment does not reach back and interfere with vested rights, there is no truly retroactive impact.\u201d First of America Trust Co., 171 Ill. 2d at 289, 664 N.E.2d at 40. An amendment has a retroactive impact when it \" ' \"takes away or impairs vested rights acquired under existing laws, or creates a new obligation, imposes a new duty, or attaches a new disability in respect of transactions or considerations already past.\u201d \u2019 \u201d First of America Trust Co., 171 Ill. 2d at 290, 664 N.E.2d at 40, quoting United States Steel Credit Union v. Knight, 32 Ill. 2d 138, 142, 204 N.E.2d 4, 6 (1965), quoting 82 C.J.S. Statutes \u00a7 412 (1953). There is no retroactive impact where vested rights are not yet perfected or the amendment is procedural in nature. First of America Trust Co., 171 Ill. 2d at 290, 664 N.E.2d at 40. Acknowledging that \"[wjhether a particular expectation rises to the level of a vested right is not capable of precise definition,\u201d our supreme court has stated:\n\"[A] vested right [is] an expectation that is so far perfected that it cannot be taken away by legislation. Sanelli v. Glenview State Bank, 108 Ill. 2d 1, 20, 483 N.E.2d 226 (1985). Although not capable of precise definition, a vested right is a complete and unconditional demand or exemption that may be equated with a property interest. See, e.g., Sepmeyer v. Holman, 162 Ill. 2d 249, 642 N.E.2d 1242 (1994) (finding that expiration of a statute of limitations creates a vested right that is beyond legislative interference); [City of Chicago v.] Collin, 302 Ill. [270,] 275, 134 N.E. 751 [(1922)] (holding that owner of land sought to be taken for public use has a vested right to compensation pursuant to law in effect at time of filing of petition, because filing of petition creates 'an immediate, fixed and determinate right to any compensation\u2019).\u201d First of America Trust Co., 171 Ill. 2d at 290-91, 664 N.E.2d at 40.\nRetroactive application of Public Act 89 \u2014 197 to the existing controversy would take away or impair plaintiff\u2019s vested rights acquired under the Act prior to the enactment of Public Act 89 \u2014 197 amending section 3 \u2014 602. The Act, inter alia, gives a nursing home resident a cause of action against nursing home owners and operators for violations of the residents\u2019 rights under the Act. 210 ILCS 45/3 \u2014 601 (West 1994). Before Public Act 89 \u2014 197 became law, section 3 \u2014 602 of the Act provided that the operator of the nursing home facility \"shall pay 3 times the actual damages, or $500, whichever is greater, and costs and attorney\u2019s fees to a facility resident whose rights *** in Part I of Article II of this Act, are violated.\u201d 210 ILCS 45/3 \u2014 602 (West 1994).\nIn the case at bar, the alleged wrongful acts, the repeated rape of Rosalie Weimann by defendant\u2019s employee, the alleged physical and psychological injuries to Rosalie Weimann, the report of the alleged sexual acts to the proper supervisory personnel, the alleged failure of said personnel to investigate the allegations or to take preventative measures, and the subsequent filing of plaintiff\u2019s complaint all occurred prior to the enactment of Public Act 89 \u2014 197. Plaintiff\u2019s rights as set forth in part I of article II of the Act, to be free from abuse or neglect by a facility employee, as well as the Act\u2019s general requirement that the nursing home facility not create \"a condition or occurrence relating to the operation and maintenance of a facility directly threatening to the health, safety or welfare of a resident\u201d (210 ILCS 45/1 \u2014 130, 2 \u2014 107 (West 1994)), obviously would be violated by the events listed above. Plaintiff satisfied all the statutory requirements of section 3 \u2014 602 as it existed. Consequently, plaintiff had a right to the recovery of treble damages as provided in the statute if the alleged violations were proved at trial. Although whether a particular expectation rises to the level of a vested right cannot be precisely defined, under the circumstances presented here, plaintiff\u2019s right to recover treble damages has been perfected and rises to the level of a vested right. See Harraz v. Snyder, 283 Ill. App. 3d 254, 669 N.E.2d 911 (1996). Accordingly, we conclude that section 3 \u2014 602 as amended by Public Act 89 \u2014 197 retroactively impacts plaintiffs vested rights and may not be retroactively applied to strike plaintiffs prayer for treble damages.\nBecause of our foregoing conclusion, we need not address the remaining point raised by plaintiff concerning the retroactive application of new duties imposed on nursing home facilities by Public Act 89 \u2014 197.\nFor the foregoing reasons, the order of the circuit court of Christian County is reversed, and the cause is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.\nReversed and remanded.\nWELCH and CHAPMAN, JJ., concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "JUSTICE GOLDENHERSH" } ], "attorneys": [ "Thomas Q. Keefe, Jr., P.C., of Belleville, and Louis A. DePaepe, P.C., of Taylorville, for appellant.", "Murvel Pretorius, Jr., Julie A. Ward, and Michael J. Holt, all of Quinn, Johnston, Henderson & Pretorius, of Peoria, for appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "JESSIE WEIMANN, as Next Friend and Guardian for the Person and Estate of Rosalie Weimann, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MEADOW MANOR, INC., Defendant-Appellee.\nFifth District\nNo. 5\u201496\u20140182\nOpinion filed December 12, 1996.\nThomas Q. Keefe, Jr., P.C., of Belleville, and Louis A. DePaepe, P.C., of Taylorville, for appellant.\nMurvel Pretorius, Jr., Julie A. Ward, and Michael J. Holt, all of Quinn, Johnston, Henderson & Pretorius, of Peoria, for appellee." }, "file_name": "0455-01", "first_page_order": 475, "last_page_order": 479 }