{
  "id": 520963,
  "name": "DARRELL P. COLLINS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. JEAN C. SULLIVAN, as Adm'r of the Estate of Martin R. Sullivan, Deceased, et al., Defendants-Appellees",
  "name_abbreviation": "Collins v. Sullivan",
  "decision_date": "1997-04-14",
  "docket_number": "No. 1\u201495\u20141981",
  "first_page": "999",
  "last_page": "1003",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "287 Ill. App. 3d 999"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "609 N.E.2d 321",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "weight": 4,
      "year": 1993,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "325"
        },
        {
          "page": "325"
        },
        {
          "page": "325"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "154 Ill. 2d 398",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        4820292
      ],
      "weight": 4,
      "year": 1993,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "406"
        },
        {
          "page": "406"
        },
        {
          "page": "406"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-2d/154/0398-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 411,
    "char_count": 6863,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.785,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 5.921454832095468e-08,
      "percentile": 0.36982966960622027
    },
    "sha256": "88abcc042271a343bdfe2970bc046f07b040f45986c8270ffe79446c4eca9124",
    "simhash": "1:5eac591a8d4e19e0",
    "word_count": 1089
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:23:12.186621+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "DARRELL P. COLLINS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. JEAN C. SULLIVAN, as Adm\u2019r of the Estate of Martin R. Sullivan, Deceased, et al., Defendants-Appellees."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "JUSTICE BUCKLEY\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nPlaintiff, Darrell Collins, brought a medical negligence action against Martin R. Sullivan, M.D., and Reconstructive Surgery, Ltd. The complaint alleged that as a result of Dr. Sullivan\u2019s negligent treatment, plaintiff endured pain, suffering, disability, substantial disfigurement, dysfunctional sexuality, and severe emotional distress, as well as monetary damages.\nDefendants moved for summary judgment on the ground that plaintiff\u2019s action was time barred by the four-year statute of repose contained in section 13\u2014212 of the Illinois Code of Civil Procedure (735 ILCS 5/13\u2014212 (West 1994)). The trial court granted partial summary judgment, finding that plaintiff\u2019s claims arising out of Dr. Sullivan\u2019s negligence prior to 1988 were barred. Plaintiff appeals, raising the following issue: whether the trial court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of defendants and against plaintiff.\nOn February 13, 1965, plaintiff began to see Dr. Sullivan for the medical and surgical treatment for the conditions of hypospadias (a developmental anomaly in which the male urethra opens on the underside of the penis) and chordee (curvature of the penis). Plaintiff remained in Dr. Sullivan\u2019s care until December 11, 1991. During that time, Dr. Sullivan performed the following surgeries on plaintiff:\n7/7/66 Age 4 Excision of chordee\n7/13/67 Age 5 Urethroplasty with construction of urethra\n6/21/68 Age 6 Perineal Urethrostomy and Urethroplasty\n4/1/68 Age 7 Urethroplasty (secondary)\n11/6/70 Age 8 Repair of urethral fistula\n8/31/71 Age 9 Repair of urethral fistula\n7/27/72 Age 10 Urethrostomy (third stage)\n4/11/74 Age 12 Closure of fistula\n9/6/74 Age 12 Circumcision\n3/23/78 Age 16 Repair tip hypospadias\n2/21/80 Age 18 Repair fistula\n7/6/91 Age 29 Closure of three fistulous tracts of penis and excision of redundant tissue at penoscrotal margin.\nOn August 12, 1992, plaintiff filed a complaint against Dr. Sullivan and Reconstructive Surgery, Ltd., an Illinois professional corporation, for rendering negligent care and treatment to plaintiff while he was under Dr. Sullivan\u2019s care. An amended complaint was subsequently filed substituting Jean C. Sullivan, as administrator of the estate of Martin R. Sullivan, M.D.\nDefendants filed a motion to strike the first-amended complaint, arguing that plaintiff\u2019s claim was barred by the statute of repose (735 ILCS 5/13\u2014212 (West 1994)). The relevant portion of section 13\u2014212 provides that \"no action for damages for injury or death against any physician *** shall *** be brought more than 4 years after the date on which occurred the act or omission or occurrence alleged in such action to have been the cause of such injury or death.\u201d 735 ILCS 5/13\u2014212(a) (West 1994). On November 16, 1994, the trial court denied defendants\u2019 motion without prejudice.\nOn December 2, 1994, defendants filed a motion to reconsider and motion for summary judgment in the alternative pursuant to section 2\u20141005 of the Illinois Code of Civil Procedure (735 ILCS 5/2\u20141005 (West 1994)).\nOn April 10, 1995, the trial court granted defendants\u2019 motion for summary judgment without prejudice as to plaintiff s claims arising before 1988.\nPlaintiff filed a motion to reconsider the ruling on motion for summary judgment and a motion pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 304(a) (134 Ill. 2d R. 304(a)). On May 10, 1995, the trial court denied plaintiffs motion to reconsider and granted plaintiffs motion pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 304(a), finding that there was no just reason to delay enforcement or appeal of the order of April 10, 1995, granting summary judgment in favor of defendants. Plaintiff filed timely notice of appeal on June 2, 1995.\nWe are asked to consider whether the trial court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of defendants and against plaintiff. In doing so, we must determine whether plaintiff has established an ongoing course of continuous negligent medical treatment by Dr. Sullivan. In Cunningham v. Huffman, 154 Ill. 2d 398, 609 N.E.2d 321 (1993), the Illinois Supreme Court held that a plaintiff is not barred by the statute of repose if he can demonstrate that there was an ongoing course of continuous negligent medical treatment. Cunningham, 154 Ill. 2d at 406, 609 N.E.2d at 325. \"To prevail under this cause of action a plaintiff must demonstrate: (1) that there was a continuous and unbroken course of negligent treatment, and (2) that the treatment was so related as to constitute one continuing wrong.\u201d (Emphasis omitted.) Cunningham, 154 Ill. 2d at 406, 609 N.E.2d at 325. Once a physician\u2019s treatment is discontinued, however, the statute of repose begins to run. Cunningham, 154 Ill. 2d at 406, 609 N.E.2d at 325.\nPlaintiff insists that there was a continuous course of negligent treatment for plaintiff\u2019s condition since the \"act or omission\u201d of Dr. Sullivan was the failure to surgically correct and properly treat plaintiff\u2019s condition. Plaintiff claims that his injury was the cumulative result of the continuous negligence of Dr. Sullivan in performing 12 surgeries on plaintiff\u2019s penis over the course of 24 years. Plaintiff never saw Dr. Sullivan for any other condition nor did plaintiff obtain treatment or advice from any other physician for his condition. The last surgery was performed on July 6, 1991; thus, plaintiff claims that the statute of repose did not start to run until July 1991, the last date of Dr. Sullivan\u2019s negligent treatment.\nWe are unconvinced that Dr. Sullivan\u2019s treatment was continuous where almost nine years passed between plaintiff\u2019s 1982 and 1991 treatments. We find that the treatment rendered by Dr. Sullivan in 1991 must be considered subsequent to, rather than part of, any earlier continuous and unbroken course of treatment. To accept plaintiff\u2019s argument would nullify the purpose of section 13\u2014212 and conflict with the legislature\u2019s goal of producing finality to the exposure of medical providers to suit. We reject plaintiff\u2019s position that the 1991 services of Dr. Sullivan revived a cause of action that was effectively barred by the statute of repose in 1986, four years after the 1982 treatment.\nFor the foregoing reasons, we affirm the judgment of the circuit court of Cook County granting summary judgment in defendants\u2019 favor.\nAffirmed.\nCAMPBELL, P.J., and O\u2019BRIEN, J., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "JUSTICE BUCKLEY"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Robert W. Karr & Associates, Ltd., of Chicago (David A. Novelselsky and Margarita T. Kulys, of counsel), for appellant.",
      "Fedota & Rocca (Mark C. Fedota, John D. Kuhn, and Mark J. Smith, of counsel), and Rooks, Pitts & Poust (Thomas R. Hill, of counsel), both of Chicago, for appellees."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "DARRELL P. COLLINS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. JEAN C. SULLIVAN, as Adm\u2019r of the Estate of Martin R. Sullivan, Deceased, et al., Defendants-Appellees.\nFirst District (1st Division)\nNo. 1\u201495\u20141981\nOpinion filed April 14, 1997.\nRobert W. Karr & Associates, Ltd., of Chicago (David A. Novelselsky and Margarita T. Kulys, of counsel), for appellant.\nFedota & Rocca (Mark C. Fedota, John D. Kuhn, and Mark J. Smith, of counsel), and Rooks, Pitts & Poust (Thomas R. Hill, of counsel), both of Chicago, for appellees."
  },
  "file_name": "0999-01",
  "first_page_order": 1017,
  "last_page_order": 1021
}