{ "id": 140225, "name": "DAVID SHERROD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. C.P. RAMASWAMY et al., Defendants-Appellees", "name_abbreviation": "Sherrod v. Ramaswamy", "decision_date": "2000-06-20", "docket_number": "No. 5\u201499\u20140454", "first_page": "357", "last_page": "362", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "314 Ill. App. 3d 357" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.", "id": 8837, "name": "Illinois Appellate Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "418 N.E.2d 729", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1981, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "732-33" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "84 Ill. 2d 312", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 3045185 ], "year": 1981, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "319-21" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/84/0312-01" ] }, { "cite": "676 N.E.2d 1284", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1997, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "1287-88" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "175 Ill. 2d 176", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 295752 ], "year": 1997, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "184" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/175/0176-01" ] }, { "cite": "642 N.E.2d 456", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1994, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "458" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "162 Ill. 2d 70", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 477544 ], "year": 1994, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "74-75" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/162/0070-01" ] }, { "cite": "588 N.E.2d 1139", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1992, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "DeLuna I" }, { "page": "1147" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "147 Ill. 2d 57", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 3277960 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1992, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "DeLuna I" }, { "page": "76" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/147/0057-01" ] }, { "cite": "708 N.E.2d 340", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "weight": 15, "year": 1999, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "342" }, { "page": "342" }, { "page": "342" }, { "page": "343" }, { "page": "343" }, { "page": "343" }, { "page": "344-48" }, { "page": "344" }, { "page": "344" }, { "page": "347" }, { "page": "347" }, { "page": "347-48" }, { "page": "348" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "185 Ill. 2d 565", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 121981 ], "weight": 14, "year": 1999, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "568" }, { "page": "568" }, { "page": "569" }, { "page": "570" }, { "page": "570" }, { "page": "570-71" }, { "page": "572-80" }, { "page": "572" }, { "page": "572-73" }, { "page": "578" }, { "page": "579" }, { "page": "579-80" }, { "page": "580" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/185/0565-01" ] }, { "cite": "665 N.E.2d 1199", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1996, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "1204" }, { "page": "1204-05" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "172 Ill. 2d 325", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 55986 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1996, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "334-35" }, { "page": "335-36" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/172/0325-01" ] }, { "cite": "700 N.E.2d 1018", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1998, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "1020" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "183 Ill. 2d 272", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 209983 ], "year": 1998, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "274" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/183/0272-01" ] }, { "cite": "712 N.E.2d 330", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1999, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "333" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "186 Ill. 2d 419", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 243921 ], "year": 1999, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "424" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/186/0419-01" ] }, { "cite": "615 N.E.2d 50", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1993, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "51" }, { "page": "51" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "245 Ill. App. 3d 580", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 5385376 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1993, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "583" }, { "page": "583" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/245/0580-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 631, "char_count": 12877, "ocr_confidence": 0.748, "pagerank": { "raw": 7.031324996443159e-08, "percentile": 0.4241710617105476 }, "sha256": "15a99c1b0a2d900a4f6355a11055ab3bb668b6d7e68f73e5bd7a15f0877274df", "simhash": "1:b77a38d7b1353b5a", "word_count": 2132 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:48:47.280070+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "DAVID SHERROD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. C.P. RAMASWAMY et al., Defendants-Appellees." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "JUSTICE KUEHN\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nPlaintiff David Sherrod (Sherrod) appeals from the trial court\u2019s June 3, 1999, order dismissing count I of his complaint against defendants C.E Ramaswamy, M.D., and Rajendra Shroff, M.D., with prejudice. The case continued against a third defendant doctor, and so this case comes to us on appeal pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 304(a) (155 111. 2d R. 304(a)). We affirm.\nSherrod was incarcerated at Big Muddy Correctional Center in Ina, Illinois. During his incarceration, he experienced severe abdominal pain necessitating health care. Defendants Rajendra Shroff, M.D. (Dr. Shroff), and C.E Ramaswamy, M.D. (Dr. Ramaswamy), treated Sherrod at the health care unit at Big Muddy Correctional Center. Sherrod was also transported on at least one occasion to Franklin Hospital, where he was seen by defendant Richard O\u2019Hair, M.D. Although not' immediately diagnosed, the severe abdominal pain was caused by Sherrod\u2019s appendix. The appendix ultimately ruptured and a portion of his colon became gangrenous, requiring surgery.\nSherrod filed suit against both Dr. Shroff and Dr. Ramaswamy, as well as against Franklin Hospital, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois, attaching a certificate and physician\u2019s report to the complaint. Dr. Shroff and Dr. Ramaswamy filed motions to dismiss based upon the insufficiency of the physician\u2019s report. On July 3, 1997, Magistrate Judge Frazie.r concluded that the physician\u2019s report was insufficiently specific and recommended that the medical negligence count against Dr. Shroff and Dr. Ramaswamy be dismissed. Judge Gilbert adopted those recommendations by written order dated December 5, 1997. The order did not state that the dismissal was without prejudice. The balance of the suit, consisting of the claim against Franklin Hospital and a civil rights claim against Dr. Shroff and Dr. Ramaswamy, continued until ultimately the court entered judgment in favor of the defendants.\nSherrod then refiled his suit against Dr. Shroff and Dr. Ramaswamy in state court. The medical negligence portion of the suit had been in federal court via pendent jurisdiction \u2014 pendent to the civil rights claims, as federal jurisdiction would not otherwise have existed. Once judgment had been entered against Sherrod on the federal claims, he no longer had a basis for federal court jurisdiction as to the medical negligence claims. Thus, he refiled his medical negligence claims in state court. In the state court case, Sherrod added a defendant \u2014 Richard O\u2019Hair, M.D.\nSherrod\u2019s state court complaint was sent to the Franklin County circuit clerk\u2019s office by way of Federal Express on December 4, 1998. The Federal Express package was received by a court employee on Monday, December 7, 1998. No one in the clerk\u2019s office stamped the complaint as filed until Wednesday, December 9, 1998.\nAt issue in this appeal is count I, against Dr. Shroff and Dr. Ramaswamy. Sherrod makes the same claims of medical negligence as those filed in the federal case. He also alleges that the complaint is being filed within the one-year time frame for refilings in cases dismissed without prejudice. Although it was not cited in his complaint, we believe that Sherrod refers to a dismissal pursuant to section 13 \u2014 217 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Code) (735 ILCS 5/13 \u2014 217 (West 1996)), which allows for a refiling after certain limited dismissals in a federal court. In April 1999, defendants Dr. Shroff and Dr. Ramaswamy filed motions to dismiss, contending in part that a dismissal for failure to file the appropriate physician\u2019s report pursuant to section 2 \u2014 622 of the Code (735 ILCS 5/2 \u2014 622 (West 1996)) operated as a dismissal on the merits. In other words, they argued that the physician\u2019s report was not a jurisdictional requirement. As the case had previously been dismissed, they sought a dismissal in this case pursuant to section 2 \u2014 619(a)(4) of the Code (735 ILCS 5/2 \u2014 619(a)(4) (West 1996)), arguing that Sherrod\u2019s refiling of the case was barred by the doctrine of res judicata. On June 3, 1999, the trial court dismissed count I of Sherrod\u2019s complaint with prejudice and concluded that pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 304 (155 Ill. 2d R. 304), there was no just reason for delay in the enforcement or appeal of this order. Sherrod appeals.\nWhen a trial court rules upon a motion to dismiss, the court is compelled to construe all pleadings and supporting documentation in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. See Toombs v. City of Champaign, 245 Ill. App. 3d 580, 583, 615 N.E.2d 50, 51 (1993). \u201cBecause this process does not require the court to weigh facts or determine credibility, appellate courts do not give a trial court\u2019s judgment deference[ ] but instead review the matter de novo.\u201d Toombs, 245 Ill. App. 3d at 583, 615 N.E.2d at 51; see also Board of Directors of Bloomfield Club Recreation Ass\u2019n v. Hoffman Group, Inc., 186 Ill. 2d 419, 424, 712 N.E.2d 330, 333 (1999), citing Doe v. McKay, 183 Ill. 2d 272, 274, 700 N.E.2d 1018, 1020 (1998).\nBoth the magistrate judge\u2019s recommendation and the district judge\u2019s order do not qualify the dismissal in any manner. Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (Fed. R. Civ. P 41(b)) specifically states that \u201c[u]nless the court *** otherwise specifies, a dismissal *** operates as an adjudication upon the merits.\u201d The rule contains certain limited exceptions allowing for dismissals without prejudice where the dismissal was for the lack of jurisdiction, for improper venue, or for the failure to join a party. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). The rule in Illinois mirrors its federal counterpart. See 134 Ill. 2d R. 273. Therefore, unless this dismissal falls into one of these excepted categories, the federal dismissal order operated as a dismissal with prejudice. Clearly, this case does not involve venue or the failure to join a party, and so the question is whether or not the Illinois statutory physician\u2019s report requirements are jurisdictional in nature.\nBefore we address that issue, we briefly look at the limitations problem Sherrod faced in refiling his complaint.\nThe medical negligence at issue is alleged to have occurred during the month of March 1995, and as the statute of limitations for such claims is two years from the date the claimant knew or learned of the injury (see 735 ILCS 5/13 \u2014 212 (West 1996)), Sherrod\u2019s statute of limitations expired in March 1997, almost 21 months before he filed his state claim.\nHis federal claim was dismissed on December 5, 1997. Assuming that the federal dismissal was jurisdictional in nature, section 13 \u2014 217 of the Code (735 ILCS 5/13 \u2014 217 (West 1996)) allows for the refiling of the case even after the expiration of the statute of limitations, provided that the refiling occurs within one year from the dismissal. Again, assuming that the December 5, 1997, federal dismissal was jurisdictional in type, then Sherrod could refile his claim in state court by December 5, 1998. In 1998, December 5 fell on a Saturday, and accordingly Sherrod\u2019s state court complaint needed to be filed by Monday, December 7, 1998. See 5 ILCS 70/1.11 (West 1996). Sherrod\u2019s complaint arrived at the Franklin County circuit clerk\u2019s office on the correct day, but it did not actually get filed until Wednesday, December 9, 1998.\nSherrod also asks us to address the issue of the receipt of his complaint by the Franklin County circuit clerk\u2019s office. Because we conclude that the res judicata issue is dispositive, we do not address the late-filing-date issue.\nThe doctrine of res judicata would bar Sherrod\u2019s state court complaint against Dr. Shroff and Dr. Ramaswamy if a final judgment on the merits was entered by a court of competent jurisdiction and if the parties and the cause of action were identical in both lawsuits. See Rein v. David A. Noyes & Co., 172 Ill. 2d 325, 334-35, 665 N.E.2d 1199, 1204 (1996). There is no doubt that the parties and the cause of action at issue are identical. Whether or not the federal dismissal amounted to a final judgment on the merits is in dispute. Therefore, we now turn to that issue.\nMost recently, this issue was addressed by the supreme court in DeLuna v. Treister, 185 Ill. 2d 565, 708 N.E.2d 340 (1999) (DeLuna ID. DeLuna is the administrator of Alicia DeLuna\u2019s estate. See DeLuna II, 185 Ill. 2d at 568, 708 N.E.2d at 342. Alicia DeLuna died following a lumbar laminectomy allegedly negligently performed by Dr. Treister. See DeLuna II, 185 Ill. 2d at 568, 708 N.E.2d at 342. The estate administrator filed suit but failed to attach the health care professional report required by section 2 \u2014 622 of the Code, contending that the requirement was unconstitutional. See DeLuna II, 185 Ill. 2d at 569, 708 N.E.2d at 342. Ultimately, the supreme court determined that the health care professional report requirement was constitutional, affirming the trial court\u2019s earlier dismissal of DeLuna\u2019s complaint for failing to attach the report and reversing the appellate court\u2019s conclusion that the report requirement was unconstitutional. See DeLuna v. St. Elizabeth\u2019s Hospital, 147 Ill. 2d 57, 588 N.E.2d 1139 (1992) (DeLuna I). Thereafter, DeLuna refiled the complaint alleging the same acts of medical negligence. See DeLuna II, 185 Ill. 2d at 570, 708 N.E.2d at 343. Dr. Treister sought to have the complaint dismissed on the basis that the previous dismissal had been an adjudication on the merits, and as the parties and the issue were identical to those contained in the original complaint, Dr. Treister argued that DeLuna was prohibited from refiling the complaint by the doctrine of res judicata. See DeLuna II, 185 Ill. 2d at 570, 708 N.E.2d at 343. The circuit court agreed, but the appellate court disagreed. See DeLuna II, 185 Ill. 2d at 570-71, 708 N.E.2d at 343. The supreme court addressed the pleading requirements of section 2 \u2014 622 of the Code. See DeLuna II, 185 Ill. 2d at 572-80, 708 N.E.2d at 344-48.\nThe supreme court initially confirmed that the original circuit court determination dismissing DeLuna\u2019s complaint was \u201con the merits.\u201d See DeLuna II, 185 Ill. 2d at 572, 708 N.E.2d at 344. Supreme Court Rule 273 is explicit. Unless the dismissal is otherwise qualified or is for lack of jurisdiction, improper venue, or failure to join an indispensable party, the dismissal is with prejudice and thus \u201con the merits.\u201d See DeLuna II, 185 Ill. 2d at 572-73, 708 N.E.2d at 344, citing Rein, 172 Ill. 2d at 335-36, 665 N.E.2d at 1204-05; Downing v. Chicago Transit Authority, 162 Ill. 2d 70, 74-75, 642 N.E.2d 456, 458 (1994); DeLuna I, 147 Ill. 2d at 76, 588 N.E.2d at 1147. Supreme Court Rule 273 will be applied in its plain terms in situations where the same party obtains an involuntary dismissal in an initial case and in a subsequent case asserts that the original dismissal operated as a final adjudication of the case\u2019s merits. See DeLuna II, 185 Ill. 2d at 578, 708 N.E.2d at 347, citing Leow v. A&B Freight Line, Inc., 175 Ill. 2d 176, 184, 676 N.E.2d 1284, 1287-88 (1997).\nAdditionally, the court stated that the pleading requirement of section 2 \u2014 622 of the Code \u201chas no bearing on the authority or jurisdiction of a circuit court to decide a personal injury action or to grant the relief sought by a plaintiff.\u201d DeLuna II, 185 Ill. 2d at 579, 708 N.E.2d at 347. The supreme court reaffirmed the principle that technical pleading requirements, like the requirement of section 2 \u2014 622 of the Code, are not jurisdictional. See DeLuna II, 185 Ill. 2d at 579-80, 708 N.E.2d at 347-48, citing In re Custody of Sexton, 84 Ill. 2d 312, 319-21, 418 N.E.2d 729, 732-33 (1981). A dismissal for the failure to comply with section 2 \u2014 622 of the Code does not deprive the court of jurisdiction. See DeLuna II, 185 Ill. 2d at 580, 708 N.E.2d at 348.\nDeLuna II does not represent new law but merely reiterates the supreme court\u2019s previously held opinions. Accordingly, the trial court\u2019s order dismissing Sherrod\u2019s complaint against Dr. Shroff and Dr. Ramaswamy was correct. The federal dismissal for failure to attach an adequate physician\u2019s report was an adjudication on the merits. As the dismissal was not jurisdictional in nature or otherwise excepted from the procedural rules governing involuntary dismissals, the subsequent suit was barred by the doctrine of res judicata.\nFor the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the circuit court of Franklin County is hereby affirmed.\nAffirmed.\nGOLDENHERSH, P.J., and HOPKINS, J., concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "JUSTICE KUEHN" } ], "attorneys": [ "Barbara J. Clinite, of Chicago, for appellant.", "Richard F. Record, Jr., and Katy C. Fain, both of Craig & Craig, of Mattoon, for appellee Rajendra Shroff.", "Eric J. Dirnbeck, of Benton, for appellee C.P. Ramaswamy." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "DAVID SHERROD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. C.P. RAMASWAMY et al., Defendants-Appellees.\nFifth District\nNo. 5\u201499\u20140454\nOpinion filed June 20, 2000.\nBarbara J. Clinite, of Chicago, for appellant.\nRichard F. Record, Jr., and Katy C. Fain, both of Craig & Craig, of Mattoon, for appellee Rajendra Shroff.\nEric J. Dirnbeck, of Benton, for appellee C.P. Ramaswamy." }, "file_name": "0357-01", "first_page_order": 375, "last_page_order": 380 }