{ "id": 1527787, "name": "MARIANN CROWELL, as Mother and Next Friend of Heather Crowell, a Minor, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. ROBERT J. GOLZ et al., Defendants-Appellants", "name_abbreviation": "Crowell v. Golz", "decision_date": "2001-02-06", "docket_number": "No. 5 \u2014 00\u20140208", "first_page": "184", "last_page": "192", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "319 Ill. App. 3d 184" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.", "id": 8837, "name": "Illinois Appellate Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "627 N.E.2d 42", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1993, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "48" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "254 Ill. App. 3d 479", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 2980879 ], "year": 1993, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "487" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/254/0479-01" ] }, { "cite": "729 N.E.2d 36", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 2000, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "39" }, { "page": "39" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "312 Ill. App. 3d 1087", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 411612 ], "weight": 2, "year": 2000, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "1090" }, { "page": "1090" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/312/1087-01" ] }, { "cite": "551 N.E.2d 810", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "weight": 3, "year": 1990, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "812" }, { "page": "812" }, { "page": "812" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "194 Ill. App. 3d 543", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 8498963 ], "weight": 3, "year": 1990, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "546" }, { "page": "546" }, { "page": "546" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/194/0543-01" ] }, { "cite": "330 U.S. 501", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 354212 ], "weight": 9, "year": 1947, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "508-09" }, { "page": "1062-63" }, { "page": "843" }, { "page": "509" }, { "page": "1063" }, { "page": "843" }, { "page": "508" }, { "page": "1062" }, { "page": "843" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/330/0501-01" ] }, { "cite": "554 N.E.2d 209", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1990, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "211" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "136 Ill. 2d 101", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 3255085 ], "year": 1990, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "106" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/136/0101-01" ] }, { "cite": "645 N.E.2d 184", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "weight": 6, "year": 1994, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "190" }, { "page": "190" }, { "page": "190-91" }, { "page": "190-91" }, { "page": "191" }, { "page": "191" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "163 Ill. 2d 323", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 478007 ], "weight": 6, "year": 1994, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "336" }, { "page": "336" }, { "page": "336-37" }, { "page": "336-37" }, { "page": "338" }, { "page": "337-38" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/163/0323-01" ] }, { "cite": "456 N.E.2d 98", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1983, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "100" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "98 Ill. 2d 359", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 3121605 ], "year": 1983, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "364" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/98/0359-01" ] }, { "cite": "660 N.E.2d 1362", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "weight": 5, "year": 1996, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "1366" }, { "page": "1366-67" }, { "page": "1366" }, { "page": "1366" }, { "page": "1366" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "277 Ill. App. 3d 653", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 1172435 ], "weight": 5, "year": 1996, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "657" }, { "page": "657-58" }, { "page": "657" }, { "page": "658" }, { "page": "658" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/277/0653-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 759, "char_count": 17211, "ocr_confidence": 0.762, "pagerank": { "raw": 5.676830387708631e-08, "percentile": 0.35454904899860956 }, "sha256": "66505d1836c2af8d35f8afafe35bd5f58133b2d6c2fab51a4bbfa8f0d776be06", "simhash": "1:e324bd3d1fdd9cd1", "word_count": 2806 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T14:43:10.227950+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "MARIANN CROWELL, as Mother and Next Friend of Heather Crowell, a Minor, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. ROBERT J. GOLZ et al., Defendants-Appellants." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "JUSTICE KUEHN\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nThe defendants, Robert J. Golz, M.D. (Golz), Southern Illinois Orthopedic Clinic, S.C. (the Orthopedic Clinic), and Cal Johnson Answering Service, Inc. (the Answering Service), appeal from the trial court\u2019s denial of their request to transfer this case from St. Clair County circuit court to Jackson County circuit court on the basis of forum non conveniens.\nThe appellant who took the lead on this appeal is the Answering Service. The Answering Service is a St. Clair County business with St. Clair County employees. The Answering Service has no ties to Jackson County \u2014 a fact that the Answering Service glosses over in its motion before the trial court and its briefs on appeal. Its arguments for the appropriateness of a transfer have no relation to its business or its employees. The Answering Service does not explain how St. Clair County could in any way be an inconvenient forum. We hope that the Answering Service\u2019s appeal does not portend the future of forum non conveniens motions.\nBACKGROUND\nOn August 30, 1996, Heather Crowell fell on an elementary school playground and fractured her left wrist. The fracture necessarily required the attention of Golz and the Orthopedic Clinic. Golz set the fracture. Heather\u2019s parents were instructed to immediately call if certain symptoms appeared over the upcoming weekend. Symptoms developed, and on Saturday, August 31, 1996, they called the telephone number provided by Golz\u2019s office and reported the symptoms. Because the Orthopedic Clinic was not open on Saturday, the call was most likely transferred to its Answering Service. Someone called the Crow-ells back and advised that they simply needed to loosen Heather\u2019s bandage. What is not known is the identity of this person. The person who called the Crowells back was not Golz or anyone in his group. Golz was never contacted by his Answering Service about the Crow-ells\u2019 telephone call.\nFollowing the weekend, Heather\u2019s condition had not improved, and the Crowells sought treatment. Heather was diagnosed with a compartment syndrome. In the following months, Heather underwent surgeries and much physical therapy in Missouri.\nUltimately, Heather and her mother filed suit against Golz and the Orthopedic Clinic for medical malpractice, alleging negligent postoperative care. This suit was filed in Jackson County, where Golz and the Orthopedic Clinic practice and the alleged negligent acts occurred.\nDiscovery ensued. Golz was deposed. He acknowledged that Heather probably developed the compartment syndrome on that Saturday and that, had he received a telephone call from the Answering Service, he would have properly diagnosed and treated the condition. Golz testified that the bandage-loosening advice the Crowells received was inappropriate given Heather\u2019s symptoms and her history. Golz\u2019s testimony brought into light the Answering Service\u2019s involvement in Heather\u2019s postoperative care. The Answering Service is a St. Clair County business with its employees residing in St. Clair County.\nAfter Golz\u2019s deposition, Heather and her mother filed a new suit in St. Clair County circuit court against Golz, his Orthopedic Clinic, and the Answering Service. The claims against Golz and the Orthopedic Clinic were still based in medical malpractice. The claim against the Answering Service was based on alleged negligence in responding to the Crowells\u2019 telephone call.\nThereafter, Heather and her mother sought leave of court to dismiss the suit in Jackson County circuit court. Golz and the Orthopedic Clinic protested the dismissal request. The Jackson County suit remains pending.\nGolz, the Orthopedic Clinic, and the Answering Service filed motions to transfer this case from St. Clair County to Jackson County, arguing that Jackson County was much more convenient to the parties and the witnesses and that Jackson County circuit court civil dockets were far less congested than the St. Clair County circuit court civil dockets. Golz and the Orthopedic Clinic also sought to have the St. Clair County suit dismissed pursuant to section 2 \u2014 619(a)(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure (735 ILCS 5/2 \u2014 619(a)(3) (West 1998)) because of the pendency of the Jackson County suit, which they argued was identical in terms of substantive content.\nAfter much written and oral argument, the St. Clair County trial court denied the defendants\u2019 motion to transfer and/or to dismiss the case. This March 20, 2000, order was without specific findings. All defendants appeal.\nFORUM NON CONVENIENS\nDefendants contend that the trial court erroneously denied their motion to transfer the case from St. Clair County to Jackson County on the basis of forum non conveniens.\nThe doctrine of forum non conveniens begins with the assumption that there is more than one forum having jurisdiction and venue over the case. Superior Structures Co. v. City of Sesser, 277 Ill. App. 3d 653, 657, 660 N.E.2d 1362, 1366 (1996), citing Wieser v. Missouri Pacific R.R. Co., 98 Ill. 2d 359, 364, 456 N.E.2d 98, 100 (1983). The trial court is vested with great discretion in determining whether the case should be transferred on the basis of forum non conveniens. Peile v. Skelgas, Inc., 163 Ill. 2d 323, 336, 645 N.E.2d 184, 190 (1994). We will only reverse the trial court\u2019s decision relative to that issue if the trial court abused its discretion. See Peile, 163 Ill. 2d at 336, 645 N.E.2d at 190.\nTo conclude that forum non conveniens applies, the court must balance several public- and private-interest factors and determine that those factors weigh more heavily in favor of the party seeking to transfer the case. Superior Structures Co., 277 Ill. App. 3d at 657-58, 660 N.E.2d at 1366-67, citing Griffith v. Mitsubishi Aircraft International, Inc., 136 Ill. 2d 101, 106, 554 N.E.2d 209, 211 (1990). The public-interest factors are those matters impacting the court\u2019s administration, whereas the private-interest factors are those affecting the parties\u2019 convenience. Superior Structures Co., 277 Ill. App. 3d at 657, 660 N.E.2d at 1366, citing Gulf Oil Corp. v. Gilbert, 330 U.S. 501, 508-09, 91 L. Ed. 1055, 1062-63, 67 S. Ct. 839, 843 (1947). The factors are flexible in their application, with no one factor given special emphasis. Superior Structures Co., 277 Ill. App. 3d at 658, 660 N.E.2d at 1366, citing Peile, 163 Ill. 2d at 336-37, 645 N.E.2d at 190-91. Above all else, a plaintiffs choice of forum must be given substantial weight. Superior Structures Co., 277 Ill. App. 3d at 658, 660 N.E.2d at 1366, citing Peile, 163 Ill. 2d at 336-37, 645 N.E.2d at 190-91.\nPublic-interest factors include court congestion, an interest in having \u201clocalized controversies decided at home,\u201d and the burden of jury duty upon local citizens in an unrelated forum. Gulf Oil Corp., 330 U.S. at 509, 91 L. Ed. at 1063, 67 S. Ct. at 843.\nPrivate-interest factors include the \u201crelative ease of access to sources of proof; availability of compulsory process for attendance of unwilling, and the cost of obtaining attendance of willing, witnesses; possibility of view of premises, if view would be appropriate to the action; and all other practical problems that make trial of a case easy, expeditious!,] and inexpensive.\u201d Gulf Oil Corp., 330 U.S. at 508, 91 L. Ed. at 1062, 67 S. Ct. at 843.\nBased upon these legal principles, we turn to the issue of whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying the defendants\u2019 motion to transfer the case on the basis of forum non conveniens.\nI. Public Factors\nThere is no doubt that St. Clair County has a more congested docket than that of Jackson County and that this factor weighs in favor of Jackson County.\nWhether the suit is a \u201clocalized controversy\u201d and the burden, if any, on St. Clair County jurors goes to the heart of the matter. Defendants contend that this case involves a Jackson County plaintiff with a Jackson County injury and Jackson County treatment immediately following the accident. The Crowells counter that while the accident and initial treatment occurred in Jackson County, the vast majority of all medical treatment took place in St. Louis, Missouri, directly across the river from St. Clair County. Furthermore, the Crow-ells point out that the additional defendant, the Answering Service, committed its alleged negligence in St. Clair County, that the Answering Service is a St. Clair County company, and that its employees who would be prospective trial witnesses all reside in St. Clair County.\nThe central factual issue in this case that impacts the medical negligence allegedly committed by Golz and the Orthopedic Clinic is the mishandled call by the Answering Service. The alleged mishandling of that call took place in St. Clair County. The medical malpractice alleged by the Crowells stems from that call. The Crowells are not claiming that Golz and the Orthopedic Clinic committed any negligence in the treatment immediately following the accident. The malpractice, if any, allegedly related to their failure to properly diagnose and treat Heather\u2019s compartment syndrome when the Crowells called in and reached the Answering Service.\nGiven the fact that the central factual issue which comprises the theory of the case occurred in St. Clair County, coupled with the fact that all of the Answering Service witnesses reside in St. Clair County, we conclude that the suit presents a \u201clocalized controversy\u201d and that St. Clair County jurors would not be burdened with hearing a nonlocal case.\nII. Private Factors\nOn balance, we find that the relative ease of access to sources of proof and accessibility of witnesses favors St. Clair County. This is not a case where all medical sources of proof are located in the forum in which the defendants seek to transfer the case. Golz will certainly be a Jackson County medical witness, as he would be testifying about Heather\u2019s limited treatment in Jackson County and any other communications contained within her medical chart. Witnesses that the defendants speculate they will call include various medical support personnel regarding Heather\u2019s surgery by Golz within St. Joseph\u2019s Memorial Hospital. Defendants speculate that they will also call support staff employed by the Orthopedic Group as witnesses. Defendants continue to misstate the thrust of the St. Clair County suit. The judgment and treatment at issue are not what occurred at St. Joseph\u2019s Memorial Hospital but involve the call to the Answering Service. While remotely possible, we find it unlikely that these assorted Jackson County medical support staff would be called to testify at a trial of the issues surrounding the call to the Answering Service. All of Heather\u2019s subsequent treatment occurred in Missouri. Given Heather\u2019s extensive treatment, several Missouri health care providers will likely be called to testify. We acknowledge that St. Clair County would not be able to compel these Missouri witnesses to testify, but we note that if these witnesses were inclined to voluntarily testify, the costs associated with their attendance would be less given St. Clair County\u2019s close physical proximity to St. Louis, Missouri. See Paglia v. Goodman, 194 Ill. App. 3d 543, 546, 551 N.E.2d 810, 812 (1990).\nNo one argues that a view of the Jackson County playground where Heather fell is necessary.\nIII. Plaintiffs Choice of Forum\nWhile we must weigh the Crowells\u2019 forum choice heavily, we note that the Crowells are residents of Jackson County. Accordingly, we accord the Crowells\u2019 choice with slightly less deference. See Peile, 163 Ill. 2d at 338, 645 N.E.2d at 191. Furthermore, the injury took place in Jackson County, which also weighs against the Crowells\u2019 choice. See Peile, 163 Ill. 2d at 337-38, 645 N.E.2d at 191. The Crowells\u2019 choice is still entitled to some deference, although that deference is somewhat diminished. See Paglia, 194 Ill. App. 3d at 546, 551 N.E.2d at 812. Although the plaintiffs do not reside in St. Clair County and the injury did not take place in St. Clair County, there is a presumption that the plaintiffs chose St. Clair County because it was convenient to them. See Paglia, 194 Ill. App. 3d at 546, 551 N.E.2d at 812.\nW. Balancing the Factors\nThe true controversy is the Answering Service\u2019s handling of the Crowells\u2019 telephone call. That occurred in St. Clair County. Therefore, St. Clair County does have an interest in the outcome of this litigation, and St. Clair County jurors would not be burdened by having to hear this case. Because this litigation involves a St. Clair County incident and a St. Clair County company, numerous witnesses are located there. While there is at least one medical witness located in Jackson County, there are many, many more located in St. Louis, Missouri. St. Louis is much closer to St. Clair County than Jackson County is.\nOn balance, we find no basis to disturb the trial court\u2019s finding that the Crowells\u2019 choice of forum was not inconvenient. Defendants have failed to meet their burden of proving that Jackson County is the more convenient forum.\nMOTION TO DISMISS ON THE BASIS OF ANOTHER ACTION PENDING\nDefendants also argue that the trial court should have granted their motion to dismiss pursuant to section 2 \u2014 619(a)(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure (735 ILCS 5/2 \u2014 619(a)(3) (West 1998)). That section provides for the involuntary dismissal of a case if there is \u201canother action pending between the same parties for the same cause.\u201d 735 ILCS 5/2 \u2014 619(a)(3) (West 1998).\nTypically, a trial court\u2019s decision to grant or deny a motion to dismiss will be reviewed de novo because in ruling upon the motion, the trial court would not have had to weigh facts or determine credibility. Hapag-Lloyd (America), Inc. v. Home Insurance Co., 312 Ill. App. 3d 1087, 1090, 729 N.E.2d 36, 39 (2000). But, a motion to dismiss pursuant to section 2 \u2014 619(a)(3) is procedural in nature, and therefore, a trial court\u2019s decision to grant or deny such a motion to dismiss is subject to reversal only if the trial court abused its discretion. HapagLloyd (America), Inc., 312 Ill. App. 3d at 1090, 729 N.E.2d at 39.\nClearly, the parties are not identical. But defendants argue that they have proven the \u201csame cause\u201d requirement because the litigants\u2019 interests are \u201csufficiently similar\u201d and that therefore the St. Clair County case should have been dismissed. See Katherine M. v. Ryder, 254 Ill. App. 3d 479, 487, 627 N.E.2d 42, 48 (1993). While it is true that both cases begin with Heather\u2019s wrist fracture as a result of a Jackson County playground fall and Golz\u2019s surgical involvement with Heather\u2019s injury, the medical negligence alleged in the two suits is premised on entirely different sets of facts. The Jackson County suit assumes that Golz or another member of the Orthopedic Group rendered the advice to loosen Heather\u2019s bandage following the Crow-ells\u2019 call to the Answering Service. The St. Clair County suit is essentially premised on the negligence of the Answering Service in reachiiig Golz. Golz has testified under oath that he was on call that weekend, that he did not receive a telephone call from the Answering Service relative to Heather\u2019s case, and that he did not render the advice to loosen Heather\u2019s bandage. Therefore, the two cases are sufficiently different to render involuntary dismissal inappropriate.\nAlthough it does not bear upon the issue of whether the two suits present the \u201csame cause,\u201d we must comment upon the reason the Jackson County case remains pending. After filing the second suit in St. Clair County, the Crowells tried to voluntarily dismiss their case, as is their right under section 2 \u2014 1009 of the Code of Civil Procedure (735 ILCS 5/2 \u2014 1009 (West 1998)). Golz and the Orthopedic Clinic filed motions seeking to bar this dismissal. We were not provided with copies of the Jackson County file, but we presume that either those defendants were successful in their efforts or the court has never ruled upon the Crowells\u2019 motion to voluntarily dismiss, since the Jackson County case remains pending. We can conceive of no reason these defendants would fight so strenuously to keep a lawsuit pending against them unless they did so expressly to thwart the Crowells\u2019 forum choice. We obviously cannot condone this practice as it only serves to decrease judicial economy.\nBecause we conclude that the two cases do not present the \u201csame cause,\u201d we find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendants\u2019 motion to dismiss.\nCONCLUSION\nFor the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the circuit court of St. Clair County is hereby affirmed.\nAffirmed.\nMAAG and WELCH, JJ., concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "JUSTICE KUEHN" } ], "attorneys": [ "Richard F. Record, Jr., and Julie A. Webb, both of Craig & Craig, of Mattoon, for appellants Robert J. Golz and Southern Illinois Orthopedic Clinic, S.C.", "Dale L. Bode and Leslie G. Offergeld, both of Walker & Williams, EC., of Belleville, for appellant Cal Johnson Answering Service, Inc.", "Thomas Q. Keefe, Jr., of Thomas Q. Keefe, Jr., EC., of Belleville, for appellees." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "MARIANN CROWELL, as Mother and Next Friend of Heather Crowell, a Minor, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. ROBERT J. GOLZ et al., Defendants-Appellants.\nFifth District\nNo. 5 \u2014 00\u20140208\nOpinion filed February 6, 2001.\nRichard F. Record, Jr., and Julie A. Webb, both of Craig & Craig, of Mattoon, for appellants Robert J. Golz and Southern Illinois Orthopedic Clinic, S.C.\nDale L. Bode and Leslie G. Offergeld, both of Walker & Williams, EC., of Belleville, for appellant Cal Johnson Answering Service, Inc.\nThomas Q. Keefe, Jr., of Thomas Q. Keefe, Jr., EC., of Belleville, for appellees." }, "file_name": "0184-01", "first_page_order": 202, "last_page_order": 210 }