DCBA - Recent Case Law

Recent Case Law

By Steven R. Merican

Here are a few recent cases of importance and note - December 2001.

People v. Philip Morris, Inc., 2001 Ill. Lexis 1431, Docket Nos. 90185, 90186 (Sup. Ct. 10/18/01). Proceeding to adjudicate an attorney’s lien is a statutory action against a fund of monies to be paid by private defendants, not an action against the State. This case grows from the tobacco litigation. The State of Illinois participated in the Master Settlement Agreement, which is to bring the State approximately $9 billion to $360 million annually for 25 years, and contingent payments in perpetuity. The private attorneys the State retained on a 10 percent contingency sought to adjudicate their lien against the settlement, so they brought an action pursuant to the Attorneys Lien Act in circuit court. The Supreme Court rejected the State’s sovereign immunity arguments. The court ruled that the defendants in the underlying litigation are charged with honoring the lien, not the state. The lien adjudication therefore was not an action against the State, and the circuit court did have jurisdiction.

Burger v. Lutheran General Hospital, 2001 Ill. Lexis 1423, Docket Nos. 89643, 89644 (Sup. Ct. 10/18/01). Amendments to the Illinois Licensing Act that allow "intrahospital" communications about patient care are not unconstitutional. Recent amendments to the Hospital Licensing Act allowed communications among hospital personnel and legal counsel about "the nature or details of services provided to patients." The communications are allowed for "peer review, utilization review, quality assurance, risk management or defense of claims brought against the hospital arising out of the care" a patient received. The court ruled that the amendments were not unconstitutional. There is no violation of the separation of powers clause because the licensing act does not regulate litigation discovery, and therefore does not infringe upon the judiciary’s authority to regulate discovery. Nor do the amendments invade a patient’s right to privacy under the Illinois Constitution: the amendments "provide what information may be discussed, with whom it may be discussed, and how these discussions are to be conducted." Finally, the amendments are not unconstitutional special legislation. The amendments are reasonably related to a legitimate governmental purpose – complying with federal and state regulations and reporting requirements and in maintaining and improving patient care.

Harrison v. Hardin County Community Unit School District No. 1, 2001 Ill Lexis 1429, Docket No. 89661 (Sup. Ct. 10/18/01). School district entitled to immunity from suit when principal, during inclement weather, releases student who causes auto accident. Joshua Davis drove his grandfather’s car to school. There was bad weather that day, and Joshua asked the principal for early release to avoid driving home in poor road conditions. The principal told Joshua he had to wait for the entire school to be dismissed. While driving his girlfriend home, Joshua lost control of the car, crossed into oncoming traffic, and crashed into Connie Harrison. Harrison sued the school district, alleging willful and wanton acts in preventing Joshua from driving home earlier. The Supreme Court held that the school district was immune from suit because the principal’s actions constituted policy decisions. The court rejected the argument that "achieving a common public benefit" was a condition to receiving immunity.

Morgan v. Joint Administration Board, 2001 U.S. App. Lexis 21710, No. 00-3859 (7th Cir. 10/11/01). Former employees, who retired with total disabilities, have no cause of action under ADA because they are not employees or prospective employees. Plaintiffs are totally disabled former employees. Their retirement plan was amended to give normal retirees a cost of living increase. But the same increase was denied to the disabled retirees, so they sued alleging that the American With Disabilities Act required that the increase be applied to their benefits. The court ruled that the ADA does not apply to totally disabled, retired workers: "The employment provisions of the ADA . . . grant rights only to employees who, thought they havge a disability, are able to perform the essential functions of their job even if only with some accommodation to their disability. . . The plaintiffs are disabled, but they are not employees or prospective employees who want to work notwithstanding their disability."

Tobin for Governor v. Illinois State Board of Elections, 2001 U.S. App. Lexis 21513, No. 00-3097 (7th Cir. 10/5/01). Members of the Illinois Board of Elections have absolute judicial immunity from a lawsuit for damages by a campaign committee for a candidate who was prevented from appearing on the election ballot. Jim Tobin wanted to run for governor on the Libertarian Party ticket in 1998. He submitted petition signatures, which were contested. An election board hearing officer ruled that there were sufficient valid signatures. But the full Board eliminated more signatures, dropping Tobin below the statutory minimum. Tobin charged that the board’s actions were arbitrary and politically motivated. His campaign committee sued the individual board members for its financial losses incurred in running a campaign that was wrongfully blocked from the ballot. The court ruled that the board members acted in a judicial capacity and therefore were entitled to absolute quasi-judicial immunity. The court rejected the argument that absolute immunity should not be granted to political appointees who sit in judgment of their political competitors on petition disputes brought by their political sponsors.

Steve Merican is a sole practitioner in Oak Brook, Illinois. Steve’s practice is concentrated in appeals in state and federal courts. His URL is www.illinoislocalcounsel.com.