 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Jackson v. Chicago Classic Janitorial and Cleaning Service1/31/2005
cal malpractice rather than simple negligence, and section 2-622 applies." Baumann, 262 F. Supp. 2d at 968. The Baumann court stated that the "focus of section 2-622 is not as much on the education, training, or certification of the defendant as it is on the nature of the claim itself. [Citations.]" Baumann, 262 F. Supp. 2d at 967. We find the Baumann case to be more analogous to the case here than the Milos case.
Plaintiffs also cite to Owens v. Manor Health Care Corp., 159 Ill. App. 3d 684, 512 N.E.2d 820 (1987) arguing that "healing arts" malpractice is not appropriate here because no steps were taken to restore Patricia's physical or mental health. Owens, 159 Ill. App. 3d at 687. However, the Owens case involved an allegation of negligence brought against a nursing home where a resident fell as he attempted to get out of a wheelchair. Owens, 159 Ill. App. 3d at 685. This court held that the determination to be made pursuant to the allegations was not inherently one of medical judgment. Owens, 159 Ill. App. 3d at 688-89. We further decided that the plaintiff in Owens was only receiving custodial shelter and that expert medical testimony would not be required to assess the acts of the defendant. Owens, 159 Ill. App. 3d at 688. In this case, however, expert testimony and medical judgment will be required to determine what aspects of an FCE would be appropriate for a patient in Patricia's physical condition. The case before us is not one where plaintiffs allege that Patricia fell out of a chair while waiting to undergo the FCE. The allegations leveled by plaintiffs against Maximum are for healing arts malpractice.
Furthermore, we do not agree with plaintiffs' claims that Patricia's visit to the occupational therapist and the purpose of the FCE was not intended to restore her to normal physical health. In our view, the FCE was a necessary part of a comprehensive treatment plan designed to ultimately restore Patricia to a normal physical and vocational lifestyle. The FCE was ordered by Patricia's treating physician and required by her employer prior to having Patricia return to work. Although the FCE is not designed to diagnose a specific illness or injury , it was administered in this case to determine whether Patricia could continue working without risk of further injury. As such, the services rendered by Maximum to Patricia were an integral part of her recovery and treatment.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, we hold that a certificate pursuant to section 2-622 fo the Code was required in this case because plaintiffs' complaint sounded in healing arts malpractice. Accordingly, we answer the certified question in the affirmative.
Certified question answered. Circuit Court reversed and cause remanded for further proceedings.
CAHILL, P.J., and GORDON, J., concur.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Illinois Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|