BlogLine

Illinois Appellate Court blesses circuit court decision denying personal jurisdiction

9/23/24

By: Donald Patrick Eckler and Charlotte Meltzer

Suppose an Illinois patient dies following advice given by a nonresident physician via phone call. Does this phone call grant Illinois specific personal jurisdiction over the nonresident physician? The Illinois Appellate Court, Fourth District recently addressed this personal jurisdiction issue in Higgins v. Blessing Hospital, 2024 IL App (4th) 231531 and ruled that there was no personal jurisdiction. 

An Illinois physician, Dr. Baker, determined his patient required specialized care. Dr. Baker called a Missouri hospital with better capabilities to request to transfer the patient. When Dr. Baker learned a bed at the Missouri hospital was not immediately available for his patient, he asked two doctors at that hospital, Dr. Musleh and Dr. Masood, how to stabilize the patient in the interim. Dr. Musleh suggested administering the patient esmolol. After receiving esmolol, the patient went into cardiac arrest and died the following day. Plaintiff, a representative of the estate of the deceased, filed suit in Adams County against both Missouri doctors and their employer, Washington University (which holds its principal place of business in Missouri), amongst others. The circuit court granted Defendants’ motions to dismiss on grounds that it lacked personal jurisdiction over Defendants. Plaintiff appealed, and the Appellate Court ruled as follows.

The Illinois Appellate Court held that Dr. Baker’s phone calls with the Missouri physicians were insufficient to establish specific personal jurisdiction over Defendants. Although Plaintiff alleged that the Missouri doctors had requisite minimum contacts with Illinois, the Appellate Court found otherwise. The sole connection the Missouri doctors had to Illinois was phone calls with Dr. Baker to coordinate the deceased’s transfer for specialized treatment. The reviewing court determined, following analysis of five recent cases in personal jurisdiction in the medical malpractice context, that the sole connection between the defendant physician and Illinois was the phone call, which fell “well short of a substantial connection with Illinois.”

In reaching this conclusion, the Appellate Court also emphasized its holding in Reynolds v. Decatur Memorial Hospital, 277 Ill. App. 3d 80 (4th Dist. 1996). In Reynolds, two physicians shared a phone call where one asked questions about a certain patient’s condition and treatment plan. The Court found that this phone call did not create a physician-patient relationship between the patient and the nonattending physician. The Court continually refuses “to inhibit the exchange of information and expertise between physicians to the detriment of patients seeking treatment and the medical profession writ large.” Higgins, 2024 IL App (4th) 231531, ¶ 44. Relying on the foregoing case law, the Higgins Court held that the Missouri physicians did not purposefully avail themselves to Illinois when they offered suggestions over the phone on how to stabilize the patient in anticipation of the patient’s transfer. 

The Appellate Court similarly rejected Plaintiff’s argument that Illinois has personal jurisdiction over Washington University. It easily reached this conclusion. General personal jurisdiction exists where a defendant is “at home” in the forum state. A corporation is “at home” in its place of incorporation and its principal place of business. Here, Washington University is incorporated and has its principal place of business in Missouri, not Illinois. In fact, Washington University conducts approximately 98% of its business in Missouri. As such, it is not at home in Illinois. The Court further noted that the solicitation of customers—or patients—is insufficient to establish general jurisdiction. 

Higgins clarified that phone calls with nonresident physicians are insufficient for Illinois courts to exercise personal jurisdiction. In doing so, the Court emphasized the importance of facilitating—not chilling—the proper treatment of patients. 

For more information, please contact Donald Patrick Eckler at patrick.eckler@fmglaw.com or your local FMG attorney.