News and Events

The First District's Roadmap to the Ever-Expanding Relation Back Doctrine

July 18, 2017Myriah ConaughtyRelated Practice Areas: Civil Rights Litigation & Correctional Healthcare and Medical Liability
Myriah F. Conaughty

Earlier this year, the First District Appellate Court provided a detailed analysis regarding the application of the relation back doctrine, which continues to expand its reaches and erode the statutory walls that have historically protected the rights of defendants. As with prior Illinois decisions, the decision in Owens v. VHS Acquisition Subsidiary Number 3, Inc. should raise the concerns of defense counsel in their representation of clients, communications with insurers, analysis of pleadings, and especially their ability to defend a case on the merits and without prejudice. 2017 IL App (1st) 161709, see also Porter v. Decatur Mem. Hospital, 227 Ill. 2d 343 (2008) (adopting the “sufficiently close relationship test” to determine whether a new claim will relate back to an original complaint).

The interlocutory appeal in Owens arose out of a medical malpractice case pending in the Circuit Court of Cook County. Plaintiff timely filed a Complaint against Defendant Hospital and Defendant Physician five days before the statute of limitations expired. After filing an appearance, Defendant Physician moved for non-involvement on the basis that Defendant Physician never provided medical care to Plaintiff; rather it was a non-party physician (“Prospective Defendant”) who had provided the allegedly negligent care. Defendant Physician claimed that due to an error at the Defendant Hospital in mislabeling Plaintiff’s medical records, Defendant Physician’s name appeared in the medical records, but that he did not provide care to Plaintiff. Approximately six months after the statute of limitations expired, Plaintiff was granted leave and filed an Amended Complaint naming Prospective Defendant as a defendant in the suit. Prospective Defendant moved to dismiss, arguing the action was time-barred.

The trial court denied Prospective Defendant’s motion and the following question was certified for appellate review: “Whether an Amended Complaint against a new defendant filed after the applicable statute of limitations has expired relates back to plaintiff’s original Complaint where (a) the new defendant’s signature was in the medical records in plaintiff possession prior to filing his original Complaint, and (b) the new defendant had no knowledge that the action would have been brought against her, but for a mistake concerning her identity.”

Generally, amending a complaint to add a defendant is governed by Section 2-616(d) of the Illinois Code of Civil Procedure, which provides that a cause of action against a new defendant is not time-barred where the following criteria are met: (1) the original action was timely filed, (2) the new defendant received notice of the commencement of the action and knew or should have known that the action would have been brought against him/her but for a mistake in identity, and (3) the cause of action asserted in the amended complaint grew out of the same transaction or occurrence in the original complaint. 735 ILCS 5/2-616(d) (West 2012). In the appeal at issue, only the second requirement was contested. In analyzing the certified question, the First District looked first at whether there was a mistake as contemplated by Section 2-616(d), and second at whether Prospective Defendant received notice of the commencement of the action.

When determining whether a mistake was made for purposes of the relation back doctrine, the Court looked to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(c) for guidance.. The Court relied upon the United States Supreme Court’s ruling in Krupski v. Costa Crociere S.p.A., 560 U.S. 538, 547 (2010), which resolved a split among federal courts regarding the issue of mistake. The Supreme Court found that it is the prospective defendant’s knowledge—not the plaintiff’s knowledge—that determines whether there was a mistake. The Court explained that the proper inquiry was not whether the plaintiff knew or should have known that the prospective defendant should be named, but rather, whether the prospective defendant knew or should have known that he/she would have been named as a defendant, but for an error. Krupski, 560 U.S. at 548. The Court advised prospective defendants to examine the allegations of the original complaint in determining plaintiff’s intent in filing the suit. Id. at 554-55.

In applying this reasoning to the case on appeal, the First District noted that Plaintiff’s original Complaint mistakenly alleged that Defendant Physician was negligent in the treatment he provided in the Emergency Department on certain dates. Prospective Defendant who actually provided the care at issue either knew or should have known that, but for Plaintiff’s mistake in her identity, she would have been named in the original Complaint. Thus, the First District concluded that Prospective Defendant could be named in the Amended Complaint, even where Prospective Defendant’s signature was contained in the Plaintiff’s medical records in Plaintiff’s possession since before filing the original Complaint because Plaintiff intended on suing the physician who provided the allegedly negligent treatment in the Emergency Department.

When determining whether Prospective Defendant had notice for purposes of the relation back doctrine, the Court again turned to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(c) for guidance. Federal courts have identified three types of notice that comply with Rule 15(c) requirements: actual notice to the party, actual notice to the party’s agent, and constructive notice. Constructive notice occurs where a defendant does not receive notice of an impending lawsuit, but due to its relationship with an entity that received actual notice, knowledge of the action is imputed to a defendant for proposes of adding it as a new party. Polites v. U.S. Bank National Ass’n, 361 Ill. App. 3d 76, 90 (2005). “Under federal law, there are three ways to establish constructive notice: (1) notice via sharing an attorney with the original defendant; (2) notice via an identity of interests with the original defendant; or (3) notice via someone who handles the would-be defendant’s insurance claims.” Id. at 90-91.

Under the shared attorney method of constructive notice, there must be some showing that the shared attorney knew that the additional defendants would be added to the existing suit. The record on appeal revealed that once served, Prospective Defendant was represented by the same attorney as Defendant Physician; therefore, the court reasoned that the attorney would have known during the statutory period that Defendant Physician was not involved and that Prospective Defendant’s care was actually at issue. The court reasoned that Prospective Defendant may have received notice of the suit by virtue of the attorney’s representation of Defendant Physician prior to any indication by Plaintiff that an Amended Complaint would be filed, but there was not enough information to make that determination on appeal. Therefore, the case was remanded to the trial court so that the parties could “develop the record” as to whether Prospective Defendant received constructive notice via the shared attorney method.

In sum, while the First District’s analysis was thorough and well-supported, its application will be fraught with trouble for defendants. Because the determination of whether a mistake was made hinges on the plaintiff’s intent in filing the suit, broad allegations such as “the residents, attendings, nurses, and other medical care providers, and their actual or apparent agents, were negligent in failing to . . . ” appear to give plaintiffs carte blanche to add prospective defendants at any time. To limit this exposure, defendants should carefully analyze each complaint and move to strike such nonspecific allegations, a practice that generally is underutilized, time consuming, and often futile. Additionally, in medical malpractice cases, defendants should utilize the Reviewing Physician’s Report as evidence of the plaintiff’s intent; for example, when the perspective defendant is of a different licensure or specialty.

Equally as troubling are the potential implications on protected communications in proving a prospective defendant had the required notice, which will require significant discovery. In order to impute notice to a prospective defendant via the shared attorney method, there must be a showing that the attorney knew that the additional defendants would be added. Plaintiffs will likely claim that any document relevant to notice—whether it be communications between with a common insurer or reports to a client—is discoverable without limitation in light of the First District’s opinion. Defense counsel should be prepared to object to the disclosure of such information, and take all steps necessary to properly safeguard the confidentiality of such documentation.

About Us

Cassiday Schade is a litigation law firm headquartered in Chicago, with a presence throughout the Midwest. We focus on providing our clients with expert, efficient representation and act as national or regional counsel for clients facing nationwide exposures.

With experience in virtually all areas of civil litigation, we have a diverse client base and our attorneys provide companies of various sizes with extensive trial experience and case preparation acumen. Throughout our history, we have represented individuals and companies in a variety of industries, including long-term care, insurance, financial services, manufacturing, construction, professional services and transportation. In addition to trial and appellate work, we provide both organizations and individuals with the tools to analyze and prevent risk before litigation arises.

We take pride in working with our clients and not just for them. Every case is different, and determining the best possible outcome is what our attorneys deliver. Sometimes this means aggressive preparation for trial, other times it may involve seeking an early resolution through alternative means, such as mediation or arbitration. Ultimately, our clients receive the benefit of having their matters handled with maximum efficiency and expertise.



At Cassiday Schade, we recognize the important distinction between trial and appellate work and the need for appellate specialists. Our attorneys have outstanding research, writing and oral advocacy skills and bring an original perspective and tailored strategy to each appeal. A significant portion of our strategy includes analyzing whether or not an appeal is the best course of action for our clients. Our practice group provides an appellate perspective when issues arise at trial, including the introduction of prejudicial evidence by an opponent, an opponent's efforts to limit the introduction of evidence favorable to the defense and jury instructions. We also become involved after litigation concludes, and offer guidance on post-trial motions and responses.

Cassiday Schade’s Civil Rights & Correctional Healthcare practice is dedicated to providing expert, cost-effective legal defense to correctional healthcare employers, as well as the doctors, nurses and other healthcare providers they employ. Our attorneys aren’t just excellent litigators, we are also industry experts and are intimately acquainted with trends, changes and legal developments that may impact our clients.

Cassiday Schade’s Commercial attorneys serve as advocates and business advisors to clients from a wide range of industries including banking, real estate financing and investment, health care, automobile sales and finance, financial services, insurance, manufacturing, and construction.

The representation of contractors, developers and design professionals has been a focus of Cassiday Schade since the inception of the firm. The depth of our experience covers the broad spectrum of all points where construction and the law intersect. Our list of clients includes the largest general contractors in Illinois as well as owners, architects, engineers and specialty subcontractors. We routinely represent these companies in their biggest and most problematic cases. While we have the ability to staff large accounts, we keep our client teams small so that our attorneys remain familiar with the client’s background and needs. This ensures efficiency and consistency in our representation of our clients.

Cassiday Schade’s Employment practice group represents organizations in a wide range of employment related disputes. As part of our litigation strategy, our attorneys provide an early assessment of each case to determine the best avenue toward resolution, considering both the nature and potential exposure of the claim and the needs of the client.

Cassiday Schade’s Environmental and Toxic Injury practice group serves clients who are, or may be, exposed to claims arising from the manufacture, sale or use of potentially toxic and hazardous substances, and to the threat of litigation arising from environmental claims attendant to land, air and water pollution. Our firm is often retained to handle not only the litigation of active lawsuits, but to monitor litigation for nationwide corporations, advise corporations on risk reduction and coordinate the nationwide defense strategy for corporations facing toxic tort, product liability and other commercial issues. Our success is determined by a skilled team of attorneys with industry acumen and access to a large network of experts and consultants. No matter the issue, our overarching goal is the same: to bring our clients the best possible result through proactive and individualized service.

The family law practice at Cassiday Schade covers a broad spectrum of work, from simple separation agreements to the most intricate and delicate situations. Our success stems from the precision, persistence and care to which we apply ourselves with respect to the law, as well as the ability to communicate thoroughly and compassionately with our clients, from the initial consultation to the final agreement or judicial ruling.

Cassiday Schade’s Hospitality and Retail practice represents a wide-range of clients in complex litigation matters, including hotels and hotel chains, hotel management companies, hotel property owners, franchisees, restaurants, bars, shopping malls, and event production companies. In addition, our skilled team of attorneys is committed to providing our clients with guidance and risk-management strategies to avoid future litigation. This includes but is not limited to, legal counseling, alternative dispute resolution and pre suit negotiations.

Cassiday Schade’s Insurance practice group provides full-service litigation, transactional and alternative dispute resolution capabilities to insurance carriers and other commercial entities. Our expert team of attorneys is focused on providing clients with prompt, direct advice regarding the risks presented in any given situation, both preventively and when litigation arises. Our team also frequently utilizes litigation alternatives such as contractual resolutions, standstill agreements and mediation, all of which can be of great assistance in complex insurance matters.

We represent some of the nation’s top hospitals and other healthcare providers in the successful defense of malpractice litigation. The actions we defend are approached with the highest level of professional consideration and we have tried hundreds of cases to verdict in over 50 counties nationally. Our industry expertise and innovative use of technology to create demonstrative evidence during trial provides clients with the most successful defense possible. We also have access to a network of the most qualified consultants and experts who provide guidance and work closely with our team of attorneys on these lawsuits.

Cassiday Schade’s Nursing Home & Long-Term Care practice group represents nursing homes, assisted living facilities, hospices, home health care agencies and rehabilitation centers. At the core of our practice is an understanding of the difficulty inherent in effectively addressing the quality of care provided to individuals whose health is compromised. Our attorneys are a dedicated group of litigators with extensive industry knowledge of OBRA Regulations, the Illinois Administrative Code and the Nursing Home Care Act. We are committed to partnering with our clients in the investigation, planning, direction and defense of a case to determine the most efficient and practical resolution.

Cassiday Schade’s Products Liability practice group has extensive knowledge of state and federal product liability laws and the applicable standards governing the design, manufacture and distribution of products. Our attorneys’ first step is product identification, specifically to examine our clients’ involvement in the design, manufacture, and/or distribution. This includes following paper trails and pursuing investigation to locate and preserve evidence. We also immediately analyze whether any legal defenses, such as statutes of limitations or repose, can be asserted. Our experience in the industry provides us with access to the most sophisticated experts. We act quickly to retain the best consultants, provide them with all applicable materials and obtain their input in order to present the best legal and technical defense.

Professional liability cases are often complex, both factually and procedurally. Cassiday Schade’s Professional Liability practice group services a wide range of clients including accountants, architects and engineers, attorneys, nursing homes, officers and directors, paramedics and psychologists. Our attorneys realize the importance of understanding burdens of proof, standards of care and the need to promptly identify the right consultants and experts. We stay abreast of case law and developments in the profession so that we can bring the highest level of knowledge and understanding to a given case. Our practice team involves our clients in all aspects of litigation, keeping them informed and seeking their input.

Cassiday Schade’s Transportation practice group represents motor carriers, owners, operators, trucking companies and insurance carriers in what are often catastrophic accidents involving trucks, trains, buses, vans, automobiles and other modes of transportation. Our rapid response team of attorneys, accident reconstructionists and transportation investigators is on-call 24 hours a day and can be immediately dispatched to preserve and document physical evidence, inspect vehicles and perform a download of the electronic control module. We also frequently defend cases where the first notice is the lawsuit. Our attorneys perform early assessments of both the liability and damage aspects of each case. This analysis often leads to an early resolution by way of alternative dispute methods including mediation.



My Doctor is Liable for How Much?

As attorneys who practice frequently in the area of medical negligence, it is not uncommon to be presented with a case in which the Plaintiff seeks damages under both the Medical Malpractice Act ("MMA") and the Wrongful Death Act. While not unusual, it can still be confusing to determine what damages are recoverable in such a case, particularly when the Adult Wrongful Death Statute ("AWDS") is in play, as both the MMA and AWDS contain provisions which "cap" damages. This article seeks to identify how these statutes work together, how to apply the caps, and discuss when a provider can be responsible for paying more than the MMA cap. ... [ read more ]

view all