Unterreiner V. Pernikoff 961 N.E.2d 1 (2011) 356 Ill. Dec. 167 I. Procedure. a. Who are the parties? i.

Cheryl Unterreiner and Kim Uterreiner, Plaintiffs ii. David Pernikoff, M.D., et al., Defendants b. Who brought the action? i. Cheryl and Kim Unterreiner. c. In what court did the case originate? i. Circuit Court of Madison County d. Who won at the trial-court level? i. The plaintiffs Cheryl and Kim e. What is the appellate history of the case? i. On October 6, 2010, the plaintiffs, Cheryl A. Unterreiner and Kim Unterreiner, filed a complaint in the circuit court of Madison County, alleging medical malpractice against the defendants. On October 26, 2010, the defendants filed their motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and/or motion to quash service. On December 10, 2010, the circuit court denied the motion of the defendants, finding that "there were minimum contacts" for personal jurisdiction to exist, and this timely appeal followed. Facts. a. What are the relevant facts as recited by this court? i. The plaintiffs are long-time residents of Highland, in Madison County, Illinois. ii. Defendant Dr. David Pernikoff, who treated plaintiff Cheryl Unterreiner, is a Missouri resident and physician licensed to practice medicine in Missouri, but not in Illinois. iii. Codefendant David J. Pernikoff, M.D., P.C., is the Missouri professional corporation under which Dr. Pernikoff practices. iv. The defendants have never advertised for clients in Illinois and have never owned or leased any real or personal property in Illinois. v. In 2002, Cheryl underwent an aortic valve replacement with a mechanical valve and was placed on Warfarin as an anticoagulant. vi. The defendants monitored Cheryl's anticoagulant levels. vii. Cheryl traveled to Missouri for her medical care appointments with the defendants. On September 4, 2008, at one such appointment, Cheryl's blood was drawn so that her levels could be checked. viii. The results were not immediately available because the levels were checked by an outside laboratory in Missouri. ix. However, "within a few days," an employee of the defendants called the plaintiffs' home in Illinois and left a message for Cheryl on the plaintiffs'

II.

x.

xi. xii. xiii. xiv. xv.

telephone answering machine to call the defendants in Missouri because her anticoagulant levels were low. From her home in Illinois, Cheryl returned the telephone call and was instructed to take more Warfarin and to return to the defendants' office in Missouri in a month to have the levels checked again. On October 7, 2008, prior to her return appointment, Cheryl suffered a stroke that resulted in serious injuries. She alleges that negligent care by the defendants caused the stroke. On October 6, 2010 the plaintiffs filed a complaint with the circuit court of Madison County. On October 26, 2010 the defendants filed their motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. On December 10, 2010 the court denied motion of the defandants.

b. Are there any facts that you would like to know but that are not revealed in the opinion? i. How did the plaintiff find the doctor? ii. Why did the plaintiff not stay local instead of go to Missouri III. Issues. a. What are the precise issues being litigated, as stated by the court? i. The defendants, David Pernikoff, M.D., et al., petition this court to reverse the order of the circuit court of Madison County that denied the defendants' motion to dismiss for lack or jurisdiction and/or motion to quash service. b. Do you agree with the way the court has framed those issues? i. I agree with the way the court framed the issues at hand. The doctor was outside of his jurisdiction by treating an Illinois patient when the patient could have seen a doctor in her home state. That is why he was able to ask for dismissal due to lack of jurisdiction. Holding. a. What is the courts precise holding (decision)? i. For the foregoing reasons, the trial court erred when denying the defendants' motion to dismiss and/or quash service. Accordingly, we reverse the trial court's ruling and remand with directions to the trial court to dismiss the plaintiffs' complaint with prejudice. b. What is its rationale for that decision? i. In sum, the three cases cited by the plaintiffs are far too removed, factually, from the case at bar to control our decision c. Do you agree with that rationale? i. Yes. All three cases they cited shows that sufficient contact and continual follow up must be present to determine cases like these. Since the woman went to Missouri instead of the doctor coming to Illinois, she accepted responsibility.

IV.

V.

Implications. a. What does the case mean for healthcare today? i. This case means doctors should be able to treat patients as they come to them but at the same time are also liable for the condition of their patients if they reside in another state. The patient however should be warned of risks before hand when they do receive care from an out of state physician. b. What were its implications when the decision was announced? i. The implications of this case is if a patient receives care out of state then they must file suit in the state of which services were rendered not their home state. c. How should healthcare administrators prepare to deal with these implications? i. Healthcare administrators need to be prepared for out of state patients especially when there could be a lack of service due to a rural area and patients are either referred or transferred out of state to receive services that could not be rendered otherwise. The patient should be referred back to there primary care physician after treatment is done. d. What would be different today if the case had been decided differently? i. Healthcare would be different today because physicians and administrators would have to worry about licensure issues and a lack of state line barriers. There would be a higher flow of out of state patients and when it came to lawsuits who ever was rendering services would have to worry about lawsuits coming from out of state.