Our Record of Success

DBS Appellate Team Successfully Defends Hospital on Appeal of False Imprisonment Claim While Also Upholding Discovery Misconduct Sanctions

The DBS appellate team of Karen Kies DeGrand and Connor Whitting successfully defended a trial judge’s dismissal of a false imprisonment claim against a local university hospital and upheld sanctions against the plaintiffs’ attorney for discovery misconduct.

A minor hospitalized at the hospital for an eating disorder was recommended for transfer to a Texas inpatient facility.  Her parents, the co-plaintiffs, opposed the treatment plan, and the treating caregivers noted in the patient’s records that noncompliance could lead to DCFS reports against the patient’s parents and custody removal.  The plaintiffs sued the hospital on a claim of false imprisonment, alleging the patient was unlawfully restrained based on what the parents claimed were threats to them as contained in the medical records.

Ruling on pretrial motions and noting the parents’ claims had been dismissed, the trial court excluded the statements made to the parents pursuant to a defense motion in limine. The court ruled that statements made to the parents could not be used by their daughter to advance her own claim of false imprisonment.   Counsel for the plaintiff argued the statements made to the parents were critical to the patient’s case and that counsel could not proceed to trial without the statements.  The case was dismissed with prejudice.

Prior to trial, the court also sanctioned plaintiffs’ counsel for misconduct. After a hearing where the plaintiff’s investigator testified and admitted his misconduct, the court found the investigator misled hospital employees in an effort to improperly obtain documents from the hospital after discovery had closed. The court ordered an attorney fee award as a remedy.

On appeal, as threshold arguments, the hospital first argued the appellate court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the appeal because the plaintiffs’ notice of appeal was a nullity given their failure to substitute the patient, who reached the age of majority before the circuit court entered the dispositive order, as a party plaintiff. No notice of appeal signed by the patient or an attorney on her behalf was filed.  Next, the hospital argued the appeal was moot, as her false imprisonment claim abated upon her death after the case reached the appellate stage.  On the merits, the hospital also argued the statements made to the parents were properly excluded from trial because the statements were supposed threats that were not appreciated or understood by the patient herself and thus could not be cited to prove her own claim of false imprisonment.

The appellate court, First District, dismissed the plaintiffs’ appeal for lack of jurisdiction, as no motion to substitute an estate or representative was filed after the patient’s death, after a defense motion spread the death of record.  The appellate court also determined that the patient’s false imprisonment claim abated at the time of her death, during the appeal.  Finally, the appellate court upheld the trial court ruled within its discretion on the sanctions issues and upheld the sanction.