Background
Joshua Colaizzi was examined by Dr. Robert T. Carlson at a For Eyes Optical location in Bloomingdale, DuPage County, on January 22, 2021, for a left eye complaint. Dr. Carlson diagnosed a corneal ulcer and prescribed Tobradex eyedrops. When Joshua’s condition worsened three days later, he was referred to an ophthalmologist at Suburban Associates in Arlington Heights, Cook County. There, Dr. Cereesa Longest diagnosed a severe ulcer infected with Pseudomonas aeruginosa bacteria. Joshua underwent corneal transplant surgery on January 27, 2021, to prevent permanent vision loss.
Rafaela Colaizzi sued on behalf of Joshua in Cook County Circuit Court, alleging that Dr. Carlson’s negligent prescription of Tobradex—which contained an immunosuppressant steroid—caused the bacterial infection to worsen. For Eyes Optical moved to transfer the case to DuPage County, arguing that the alleged malpractice occurred there and that all relevant factors supported transfer. The circuit court denied the motion, and For Eyes appealed.
The Court’s Holding
The appellate court affirmed the denial of the forum non conveniens motion, holding that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion. Under Illinois law, a plaintiff’s choice of forum is entitled to substantial deference, and transfer is warranted only in exceptional circumstances when the balance of all relevant factors strongly favors the alternative forum.
The court analyzed private interest factors—convenience of parties, access to witnesses and evidence, and practical trial considerations—and found none favored transfer. Although Dr. Carlson and For Eyes’ Bloomingdale office are in DuPage County, Luxottica (For Eyes’ parent company) maintains numerous locations in Cook County, and the Colaizzis’ seven post-injury treating physicians all practice in Cook County. The court rejected For Eyes’ argument that treating physician location should be discounted, noting that unlike cases where plaintiffs strategically seek care in distant forums, the Colaizzis did not choose their Cook County physicians—they were referred there by For Eyes’ own Dr. Thoman. Documentary evidence location was deemed insignificant in the modern age of electronic transmission.
On public interest factors, the court found both counties had legitimate connections to the dispute: DuPage where the injury occurred, and Cook where Luxottica operates extensively. Critically, Cook County courts proved more efficient than DuPage, terminating 47 cases by verdict in 43.4 months versus DuPage’s 19 cases in 59.3 months—making Cook County nearly a year and a half faster.
Key Takeaways
- A defendant seeking venue transfer under forum non conveniens must show the balance of all relevant factors strongly favors the alternative forum; plaintiff’s forum choice receives substantial deference.
- Post-injury treating physicians’ location receives proper weight when the injured party did not strategically select that location but was referred there by the defendant’s own healthcare provider.
- In forum non conveniens analysis between adjacent counties, minimal differences in travel time or distance are insufficient to overcome the plaintiff’s forum choice.
- Court efficiency in disposing of similar cases is a more meaningful congestion factor than raw caseload numbers.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces Illinois courts’ strong presumption favoring a plaintiff’s initial forum choice in medical malpractice cases. For Eyes’ argument that the injury “at core” was a DuPage County matter did not overcome the deference owed to the Colaizzis’ Cook County choice, particularly where Cook County had genuine connections to the case through the defendant’s corporate parent’s operations and the plaintiff’s necessary post-injury medical care. The opinion provides useful guidance that defendants cannot easily overcome forum non conveniens challenges by emphasizing the location of the alleged wrongful act when the plaintiff’s chosen forum has substantial practical connections to the litigation.
The decision also clarifies that modern discovery technology diminishes the significance of document location and that travel distances measured in single-digit mile and minute differences do not constitute material inconvenience justifying venue transfer in forum non conveniens analysis.