Background
Michael Schenk suffered cardiac arrest on January 1, 2023, outside a New Year’s party in Libertyville, Illinois, and was transported by ambulance to Advocate Condell Medical Center in Lake County. Upon arrival, he received two EKGs within an hour and was evaluated by Dr. Bryan S. Wijas, Nurse Bridgette A. Harrison, and Dr. Benjamin L. Rojas. Plaintiffs alleged that these medical professionals failed to timely diagnose that Mr. Schenk had suffered an ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (heart attack). Nine hours after arrival, Mr. Schenk was transferred to the cardiac catheterization laboratory, where Dr. Rojas performed a thrombectomy and placed a stent. That evening, Mr. Schenk was transferred to Northwestern Memorial Hospital in Cook County, where he remained for approximately three weeks with no allegations of negligence regarding his care there.
On January 4, 2024, Mr. and Mrs. Schenk filed a medical malpractice complaint in Cook County Circuit Court against Advocate entities, Lake Heart Specialists, and the three individual healthcare providers, alleging negligent failure to timely diagnose and treat the heart attack and seeking damages for permanent heart damage, respiratory failure, and kidney failure. Mrs. Schenk also asserted a loss of consortium claim. In May 2024, defendants moved to transfer the case to Lake County under the doctrine of forum non conveniens, emphasizing that all alleged negligence occurred exclusively at Condell in Lake County, all parties and individual defendants reside in Lake County, and that a Cook County trial would be inconvenient and that Cook County has “absolutely no connection” to the case.
The Court’s Holding
The Illinois Appellate Court affirmed the circuit court’s denial of the motion to transfer, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in determining that the forum non conveniens factors did not strongly favor transfer to Lake County. The appellate court emphasized that defendants bore the burden of proving the relevant factors strongly favored transfer and that the record was insufficient to meet that burden.
Regarding the plaintiff’s choice of forum, although the court acknowledged that plaintiffs’ selection of Cook County as their forum—where neither the alleged negligence nor their residence is located—was entitled to “somewhat less” deference than typical, the choice was still entitled to “some” deference. The court found no abuse of discretion in this approach. On the private interest factors, the court found that while the convenience of parties factor somewhat favored Lake County (since all parties reside there), this was offset by plaintiffs’ affidavits establishing Cook County was convenient for them, the defendants’ failure to provide affidavits detailing significant hardship, and the fact that only Nurse Harrison offered testimony about convenience—stating she would “lose less time commuting” from Lake County. The court noted that electronic medical records made documentary evidence equally accessible in either county, and that compulsory process for witnesses was neutral between the forums. The distance of approximately 28 miles between courthouses was deemed insufficient to strongly favor transfer in the context of adjacent counties.
On public interest factors, the court emphasized that plaintiffs identified 28 of 52 potential witnesses residing in Cook County, that Advocate operates 667 of its 1,086 Illinois locations in Cook County, and that the majority of Mr. Schenk’s treatment for his injuries occurred at Northwestern in Cook County. The court rejected defendants’ argument that Cook County congestion was a reason to transfer, noting that Cook County courts disposed of substantially more cases ($50,000+) than Lake County. The court distinguished this case from Lutzenkirchen, where transfer was ordered to a county 88 miles away with supporting affidavits from multiple defendants; here, the adjacent-county context and lack of evidentiary support made the difference.
Key Takeaways
- A plaintiff’s choice of forum, even when the plaintiff is “foreign” to that county, retains some deference and defendants must prove forum non conveniens factors “strongly favor” transfer—a demanding standard requiring substantial evidentiary support.
- In medical malpractice cases involving adjacent counties, courts will not find an abuse of discretion in denying transfer based solely on distance, absent specific affidavits demonstrating significant inconvenience or disruption to parties or witnesses.
- Defendants must provide concrete evidentiary support (affidavits, statistical data) for their forum non conveniens arguments; conclusory statements and unsupported claims are insufficient to meet the burden of proof.
- Electronic medical records substantially reduce the significance of proximity to medical facilities as a factor favoring transfer in medical malpractice litigation.
- The appellate court may affirm a trial court’s denial of a motion to transfer on any reasonable basis in the record, even if the trial court’s stated reasoning was incomplete or focused on necessity rather than possibility of a factor.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces the substantial protection afforded to a plaintiff’s initial forum selection in Illinois medical malpractice cases, even when the plaintiff does not reside in the chosen county. The court’s holding establishes that forum non conveniens motions require more than general assertions about inconvenience—defendants must present concrete evidence through affidavits and supporting documentation. The decision is particularly significant for distinguishing transfers between adjacent counties (where minimal deference is owed to transfer requests absent strong evidence) from those involving more distant forums, suggesting that geographic proximity alone will rarely justify overcoming a plaintiff’s forum choice in medical malpractice litigation.
For defense counsel, the decision underscores the importance of submitting comprehensive supporting materials—including affidavits from parties and witnesses detailing specific inconvenience—rather than relying on conclusory arguments about distance and local interest. The court’s rejection of defendants’ “forum shopping” argument also reiterates Illinois law’s prohibition on considering alleged forum manipulation as a basis for transfer. Additionally, the court’s emphasis on the location of medical records and the availability of witnesses in Cook County where post-injury treatment occurred demonstrates that plaintiffs may successfully counter venue challenges by identifying substantial connections to the chosen forum beyond the site of the alleged negligence itself.