SIXTH DIVISION April 18, 2008
No. 1-07-1971
LEONARD JAMES HACKL, as ) Appeal from the Circuit Independent Executor of the Estate ) Court of Cook County. of Cynthia Snow Hackl, deceased, ) ) Plaintiff-Appellee, ) ) v. ) No. 06 L 8894 ) ADVOCATE HEALTH AND HOSPITALS ) CORPORATION, an Illinois ) corporation, d/b/a Advocate Good ) Shepherd Hospital, ) Honorable ) Diane J. Larsen, Defendant-Appellant. ) Judge Presiding.
JUSTICE O'MALLEY delivered the opinion of the court:
Plaintiff Leonard James Hackl (Hackl), as executor of the
estate of decedent Cynthia Hackl, brought a medical malpractice
action in the circuit court of Cook County against defendant
Advocate Health and Hospitals Corporation, d/b/a Advocate Good
Shepherd Hospital (Advocate). Advocate filed a motion seeking to transfer Hackl's action to the circuit court of Lake County under
the doctrine of forum non conveniens, which the circuit court
denied.
On permissive interlocutory appeal pursuant to Supreme Court
Rule 306(a)(2) (210 Ill. 2d R. 306(a)(2)), Advocate contends that
the circuit court abused its discretion when it denied Advocate's
forum non conveniens motion because the court failed to properly
balance the relevant private and public interest factors and 1-07-1971
misapplied the "predominant connections" test. For the reasons
that follow, we affirm.
BACKGROUND
In August 2006, Hackl filed in the circuit court of Cook
County a medical malpractice action asserting multiple wrongful
death and survival claims against Advocate and a number of other
medical providers on behalf of his decedent wife. Specifically,
in addition to Advocate, Hackl named as defendants (1) Anne Marie
Kwiecien; (2) Maria Bleibel; (3) Hoffman Barrington Internal
Medicine Specialists, S.C. (HBIM); (4) Dr. Robert A. Small; and
(5) Dr. Gordon C. Newsom.
In his complaint, Hackl alleged that decedent had received a
cardiac pacemaker implantation on October 4, 2004. Later that
month, on October 26, 2004, decedent presented with generalized
body pain and was admitted to Advocate Good Shepherd Hospital
(Good Shepherd) in Barrington, Illinois, which is located in Lake
County. While decedent was at that hospital, decedent received
medical treatment from Kwiecien and Bleibel, both of whom were nurses employed by Good Shepherd, and Dr. Small and Dr. Newsom,
both of whom were employed by HBIM. Ultimately, on November 1,
2004, decedent died at Good Shepherd as a result of septic shock.
Hackl maintained that Kwiecien, Bleibel, Dr. Small, and Dr.
Newsom had each committed certain negligent acts or omissions
that had proximately caused decedent's death.
In February 2007, Advocate filed its forum non conveniens
2 1-07-1971
motion in the circuit court of Cook County, seeking transfer of
Hackl's action to the circuit court of Lake County.1 As a
preliminary matter, Advocate observed in its motion that (1)
Hackl and decedent were residents of Lake County; (2) decedent
received the allegedly negligent medical care and treatment at
Good Shepherd in Lake County; (3) defendants Bleibel and Dr.
Small were residents of Cook County; (3) corporate defendants
Advocate and HBIM had offices in Cook County; (4) defendant Dr.
Newsom was a resident of DuPage County; and (5) defendant
Kwiecien was employed by Good Shepherd at the time of decedent's
death, but subsequently moved to Arizona.
In addition, Advocate noted that Hackl, in his answers to
interrogatories, had identified 15 other healthcare providers who
had either provided medical treatment or possessed knowledge of
relevant facts concerning decedent's care and treatment and 13 of
those individuals were employees of Good Shepherd in Lake County.
Advocate further noted that Hackl had identified seven members of
decedent's family who had knowledge of relevant facts and that three of them resided in Lake County, two resided in McHenry
County, and the remaining two resided in different states.
In regard to the substance of its motion, Advocate contended
that the private and public and factors relevant to a forum non
conveniens motion supported transfer from Cook County to Lake
1 According to Advocate, at some time, the circuit court granted defendants Dr. Small, Dr. Newsom, and HBIM leave to join in Advocate's forum non conveniens motion.
3 1-07-1971
County. Advocate further contended that the circuit court should
presume that Hackl had engaged in impermissible forum shopping
when he chose to file his lawsuit in Cook County because Hackl
was a resident of Lake County and the situs of decedent's injury
was located in Lake County. According to Advocate, Hackl's
decision to file in Cook County was "a classic case of forum
shopping and weighs in favor of [transfer to Lake County]."
In regard to the private interest factors, Advocate argued
that it would be more convenient for the parties to transfer the
case to Lake County because (1) Good Shepherd Hospital was
located in Lake County; (2) defendants Bleibel, Dr. Small, and
Dr. Newsom filed affidavits attesting that Lake County would be
more convenient for them; (3) Joan Hagar, who was the designated
representative for Good Shepherd Hospital, filed an affidavit
attesting that Lake County would more convenient for her; and (4)
plaintiff Hackl was a resident of Lake County. Advocate further
argued that transfer to Lake County was appropriate because a
number of potential witnesses would be more accessible in Lake County, the original sources of proof, such as decedent's medical
records, were located in Lake County, and Lake County would be a
more convenient location for the jurors if the need arose to view
the premises of Good Shepherd Hospital.
In regard to the public interest factors, Advocate argued
that those factors "strongly favor[ed] transfer" of Hackl's case
to Lake County. In particular, Advocate asserted that Lake
4 1-07-1971
County was the more appropriate forum because decedent and Hackl
were residents of Lake County and decedent allegedly received
negligent medical care in Lake County at Good Shepherd Hospital.
Advocate emphasized that there were no allegations of medical
negligence occurring in Cook County in connection with decedent's
death. In addition, Advocate asserted that the Lake County court
docket was less congested that the Cook County court docket and
it would be unfair to burden Cook County jurors with an issue
that involved Lake County residents receiving allegedly negligent
medical care in Lake County.
Last, Advocate asserted that Hackl's choice of forum as the
plaintiff in the underlying litigation should be afforded less
deference because Cook County was neither Hackl's county of
residence nor the situs of the underlying accident or injury.
In May 2007, Hackl responded to Advocate's forum non
conveniens motion, arguing that Advocate's motion seeking
transfer to Lake County "[had] everything to do with avoiding the
Circuit Court of Cook County and nothing to do with convenience." In that motion, Hackl noted that none of the named
defendants were residents of Lake County and asserted that "Cook
County [had] a substantial interest in the case because at the
time they cared for [decedent], Dr. Small, Dr. Newsom, and Maria
Bleibel lived in Cook County." Hackl further noted that Advocate
operated 8 of its 10 hospitals in Cook County. Hackl also
contended that Cook County was a convenient forum for Advocate
5 1-07-1971
because Advocate had filed other lawsuits in Cook County to
collect unpaid hospital charges incurred at Good Shepherd.
In relevant part, Hackl argued that his right as a plaintiff
to select a forum was a substantial right that should rarely be
disturbed and that Advocate had a heavy burden to meet in order
to prevail on its forum non conveniens motion. Hackl recognized
that his right was entitled to less deference because he had
selected a foreign forum, but he emphasized that his forum choice
was nevertheless "still entitled to deference."
In regard to the potential witnesses who worked at Good
Shepherd in Lake County, Hackl noted that many of those witnesses
were actually residents of Cook County and maintained that even
those witnesses who were residents of Lake and McHenry counties
would not be inconvenienced by traveling to Cook County because
it was an adjacent county. Hackl characterized the affidavits of
Bleibel, Dr. Newsom, and Dr. Small, who all attested that Lake
County would be more convenient to them, as "self-serving and
conclusory." In regard to the court congestion at Cook County when
compared to Lake County, Hackl maintained that court congestion
was "not entitled to substantial weight." According to Hackl,
the disposition time from filing to verdict was similar for the
counties, namely, 32.7 months in Cook County compared to 29.0
months in Lake County. Hackl therefore argued that his case "can
be tried as quickly in Cook County as Lake County."
6 1-07-1971
In regard to the access of relevant sources of proof, Hackl
contended that Advocate had sent the decedent's medical records
to Cook County and the parties had already exchanged pertinent
records via messenger or mail. Hackl further contended that Cook
County was convenient to the parties' attorneys because all of
the defense attorneys maintained offices in Cook County and
Hackl's attorneys had tried many cases in Cook County.
Last, Hackl relied on our supreme court's decision in First
American Bank v. Guerine, 198 Ill. 2d 511 (2002). Specifically,
Hackl observed that the Guerine court had concluded that a "trial
court abuses its discretion in granting an intrastate forum non
conveniens motion to transfer venue where *** the potential trial
witnesses are scattered among several counties, including the
plaintiff's chosen forum, and no single county enjoys a
predominant connection to the litigation." Guerine, 198 Ill. 2d
at 526. According to Hackl, the relevant factors did not favor
Advocate's motion seeking transfer.
Following a June 2007 hearing, the circuit court denied Advocate's forum non conveniens motion. At that hearing, the
court issued the following findings:
"The court has considered all of the
public and private interest factors as it is
required to do so [by our supreme court.] The
court finds significant connections to Cook
County, being that individuals defendants
7 1-07-1971
reside here in Cook County. The court does
find that relevant to the analysis. The
court also finds a lack of predominance in
any one county. The court notes that the
record indicates that Lake County is
involved, DuPage County, even one witness is
an out-of-state resident. So even under the
Guerine decision, there is a lack of
predominance in any one county. And given
all of that on balance, it is more proper
that the case pend here in Cook [County.]"
In July 2007, Advocate filed in this court a petition for
leave to appeal pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 306(a)(2).
In October 2007, this court granted Advocate's petition for
leave to appeal.
ANALYSIS
On appeal, Advocate contends that the circuit court abused
its discretion when it denied Advocate's forum non conveniens motion because the court failed to properly balance the relevant
private and public interest factors and misapplied the
"predominant connections" test. Specifically, Advocate asserts
that a proper balancing of the private and public interests
factors demonstrates that Lake County is the only forum to which
the case sub judice has any substantial and predominant
connection.
8 1-07-1971
A. Standard of Review
A trial court is entitled to considerable discretion when
ruling on a forum non conveniens motion, and we therefore review
its decision to grant or deny such a motion for an abuse of
discretion. Guerine, 198 Ill. 2d at 515. In regard to the trial
court's discretion concerning a forum non conveniens motion, our
supreme court has repeatedly noted that "the forum non conveniens
doctrine gives courts discretionary power that should be
exercised only in exceptional circumstances when the interests of
justice require a trial in a more convenient forum." (Emphasis
in original.) Langenhorst v. Norfolk Southern Ry. Co., 219 Ill.
2d 430, 442 (2006). Ultimately, when ruling on a forum non
conveniens motion, the trial court abuses its discretion where no
reasonable person would take the view adopted by the trial court.
Dawdy v. Union Pacific R.R. Co., 207 Ill. 2d 167, 177 (2003).
B. The Doctrine of Forum Non Conveniens
In Illinois, an action must be commenced in either (1) the
county of residence of any defendant who is joined in good faith or (2) the county in which the cause of action arouse. 735 ILCS
5/2-101 (West 2006). Where, such as here, there is more than one
potential forum, the equitable doctrine of forum non conveniens
may be invoked to determine the most appropriate forum. Dawdy,
207 Ill. 2d at 171. That doctrine, which is grounded in
considerations of fundamental fairness and sensible and effective
judicial administration, permits the court in which the action
9 1-07-1971
was filed to decline jurisdiction and direct the lawsuit to an
alternative forum that the court determines can better serve the
convenience of the parties and the ends of justice. Dawdy, 207
Ill. 2d at 171-72. Forum non conveniens is applicable when the
choice is between interstate forums as well as when the choice is
between intrastate forums, such as the case sub judice. Dawdy,
207 Ill. 2d at 176.
Our supreme court has identified two categories of factors
relevant to a determination of a forum non conveniens motion,
namely, private interest factors and public interest factors.
Guerine, 198 Ill. 2d at 516. The private interest factors
include (1) the convenience of the parties; (2) the relative ease
of access to sources of testimonial, documentary, and real
evidence; and (3) all other practical problems that make trial of
a case easy, expeditious, and inexpensive, including the
availability of compulsory process to secure attendance of
unwilling witnesses, the cost to obtain attendance of unwilling
witnesses, and the ability to view the premises if appropriate. Guerine, 198 Ill. 2d at 516. The public interest factors include
(1) the interest in deciding localized controversies locally; (2)
the unfairness of imposing the expense of a trial and the burden
of jury duty on residents of a county with little connection to
the litigation; and (3) the administrative difficulties presented
by adding further litigation to court dockets in already
congested forums. Guerine, 198 Ill. 2d at 517.
10 1-07-1971
In addition to the relevant private and public interest
factors, another factor to be considered is the plaintiff's
choice of forum in pursuing his action. Guerine, 198 Ill. 2d at
517. In particular, the plaintiff has a substantial interest in
choosing in which forum his rights will be vindicated. Guerine,
198 Ill. 2d at 517. However, our supreme court has recognized
that where the plaintiff selects a forum that is neither his
resident forum nor the site of the accident or injury, the
plaintiff's choice of forum is entitled to "somewhat less
deference." Guerine, 198 Ill. 2d at 517.
The burden is on the defendant to prove that the balance of
the appropriate factors "strongly favors" transfer, and a trial
court must evaluate the total circumstances of the case.
Guerine, 198 Ill. 2d at 518. It is settled that "no single forum
non conveniens factor should be accorded central emphasis or
conclusive effect." Dawdy, 207 Ill. 2d at 180. Accordingly,
each forum non conveniens case must be considered as unique on
its facts. Langenhorst, 219 Ill. 2d at 443. C. Circuit Court's Denial of Advocate's Forum Non Conveniens
Motion Seeking Transfer to Lake County
Here, the circuit court denied Advocate's motion seeking
transfer of Hackl's lawsuit from Cook County to Lake County. In
pertinent part, the court stated that it had (1) considered the
requisite public and private interest factors; (2) found
"significant connections" to Cook County because individual
11 1-07-1971
defendants resided in Cook County; and (3) found a lack of
predominance in any one county because the record indicated that
Lake County, Cook County, and DuPage County were all involved and
one defendant was an out-of-state resident.
After carefully considering the factors relevant to a forum
non conveniens analysis, we conclude that a reasonable person
could take the view adopted by the court. Therefore, we find
that the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it denied
Advocate's forum non conveniens motion.
1. Hackl's Choice of Forum as Plaintiff
Initially, we note that Advocate posits that Hackl has
engaged in impermissible forum shopping by selecting Cook County
as the form for his lawsuit. In response, Hackl counters that
Advocate is being disingenuous when it claims that Cook County is
an inconvenient forum. While impermissible forum shopping by
plaintiffs must be discouraged, we are aware of the potential
strategies of both plaintiffs and defendants in seeking to
litigate in a particular forum, which includes those parties' respective attempts to either advance or oppose a forum non
conveniens motion. In fact, as our supreme court has noted in
its discussion of the doctrine of forum non conveniens:
"'The truth of the matter is that both
plaintiffs' counsel and defendants' counsel
are jockeying for position by seeking a
judge, jury and forum that will enable them
12 1-07-1971
to achieve the best possible result for their
clients. There is no doubt that in the
personal injury context, the plaintiff is
seeking a forum where he can recover the most
money and the defendant is seeking a forum
where it will have to pay the least. All
other considerations are secondary to both
sides.'" Guerine, 198 Ill. 2d at 521, quoting
G. Maag, Forum Non Conveniens in Illinois: A
Historical Review, Critical Analysis, and
Proposal for Change, 25 S. Ill. U. L. J. 461,
510 (2001).
Nonetheless, consistent with the concerns of impermissible forum
shopping by plaintiffs, it is indisputable that Hackl's selection
of Cook County is entitled to less deference because it is a
foreign forum. However, while Hackl's forum selection is
entitled to less deference, we cannot wholly discount Hackl's
forum selection or otherwise afford it no weight in our analysis. In our view, to do so would run afoul of our forum non conveniens
jurisprudence, which requires us to consider all of the relevant
factors. See, e.g., Dawdy, 207 Ill. 2d at 176 (focusing on a
single factor in a forum non conveniens analysis would eliminate
the valuable flexibility afforded by the doctrine).
2. Private Interest Factors
Next, turning to the private interest factors, we conclude
13 1-07-1971
that these factors do not strongly favor transfer of Hackl's
action from Cook County to Lake County.
In regard to the convenience of the parties, four of the six
named defendants are residents of Cook County. Specifically, the
record establishes that Bleibel, Dr. Small, and HBIM are
residents of Cook County. Advocate is a resident of Cook,
DuPage, and Lake Counties and operates a number of hospitals in
the Chicago metropolitan area, including Good Shepherd in
Barrington in Lake County. The two remaining defendants, namely
Kwiecien and Dr. Newsom, are residents of Arizona and DuPage
County, respectively. Thus, of the named parties in this
litigation, four are residents of Cook County, two are residents
of Lake County (including Hackl and Advocate's Good Shepherd
Hospital), one is a resident of DuPage County, and one is a
resident of the State of Arizona. Under these circumstances, it
is logical to conclude that Cook County would be the most
convenient forum for the majority of the parties.
We acknowledge, as Advocate directs to our attention, that three of the defendants who are not residents of Lake County,
namely, namely, Dr. Newsom, Dr. Small, and Bleibel, filed
affidavits wherein they each attested that although they were not
residents of Lake County it would be a more convenient forum as
compared to Cook County, primarily based on transportation, cost,
and time concerns.
However, after reviewing these individuals' affidavits in
14 1-07-1971
conjunction with their testimony during their depositions for
Advocate's forum non conveniens motion, we note that there are
ambiguities in those individuals' respective deposition testimony
when compared with the information contained in their affidavits.
In particular, Dr. Newsom attested in his affidavit that a trial
in Lake County would be more convenient for him because of
transportation concerns, but in his deposition he admitted that
he never actually had driven from his residence to the Lake
County courthouse in Waukegan and thus had no personal knowledge
of how long that trip would take, nor had Dr. Newsom ever driven
from his residence to the Cook County courthouse in Chicago. Dr.
Newsom also acknowledged that he could take a train from his
hometown of Bartlett to downtown Chicago.
Similarly, Dr. Small attested that trial would be more
convenient for him in Lake County, but in his deposition he
admitted that he did not know that the Lake County courthouse was
located in Waukegan. Dr. Small further admitted that he did not
have any personal knowledge about the traffic conditions during the morning rush hour in Lake County. Dr. Small was aware that
there was a train station from his hometown of South Barrington
to downtown Chicago, but he had never taken that train to
Chicago.
Bleibel testified during her deposition that she was
primarily concerned with distance to Chicago and the cost
associated with parking. However, Bleibel further testified that
15 1-07-1971
it took her approximately one hour to drive from her home in
Barrington to the Lake County courthouse in Waukegan and it took
her approximately 1 hour and 10 minutes to take the train from
Barrington to Chicago. In regard to the issue of parking costs,
Bleibel acknowledged that if she took the train from Barrington
to Chicago, she would not have to pay for parking charges.
Ultimately, in light of this testimony from Dr. Newsom, Dr.
Small, and Bleibel, we are unable to accept Advocate's claim on
appeal that those individuals' respective affidavits are
dispositive of the issue of whether Lake County is a more
convenient forum for the parties as compared to Cook County.
In regard to the remaining private interest factors
concerning access to sources of testimonial, documentary, and
real evidence, ability to view the site of the injury, and
practical problems associated with a trial, we conclude that
these factors are more or less balanced between Lake and Cook
Counties and thus do not strongly favor transfer to Lake County.
First, although a number of potential witnesses are residents of Lake County, including various medical staff
associated with Good Shepherd Hospital and family members of the
decedent, a number of defendants are residents of Cook County.
Furthermore, those residents of Lake County would be subject to
subpoena and would have to appear in Cook County court.
Second, although the original sources of decedent's relevant
medical records are located at Good Shepherd Hospital in Lake
16 1-07-1971
County, we note that copies of those records would be available
in Cook County, as Advocate recognizes in its reply brief.2
Moreover, we fail to see how transportation or transfer of those
records to Cook County would pose a significant burden on any of
the parties, especially when Advocate maintains corporate offices
and hospitals in Cook County.
Third, in regard to the possibility of viewing Good Shepherd
Hospital, which is the site of the alleged injury to decedent,
that factor favors Lake County. We note, as a practical matter,
a viewing of the site is rarely or never called for in a medical
negligence case. Moreover, that factor, standing alone, is
simply insufficient to justify transfer to Lake County. Dawdy,
207 Ill. 2d at 180 (no single factor should control a forum non
conveniens analysis).
3. Public Interest Factors
Last, we analyze the public interest factors relevant to
Advocate's forum non conveniens motion, which include the
interest in deciding localized controversies locally, the unfairness of imposing the expense of a trial and burden of jury
duty on residents of a county with little connection to the
litigation, and the administrative difficulties presented by
adding further litigation to court dockets in already congested
forums.
2 In its reply brief, Advocate concedes that "copies of [decedent's] records would be accessible in Cook County." (Emphasis in original).
17 1-07-1971
Here, both Cook and Lake Counties have an interest in the
underlying controversy. Lake County and its residents have an
interest in Hackl's case because plaintiff and decedent are
residents of Lake County and the allegedly negligent medical care
was rendered at Good Shepherd Hospital in Lake County. In
comparison, Cook County and its residents also have an interest
in Hackl's case because defendant Advocate is a healthcare
provider in Cook County and the greater Chicago area, including
Lake and DuPage Counties. See Prouty v. Advocate Health &
Hospitals Corp., 348 Ill. App. 3d 490, 497 (2004) (concluding
that "any county to which [a healthcare provider] provides
service has an interest in the outcome of the case"). Moreover,
defendants Dr. Small and Bleibel are residents of Cook County.
See Langenhorst, 219 Ill. 2d at 451 (a particular county has an
interest in deciding a controversy involving one of its
residents).
Consequently, in our view, it is implausible, if not
disingenuous, to suggest that the residents of Cook County do not have a real and genuine interest in the underlying medical
malpractice litigation of this case, which involves defendants
who are residents of Cook County and healthcare providers in Cook
County. Further, because of this undeniable interest, it is not
unfair to impose the expense of trial and burden of jury duty on
Cook County residents in association with this case.
In regard to the administrative aspects of litigation in
18 1-07-1971
Cook County as compared to Lake County, the parties agree that in
2005, seven times more cases were filed in Cook County versus
Lake County. In addition, the 2005 statistics from the
Administrative Office of the Illinois Courts show that Cook
County had 612 jury verdicts for cases seeking over $50,000 in
relief, averaging 37.1 months from filing to verdict. In
comparison, Lake County had 35 such cases, averaging 29 months
from filing to verdict. While we recognize that Cook County does
have more cases filed than Lake County and also takes more time
for those cases to reach verdict, the busier docket of Cook
County does not necessarily require that this case be transferred
to Lake County when considered with the other factors we have
dicussed. See, e.g., Guerine, 198 Ill. 2d at 525 (concluding
that although Cook County had a busier docket than potential
transferee county "court congestion alone is not dispositive").
In summary, after carefully reviewing the circuit court's
decision with the appropriate level of deference and cognizant
that a transfer pursuant to the doctrine of forum non conveniens is warranted only in "exceptional circumstances" (emphasis in
original) (Langenhorst, 219 Ill. 2d at 442), we conclude that a
reasonable person could adopt the view of the circuit court.
Accordingly, we find that the circuit court did not abuse its
discretion when it denied Advocate's forum non conveniens motion.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the judgment of the
19 1-07-1971
circuit court.
Affirmed.
McBride, P.J., and McNulty, J., concur.
20 REPORTER OF DECISIONS - ILLINOIS APPELLATE COURT
TITLE LEONARD JAMES HACKL, as Independent Executor of the of Case Estate of Cynthia Snow Hackl, deceased,
Plaintiff-Appellee
v.
ADVOCATE HEALTH AND HOSPITALS CORPORATION, an Illinois Corporation, d/b/a Advocate Good Shepherd Hospital,
Defendant-Appellant.
Docket No. 1-07-1971
COURT Appellate Court of Illinois First District, Sixth Division
Opinion APRIL 18, 2008 Filed
JUSTICES JUSTICE O'MALLEY delivered the opinion of the court: McBRIDE, P.J., and McNULTY, J., concur.
Appeal's Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook County. Origination The Hon. Diane J. Larsen, Judge Presiding.
Counsel for For Appellant, Joan M. Kubalanza, Jenny O. Blake, and Mehreen APPELLANT S. Sherwani, Lowis & Gellen, LLP, Chicago, Illinois.
Counsel for For Appellee, Joseph E. Kolar, Baizer Kolar & Lewis, P.C., APPELLEE Highland Park, Illinois.