Lentz v. Kuhlman

2025 IL App (1st) 241350-U

• Court: Appellate Court of Illinois
• Decided: March 5, 2025
• Docket: 1-24-1350
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

2025 IL App (1st) 241350-U No. 1-24-1350 Order filed March 5, 2025 Third Division

NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and is not precedent except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1).

IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIRST DISTRICT

CATHERINE LENTZ, Independent Executor of the ) Appeal from the Circuit Estate of ROBERT J. LENTZ, deceased, ) Court of Cook County. ) Plaintiff-Appellee, ) ) vs. ) No. 2023 L 11408 ) GEOFFREY KUHLMAN, M.D., and ADVENTIST ) HEALTH PARTNERS, INC. d/b/a UCHICAGO ) MEDICINE ADVENTHEALTH MEDICAL GROUP ) PRIMARY CARE AT 329 BOLINGBROOK, ) Honorable ) Maire Dempsey, Defendants-Appellants. ) Judge, presiding.

JUSTICE MARTIN delivered the judgment of the court. Justices Reyes and D.B. Walker concurred in the judgment.

ORDER

¶1 Held: We affirm the order of the circuit court and remand for further proceedings. The circuit court did not abuse its discretion when it denied defendants’ motion to transfer brought pursuant to the doctrine of forum non conveniens.

¶2 This appeal arises from a circuit court order denying defendants’ motion to transfer on the

grounds of forum non conveniens, pursuant to Illinois Supreme Court Rule 187 (eff. Jan. 1, 2018). No. 1-24-1350

The sole issue in this interlocutory appeal is whether the circuit court abused its discretion when it

denied defendants’ motion. For the following reasons, we affirm. 1

¶3 I. BACKGROUND

¶4 On June 17, 2022, decedent Robert J. Lentz was experiencing pain in his neck, abdomen,

and arms. The same day, Lentz presented to defendant Doctor Geoffrey Kuhlman’s office for a

physical examination based on his complaints. The following day, Lentz died due to a myocardial

infarction which resulted from extensive coronary artery disease.

¶5 On November 8, 2023, plaintiff Catherine Lentz, independent executor of Robert J. Lentz’s

estate, filed suit in Cook County, Illinois, alleging medical malpractice and wrongful death against

defendants, Doctor Kuhlman and Adventist Health Partners—doing business as UChicago

Medicine Adventhealth Medical Group Primary Care at 329 Bolingbrook (UChicago

Bolingbrook). Specifically, plaintiff alleged that Doctor Kuhlman failed to properly screen and

assess Lentz’s symptoms and that he further failed to refer Lentz to a cardiologist. Plaintiff

contended that Lentz’s family history of myocardial infarction, his ongoing treatment from a

rheumatologist, and his diagnostic assessment from the rheumatologist which indicated Lentz had

high inflammatory markers, was sufficient to inform Doctor Kuhlman, as an agent of UChicago

Bolingbrook, that further steps were necessary to treat Lentz.

¶6 Defendants filed a forum non conveniens motion to transfer venue on March 12, 2024,

claiming that Cook County has no significant nexus to the facts of this case and that plaintiff’s

choice of forum is entitled to less deference since she is a foreign plaintiff. Further, defendants

1 In adherence with the requirements of Illinois Supreme Court Rule 352(a) (eff. July 1, 2018), this appeal has been resolved without oral argument upon the entry of a separate written order. -2- No. 1-24-1350

argued that both the private and public interest factors strongly favor transfer, where there is a

strong interest in resolving this case in Will County.

¶7 Plaintiff filed a reply, countering that the balance of factors does not strongly favor transfer

and defendants cannot meet their burden to prove such. Plaintiff alleged that UChicago

Bolingbrook has facilities in Cook County, Doctor Kuhlman lives in DuPage County, and there

are sufficient connections with Cook County since Lentz received treatment at Rush

Rheumatology Center.

¶8 After reviewing the parties’ filings and attached exhibits, the circuit court entered a written

“Opinion and Order” on May 30, 2024, denying defendant’s motion. In its order, the court

analyzed the applicable private and public interest factors. The court held that, in this case,

plaintiff’s choice of forum should be awarded some deference. The court further observed that

neither plaintiff nor Doctor Kuhlman reside in Cook County, and did not find this factor to weigh

strongly in favor of transfer. The court determined that ease of access to testimonial evidence

disfavored transfer where Doctor Kuhlman resides in DuPage County and “[o]ther potential

witnesses are also scattered across various counties.” The court noted the neutrality of the

documentary evidence factor, citing current technology and the ease of data transmission. The

court found the possibility of viewing the premises not to be a significant consideration, as this

case arises out of alleged malpractice rather than conditions relating to the facility’s premises.

Nonetheless, the court found that this aspect of the factor does weigh in favor of transfer, although

it determined that defendants had not “provided a compelling argument that strongly favors

transfer.” The court found neutral the consideration of the availability of compulsory process and

noted no significant difference in the cost of travel for willing witnesses. Though the court

-3- No. 1-24-1350

acknowledged that “traveling to the Loop can be more difficult,” it found that it is not a factor that

strongly favors transfer.

¶9 In analyzing the public interest factors, the court noted that Will County’s interest in

deciding the local controversy was “a little stronger” than Cook County’s interest but ultimately

found this factor to “not weigh strongly in favor of transfer.” The court next found that the

imposition of jury duty factor weighs slightly in favor of plaintiff. Last, the court determined that

“comparing the court congestion of both counties is largely pointless as it would not shift the

weight of the factors in Defendants’ favor.” Ultimately, finding that “the Defendant did not meet

its burden,” the court denied the motion to transfer.

¶ 10 On July 31, 2024, this court granted defendants’ petition for leave to appeal, pursuant to

Illinois Supreme Court Rule 306(a)(2) (eff. Oct. 1, 2020). 2

¶ 11 II. ANALYSIS

¶ 12 Defendants concede that jurisdiction and venue are proper in Cook County but contend

that Cook County is not a convenient forum to litigate plaintiff’s claims. Specifically, defendants

claim that there is no significant connection between Cook County and the underlying cause of

action. Accordingly, they believe that the circuit court abused its discretion when it improperly

balanced the private and public interest factors.

¶ 13 The equitable doctrine of forum non conveniens is “founded in considerations of

fundamental fairness and the sensible and effective administration of justice.” Langenhorst v.

Norfolk Southern Ry. Co., 219 Ill. 2d 430, 441 (2006). A trial court may decline jurisdiction if it

2 Rule 306(a)(2) allows a party to petition for leave to appeal “from an order of the circuit court allowing or denying a motion to dismiss on the grounds of forum non conveniens, or from an order of the circuit court allowing or denying a motion to transfer a case to another county within this State.” Ill. S. Ct. R. 306(a)(2). -4- No. 1-24-1350

determines that holding the trial in another forum “ ‘would better serve the ends of justice.’ ” Id.

(quoting Vinson v. Allstate, 144 Ill. 2d 306, 310 (1991)).

¶ 14 Our supreme court has held that a court must consider both the applicable private and

public interest factors when deciding a motion to transfer based on forum non conveniens.

Langenhorst, 219 Ill. 2d at 443. Additionally, the court should consider plaintiff’s choice of forum,

which is generally a “substantial” factor. Dawdy v. Union Pacific R.R. Co., 207 Ill. 2d 167, 173

(2003). A court must balance all factors together, not placing too much weight on any one factor,

and determine if, under the totality of the circumstances, “ ‘the balance of factors strongly favors’

dismissal of the litigation.” Inman v. Howe Freightways, Inc., 2022 IL App (1st) 210274, ¶ 40.

“ ‘If central emphasis were placed on any one factor, the forum non conveniens doctrine would

lose much of the very flexibility that makes it so valuable.’ ” Dawdy, 207 Ill. 2d at 176 (quoting

Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno, 454 U.S. 235, 249-50 (1981)).

¶ 15 A plaintiff’s initial choice of forum will prevail in most instances, “provided venue is

proper and the inconvenience factors attached to such forum do not greatly outweigh the plaintiff’s

substantial right to try the case in the chosen forum.” Adamian as Next Friends of Adamian v.

Balash, 2024 IL App (1st) 231876, ¶ 10. The movant bears the burden to demonstrate the need for

a transfer. Benedict By and Through Benedict v. Abbott Laboratories, Inc., 2018 IL App (1st)

180377, ¶ 27; Langenhorst, 219 Ill. 2d at 444 (noting it is the defendant’s burden to demonstrate

that the factors “strongly favor” transfer).

¶ 16 Forum non conveniens grants “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.) Id. at 442. A forum non conveniens decision is reviewed for an abuse of

discretion. Benedict, 2018 IL App (1st) 180377, ¶ 29. We will only reverse the circuit court’s

-5- No. 1-24-1350

decision if defendants have demonstrated that the court abused its discretion in balancing the

relevant private and public interest factors. Langenhorst, 219 Ill. 2d at 442. “A circuit court abuses

its discretion in balancing the relevant factors only where no reasonable person would take the

view adopted by the circuit court.” Id. Our job is not to ascertain what weight we would have given

the relevant factors, but to assess “whether the trial court’s balancing of the factors exceeded the

bounds of reasonable disagreement.” Adamian, 2024 IL App (1st) 231876, ¶ 11.

¶ 17 Applying the forum non conveniens factors to the instant case, we conclude that the circuit

court did not abuse its discretion where the record does not support defendants’ claim that the trial

court failed to properly consider or apply the relevant factors.

¶ 18 A. Plaintiff’s Choice of Forum

¶ 19 Prior to weighing the relevant private and public interest factors, “a court must first decide

how much deference to give to a plaintiff's choice of forum.” Benedict, 2018 IL App (1st) 180377,

¶ 32 (quoting Vivas v. Boeing Co., 392 Ill. App. 3d 644, 657 (2009)). “The plaintiff has a

substantial interest in choosing the forum where [their] rights will be vindicated, and the plaintiff’s

forum choice should rarely be disturbed unless the other factors strongly favor transfer.”

Langenhorst, 219 Ill. 2d at 442. Yet, a plaintiff’s choice of forum is not entitled to equal weight or

consideration in all cases. Dawdy, 207 Ill. 2d at 173. For instance, when the plaintiff is foreign,

the assumption that plaintiff’s choice is convenient is much less reasonable. Id. As “the central

purpose of any forum non conveniens inquiry is to ensure that the trial is convenient, a foreign

plaintiff’s choice deserves less deference.” Id. at 173-74 (quoting Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno, 454

U.S. 235, 256 (1981)). However, less deference does not mean no deference. (Emphasis added.)

Decker v. Union Pacific R. Co., 2016 IL App (5th) 150116, ¶ 19.

-6- No. 1-24-1350

¶ 20 In the instant case, defendants argued that plaintiff is “forum shopping,” since the

decedent’s medical treatment took place in Will County but plaintiff filed suit in Cook County. In

its review, the circuit court noted both defendants’ argument and the fact that plaintiff had chosen

a foreign forum. Ultimately, the court held that plaintiff’s choice of forum was “entitled to some

deference.” Defendants argue that this was an abuse of discretion because “the court’s reasoning

disregarded the fact that Plaintiff engaged in a clear attempt at forum shopping.” Further, they

contend that the court should have afforded plaintiff’s choice “far less deference,” rather than

“some deference.” We find this argument to be one of semantics. The court noted that,

traditionally, a plaintiff’s forum choice would be given “substantial” deference. As plaintiff did

not choose her home forum, however, it noted that it was giving plaintiff’s choice “some”

deference. The court correctly found that plaintiff’s choice of venue should be given somewhat

less deference where it is neither the county of her residence nor the county where the alleged

medical malpractice took place. As our supreme court has held, “ ‘the deference to be accorded is

only less, as opposed to none.’ ” (Emphases in original.) Langenhorst, 219 Ill. 2d at 448 (quoting

First American Bank v. Guerine, 198 Ill. 2d 511, 525 (2002)). Furthermore, “while courts

acknowledge that plaintiffs forum shop, courts may not consider this practice in a forum non

conveniens analysis.” Dawdy, 207 Ill. 2d at 175. As we cannot say that no reasonable person would

take the view adopted by the circuit court, we find the court did not abuse its discretion in

concluding that plaintiff’s choice was entitled to some deference.

¶ 21 B. Private Interest Factors

¶ 22 The circuit court must next consider the relevant private interest factors: (1) the parties’

convenience; (2) the relative ease and access of testimonial, documentary, and real evidence

sources; (3) the availability of compulsory process to secure unwilling witnesses’ attendance; (4)

-7- No. 1-24-1350

the cost of obtaining willing witnesses’ attendance; (5) the possibility of viewing the premises, if

appropriate; and (6) any and all other practical considerations that make trial easy, expeditious,

and inexpensive. Larson v. Illinois Central School Bus, LLC, 2023 IL App (3d) 220360, ¶ 20.

¶ 23 1. Parties’ Convenience

¶ 24 Plaintiff resides in Will County and Doctor Kuhlman’s office is also located in Will

County. Yet the court found that Doctor Kuhlman resides in DuPage County, and various other

potential witnesses are “scattered across various counties.” Defendants contend that a trial in Will

County would be substantially more convenient than in Cook County, for both the parties and

witnesses. They argue that the court abused its discretion because it ignored Doctor Kuhlman’s

affidavit attesting it would be more convenient to attend trial in Will County, as it would allow

him to see patients. Further, they assert that the court failed to consider any of the potential

witnesses’ addresses that were provided by plaintiff.

¶ 25 The significance of defendants’ argument, however, is diminished by the fact that Cook

and Will Counties “border one another and are both part of the Chicago metropolitan area and

linked by numerous public and private transportation options.” Cf. Adamian, 2024 IL App (1st)

231876, ¶ 18 (discussing Lake and Cook Counties); but see Evans v. MD Con, Inc., 275 Ill. App.

3d 292, 298 (1995) (venue transferred from Cook County to adjacent Will County where various

private interest factors weighed strongly in favor of transfer). We discern little inconvenience for

defendants to try this case in Cook County, where Cook and Will Counties are adjacent, the

potential witnesses are “scattered” across various counties (and, in some instances, states), and

travel distances for most of the potential witnesses are minimally different. “When adjoining

counties are involved, [t]he battle over the forum results in a battle over the minutiae.” (Internal

quotation marks omitted.) Langenhorst, 219 Ill. 2d at 450 (quoting Guerine, 198 Ill. 2d at 519-20).

-8- No. 1-24-1350

¶ 26 2. Access to Evidence

¶ 27 We find little support for defendants’ motion regarding the second private-interest factor—

the relative ease of access to sources of testimonial, documentary, and real evidence. Considering

testimonial evidence, as noted above, Doctor Kuhlman lives in DuPage County, adjacent to both

Cook and Will Counties. Plaintiff notes that Doctor Kuhlman lives equidistant from both the Cook

County courthouse and the Will County courthouse. In noting that other potential witnesses are

“scattered across various counties,” the court found that transfer of the case “would have little

impact on the availability of witnesses and testimonial evidence factors.” Defendants counter that

the majority of plaintiff’s potential witnesses are “cumulative damage witnesses,” but this

argument is speculative and defendants fail to explain how this fact would shift the balance in

favor of transfer. Defendants concede that the decedent had prior medical treatment in Cook

County but argue that plaintiff fails to explain what relevant testimony prior treating doctors may

provide.

¶ 28 Regarding documentary evidence, the court noted that this factor is neutral, since medical

records are easily distributable and electronic formats have made access to documents more

convenient. Defendants argue that this ignores the possibility of needing an inspection of the

medical records or an audit trail. We agree with the circuit court’s analysis, and note that Illinois

courts have held that “ ‘the location of documents, records and photographs has become a less

significant factor in forum non conveniens analysis in the modern age of e-mail, Internet, telefax,

copying machines and world-wide delivery services, since they can now be easily copied and

sent.’ ” Benedict, 2018 IL App (1st) 180377, ¶ 52 (quoting Vivas, 392 Ill. App. 3d at 659). Thus,

this factor does not favor transfer.

-9- No. 1-24-1350

¶ 29 3. Availability of Compulsory Process

¶ 30 Here, the circuit court correctly noted that this factor does not weigh in favor of transfer

where the availability of compulsory process to secure the attendance of any potential unwilling

witnesses is equally available in either forum.

¶ 31 4. Cost of Attendance

¶ 32 The circuit court found that the cost of obtaining the attendance of willing witnesses did

not strongly favor transfer, where the two counties at issue are adjacent and the witnesses are

scattered, which would result in no significant difference in the cost of travel. We find no abuse in

this determination.

¶ 33 5. Viewing Premises

¶ 34 In this case, the trial court noted that there was no need to view the site of the alleged

malpractice, UChicago Bolingbrook, where the case arises out of alleged medical malpractice and

not conditions relating to the medical facility’s premises. Therefore, although the court explained

that the possibility of viewing the premises favored Will County, it also recognized that this factor

was not “a significant consideration.” Our supreme court has noted that “the necessity or propriety

of viewing the scene is a decision left within the discretion of the trial court.” Dawdy, 207 Ill. 2d

at 179. Further, Illinois courts have held that, “as a practical matter, a viewing of the site is rarely

or never called for in a medical negligence case.” Hackl v. Advocate Health and Hospitals Corp.,

382 Ill. App. 3d 442, 452 (2008). We find this factor insufficient to justify transfer to Will County.

¶ 35 6. Practical Considerations

¶ 36 Last of the private interest factors, we weigh all other practical considerations that make a

trial easy, expeditious, and inexpensive. A court may consider this factor but should accord it “little

weight.” Dawdy, 207 Ill. 2d at 179. In considering practical problems, the circuit court again noted

- 10 - No. 1-24-1350

the neutrality of the availability of compulsory process and cost of obtaining the witnesses’

attendance. The court acknowledged the possibility that traveling to the Loop might be slightly

more difficult, but did not believe this to be a factor which strongly favored transfer. Defendants

argue that traffic congestion, mileage, tolls, parking costs, lodging costs, and meal expenses will

be exceedingly difficult and inconvenient if the trial is held in Cook County. However, as noted

above, the court determined the adjacency of the counties and the scattered residences of the

witnesses would result in no significant difference in the cost of travel between Cook and Will

Counties. Again, we find no abuse in this determination.

¶ 37 C. Public Interest Factors

¶ 38 Next, we consider the relevant public interest factors: “(1) the administrative difficulties

caused when litigation is handled in congested venues instead of being handled at its origin, (2)

the unfairness of imposing jury duty upon residents of a community with no connection to the

litigation, and (3) the interest in having local controversies decided locally.” Larson, 2023 IL App

(3d) 220360, ¶ 40.

¶ 39 1. Administrative Difficulties

¶ 40 The trial court noted that of the public interest factors, this factor “is given the least

consideration and cannot justify transfer if none of the other factors weigh strongly in favor of

transfer.” Accordingly, the court found that comparing the congestion of both counties would not

shift the weight of the factors in defendants’ favor. Defendants argue that Cook County’s docket

is statistically more congested than that of Will County and aver that Will County’s civil clearance

rate is higher. Illinois courts have held that the circuit “ ‘court is in the better position to assess the

burdens on its own docket’ when deciding a forum non conveniens motion.” Inman, 2022 IL App

(1st) 210274, ¶ 57; Langenhorst, 219 Ill. 2d at 451 (trial court is in the best position to consider its

- 11 - No. 1-24-1350

ability to try the case in an expeditious manner). While we recognize that Cook County does have

more cases filed than Will County, the busier docket of Cook County does not necessarily require

that this case be transferred to Will County when considered with the other factors we have

discussed. See, e.g., Guerine, 198 Ill. 2d at 525 (concluding that although Cook County’s docket

was busier than that of the potential transferee county, “court congestion alone is not

dispositive”).Where the circuit court found that court congestion did not weigh in favor of transfer,

we have no basis to find the court came to an incorrect conclusion on this factor.

¶ 41 2. Imposition of Jury Duty

¶ 42 Our supreme court has repeatedly acknowledged that “ ‘[j]ury duty constitutes a burden to

the citizens of a county who must serve on the jury.’ ” Fennel v. Illinois Cent. R. Co., 2012 IL

113812, ¶ 45. Further, it has noted that a county has an interest in providing a forum when there is

a relevant or practical connection with the litigation. Id. Here, the circuit court noted that the

burden and expense factor weighed slightly in favor of the case remaining in Cook County, as

“there is a clear connection through Adventist Health.” Where the court found that this case does

have some connection to Cook County, we cannot say it is therefore unfair to impose the burden

of jury duty on residents of Cook County. See Inman, 2022 IL App (1st) 210274, ¶ 56 (citing

Ammerman v. Raymond Corp., 379 Ill. App. 3d 878, 892 (2008)).

¶ 43 3. Local Controversies

¶ 44 The circuit court noted that “the location of the occurrence resulting in the litigation is the

most significant factor in giving any forum a local interest.” Defendants argued that the location

of the alleged negligence (UChicago Bolingbrook) gives Will County residents a greater interest

in resolving the controversy than Cook County residents. Plaintiffs countered that UChicago

Medicine does a significant amount of business in Cook County and noted that the decedent’s prior

- 12 - No. 1-24-1350

rheumatology treatment at Rush (in Cook County) was also significant to the case. In its

examination, the court acknowledged that the injury occurred in Will County and recognized that

Will County therefore undoubtedly has an interest in deciding a controversy involving an incident

that occurred within its borders. Nonetheless, the court determined that Cook County also had a

legitimate interest in resolving the controversy, since UChicago Bolingbrook both “does business”

in and, more importantly, has physical locations in Cook County. The court acknowledged that

Will County’s interest was a little stronger than Cook County’s interest but found that the “factor

does not weigh strongly in favor of transfer.” This is not unreasonable.

¶ 45 The circuit court found that, overall, plaintiff’s chosen forum of Cook County had a

substantial enough connection to the litigation. It is not up to this Court to reweigh the factors and

determine how we would have ruled on the forum non conveniens motion, but rather to analyze

the circuit court’s balancing of the relevant factors. We conclude that the record does not strongly

indicate that a trial in Will County would better serve the convenience of the parties and the ends

of justice. As we can neither say that no reasonable person would take the view adopted by the

circuit court nor that the court’s balancing of the factors exceeded the bounds of reasonable

disagreement, we find that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion.

¶ 46 III. CONCLUSION

¶ 47 Based on the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the circuit court is affirmed and we remand

the case to the circuit court for further proceedings.

¶ 48 Affirmed and remanded.

- 13 -