St. Mary of Nazareth Hospital v. City of Chicago

331 N.E.2d 142, 29 Ill. App. 3d 511, 1975 Ill. App. LEXIS 2473
CourtAppellate Court of Illinois
DecidedApril 9, 1975
Docket59525
StatusPublished
Cited by17 cases

This text of 331 N.E.2d 142 (St. Mary of Nazareth Hospital v. City of Chicago) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Court of Illinois primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
St. Mary of Nazareth Hospital v. City of Chicago, 331 N.E.2d 142, 29 Ill. App. 3d 511, 1975 Ill. App. LEXIS 2473 (Ill. Ct. App. 1975).

Opinion

Mr. JUSTICE ADESKO

delivered the opinion of the court:

This appeal arises from a suit initiated by the plaintiff-appellee, St. Mary of Nazareth Hospital against the City of Chicago, the County of Cook, and David L. Daniel, as Director of the Cook County Department of Public Aid, to recover a hospital bill incurred on the treatment of one Frank Koniewicz, now deceased. The plaintiff moved for summary judgment against all three defendants and the trial court granted the motion. Summary judgment was entered in the plaintiff’s favor against defendant Daniel in his capacity as Director of the Cook County Department of Public Aid and not individually in the amount of $16,285.42. Summary judgment was also entered in the plaintiffs favor against the County of Cook for $16,285.42 to the extent that the judgment was not satisfied against Daniel and against the City of Chicago for $10,480.25 to the extent that the plaintiff failed to obtain satisfaction from Daniel or the County of Cook. Each of the defendants filed a counterclaim against each of the other defendants to recover from them the amount of any judgment entered against them in plaintiff’s favor. The trial court entered judgment on the counterclaim of the County' of Cook against Daniel for $16,285.42. The City of Chicago was awarded a judgment on its counterclaim against Daniel in the amount of $10,480.25 and on its counterclaim against the County of Cook for $10,480.25. From this judgment order the defendants appeal.

An examination of the record discloses the following pertinent facts. On the evening of August 7, 1970, at approximately 11 P.M., Chicago police officers Cliff Pienta and Richard Madeja received a radio communication that a man had been shot at 1219 N. Bosworth Avenue in Chicago. The officers proceeded to the scene and found a man later determined to be Frank Koniewicz, lying on the ground with two bullet wounds in his chest. Koniewicz was taken to the emergency room of the plaintiff hospital where he was treated for his injuries. He remained in St. Mary of Nazareth Hospital until November 19, 1970, when he was transferred to Cermak Memorial Hospital where he subsequently died.

At the time Koniewicz was transported to the plaintiff hospital it was not known that he had been involved in any type of criminal activity. However, after Officers Pienta and Madeja received the first radio communication another radio call was received advising them that an Edward Jendry had telephoned the Chicago police and informed them that he had just shot a man who had attempted to rob him. Officers Pienta and Madeja proceeded to Jendry’s home, and Mr. Jendry stated that Frank Koniewicz had confronted him in an alley with a knife and demanded his money. Jendry stated that he pulled a gun and shot Koniewicz. Jendry was then taken to the 13th District police station.

The record contains an affidavit of Detective C. Hamilton of the Chicago police department. The affidavit discloses that on August 8, 1970, at approximately 12:45 A.M., Detective Hamilton was assigned to investigate the shooting that had occurred at 1219 N. Bosworth. Detective Hamilton stated that at approximately 1:30 A.M. at the 13th District police station he spoke with officers Pienta and Madeja who related to him what had occurred and that he spoke with Edward Jendry who informed him of the circumstances of the shooting. The affidavit further reveals that after taking the statements of Officers Pienta and Madeja and Edward Jendry, Detective Hamilton, at approximately 2 A.M., telephoned the State’s attorney’s office and provided the assistant State’s attorney on duty, Sam Grossman, with the facts of the shooting. According to Detective Hamilton’s affidavit, the assistant State’s attorney, Sam Grossman, advised Detective Hamilton that a complaint charging attempted armed robbery should be prepared and filed against Frank Koniewicz and that a complaint charging unlawful use of weapons and failure to register a weapon should be prepared and filed against Edward Jendry. Detective Hamilton stated that these complaints were prepared and that at approximately 2:30 A.M. on August 8, 1970, Edward Jendry signed the complaint against Frank Koniewicz and that officer Pienta signed the complaint against Jendry.

The record also contains an affidavit of officer Pienta in which he stated that on August 8, 1970, at approximately 10 A.M., he appeared before Judge Olson of the Circuit Court of Cook County in regards to the complaint against Frank Koniewicz. Officer Pienta stated that “Judge Olson continued the matter because Frank Koniewicz was unable to appear in court and his condition was not known at the time.” On October 7, 1970, a mittimus was issued by Judge John F. Hechinger, which committed Frank Koniewicz to the custody of the sheriff of Cook County. However, as previously stated it was not until November 19, 1970, that Koniewicz was transferred to Cermak Memorial Hospital.

The total medical expenses incurred in the treatment and care of Koniewicz at tire plaintiff hospital were $16,285.42. An application for medical assistance was made in Kqniewicz’s behalf to the Department of Public Aid. The application was denied on March 9, 1971. Thereafter, the plaintiff filed suit against the defendants to recover tire medical expenses incurred in the treatment and care of Koniewicz.

The City of Chicago has appealed from that part of tire judgment order which is enforceable against tire City to the extent that the plaintiff did not receive satisfaction from the other defendants. The City of Chicago maintains that the trial court erred in granting plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment against the City because there was a genuine issue as to a material fact. In the alternative the City maintains that summary judgment for plaintiff was improper as a matter of law. In regards to its counterclaims the City maintains that the trial court was correct in entering judgment in favor of the City of Chicago against the County of Cook and defendant Daniel.

The County of Cook also maintains that tire trial court erred in granting plaintiffs motion for summary judgment against it because there was a genuine issue as to a material fact. The County also contends that due to tire existence of a genuine issue as to a material fact the trial court erred in entering judgment on the City’s counterclaim against the County.

The defendant Daniel maintains that the doctrine of sovereign immunity precludes the plaintiffs suit against him. Daniel also maintains that he is barred from granting aid to persons who have other resources available to them and that Frank Koniewicz was such a person. In addition, Daniel contends that the plaintiff failed to exhaust its administrative remedies and therefore, plaintiff is barred from pursuing a remedy in the Circuit Court. In the alternative Daniel maintains that if he is liable for any amount it cannot be for the entire $16,285.42.

The City of Chicago and the County of Cook both contend that there exists a genuine issue as to a material fact. The material fact alleged to be in dispute is who had custody of Frank Koniewicz from August 7, 1970, to October 7, 1970, when the mittimus was issued committing Koniewicz to the custody of the sheriff of Cook County. It should be noted that the County does not deny liability for the medical services rendered to Koniewicz by the plaintiff hospital from October 7, 1970, to November 19, 1970.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Doe v. Kane Cnty.
308 F. Supp. 3d 960 (E.D. Illinois, 2018)
Doe I v. Kane County
N.D. Illinois, 2018
Chicago Osteopathic Medical Centers v. City of Chicago
271 Ill. App. 3d 165 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1995)
O S F Healthcare Systems v. County of Lee
607 N.E.2d 699 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1993)
Woodbury County v. City of Sioux City
475 N.W.2d 203 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1991)
Harford County v. University of Maryland Medical System Corp.
569 A.2d 649 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1990)
Montana Deaconess Medical Center v. Johnson
758 P.2d 756 (Montana Supreme Court, 1988)
Montana Deaconess Medical Center V.
Montana Supreme Court, 1988
Rockford Memorial Hospital v. Schueler
521 N.E.2d 251 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1988)
L.P. Medical Specialists, Ltd. v. St. Louis County
379 N.W.2d 104 (Court of Appeals of Minnesota, 1985)
Wesley Medical Center v. City of Wichita
703 P.2d 818 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1985)
Harrison Memorial Hospital v. Kitsap County
700 P.2d 732 (Washington Supreme Court, 1985)
Sisters of the Third Order of St. Francis v. County of Tazewell
461 N.E.2d 1064 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1984)
Rogue Valley Memorial Hospital v. Jackson County
629 P.2d 377 (Court of Appeals of Oregon, 1981)
Lakeview Medical Center v. Richardson
395 N.E.2d 405 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1979)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
331 N.E.2d 142, 29 Ill. App. 3d 511, 1975 Ill. App. LEXIS 2473, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/st-mary-of-nazareth-hospital-v-city-of-chicago-illappct-1975.