Gibbons v. OSF Healthcare System, 2022 IL App (2d) 210038, opinion filed January 18, 2022. Plaintiff, Kathleen Gibbons, sued OSF Healthcare System, a nurse, and Dr. Fields with false imprisonment, assault, and medical battery. ¶1. Plaintiff later settled with the hospital and nurse, leaving only her false imprisonment claim against Dr. Fields. ¶1. Plaintiff and Dr. Fields filed cross-motions for summary judgment on that claim, with the trial court ultimately denying plaintiff’s motion and entering judgment on Dr. Field’s behalf. ¶1. Plaintiff appealed and the appellate court affirmed. ¶1.

Background

Plaintiff’s complaint alleged that she was found unresponsive at a church, and emergency personnel brought her to Saint Anthony Medical Center (Saint Anthony’s) in Rockford on January 28, 2015. ¶4. A few hours later she regained her cognitive abilities. ¶4. According to plaintiff, from January 28, 2015, through February 5, 2021, Dr. Fields was overseeing her care and medications, and ordered her to take medically invasive tests and denied her the right to refuse medication and leave the hospital. ¶4. Plaintiff further alleged that Dr. Fields, during that time period, (1) failed to properly prepare, serve, initiate, or file any involuntary commitment documents under the Mental Health and Developmental Disabilities Code (Mental Health Code) (405 ILCS 5/1-100 et seq.), and (2) ordered, against her will, that hospital personnel detain and restrict her liberty, ensuring that she did not leave her room or the hospital. ¶4. Plaintiff alleged that she was entitled to damages against Dr. Fields for her loss of liberty and false imprisonment. ¶4.

The discovery evidence established that Dr. Fields was a consulting psychiatrist at the hospital, but he was not compensated by it. ¶7. At the request of plaintiff’s admitting physician, on January 29, 2015, Dr. Fields examined plaintiff and reviewed her psychiatric history. ¶7. Dr. Fields concluded that plaintiff was subject to involuntary admission because she was a danger to herself and needed placement in a facility that offered inpatient mental health care and treatment. ¶8. As a result, Dr. Fields prepared a certificate under the Mental Health Code finding that plaintiff was reasonably expected to place herself or another in physical harm or in reasonable expectation of being physically harmed, and that she was in need of immediate hospitalization. ¶8. Plaintiff remained hospitalized at St. Anthony’s from January 28, 2015, to February 5, 2015, while the hospital attempted to locate a bed for her at a nearby mental-health facility. ¶9. During plaintiff’s stay at St. Anthony, Dr. Fields visited plaintiff nearly daily. ¶9. On each occasion, after his examination, he prepared a first certificate, opining that hospitalization was appropriate to prevent plaintiff from harming herself, through her transfer on February 5, 2015, to satisfy the statutory requirement that a first certificate be prepared within 72 hours prior to admission to an inpatient mental health facility. ¶9. While he agreed in his deposition that plaintiff was not free to leave the hospital, Dr. Fields testified that he did not order any hospital personnel to ensure that she did not leave. ¶9. He argued that the responsibility for the oversight of the patient went to the hospital or its staff, as providing the patient with documentation. ¶9. He testified that he had no responsibility to prepare a petition for involuntary admission or that patient received judicial intervention. ¶9.

Analysis

The appellate court held that summary judgment in Dr. Field’s favor was proper. ¶31.

To avoid summary judgment on plaintiff’s false-imprisonment claim, she had to produce evidence that Dr. Fields detained her and that his detention of her was unlawful. Citing Doe v. Channon, 335 Ill. App. 3d 709, 713 (1st Dist. 2002) (“Imprisonment under legal authority is not false imprisonment.”) ¶34. The appellate court found that plaintiff failed on both counts. ¶34.

First, the appellate court found that although Dr. Fields prepared the first certificates in compliance with the Mental Health Code, the plaintiff did not offer evidence to rebut that the hospital staff detained her. ¶35. “While the hospital may have based its actions on Dr. Field’s assessment that plaintiff was at risk of harming herself and required treatment at an inpatient mental-health facility, plaintiff presents no evidence that Dr. fields personally took any action to detain her or ordered that anyone at the hospital do so.” ¶35. The appellate court distinguished this case from Marcus v. Liebman, 59 Ill. App. 3d 337, 340-41 (1978), where the court found that threats by a psychiatrist to have a voluntarily hospitalized mental health patient involuntarily committed to a state hospital were sufficient to establish restraint for purpose of a false-imprisonment cause of action, such that the court’s directed verdict in the psychiatrist’s favor during a jury trial was improper. ¶35. Unlike Marcus, plaintiff was not voluntarily hospitalized and then subjected to threats of commitment by her treating physician. ¶35. The appellate court found that other than preparing first certificates, plaintiff pointed to no actions Dr. Fields allegedly took to restrain her. ¶35. The appellate court held that plaintiff’s false-imprisonment claim failed on this element alone. ¶35.

Second, although the appellate court determined that plaintiff’s claim failed due to lacking evidence that Dr. Fields detained her, it disagreed with plaintiff’s argument that Dr. Field’s actions violated the Mental Health Code, and thus his alleged detention of her was unlawful. ¶36. The appellate court found that even if various provisions of the Mental Health Code were violated with respect to plaintiff’s involuntary stay at St. Anthony, the plaintiff did not present evidence rebutting Dr. Fields’ testimony that it was not his responsibility to serve plaintiff with documentation under the Mental Health Code, prepare or file petitions with the court, or prepare the second certificate (second certificate must be completed by someone other than the psychiatrist who prepared the first certificate. See 405 ILCS 5/3-610 (West 2014)). ¶36. “To the contrary, the evidence showed only that Dr. Fields was a consulting psychiatrist, not compensated by the hospital.” ¶36. The appellate court concluded that plaintiff had not demonstrated that, to the extent that procedures under the Mental Health Code were not followed, Dr. Fields was responsible for those failures. ¶36 The appellate court further disagreed with the plaintiff’s argument that Dr. Fields violated the Mental Health Code by completing multiple first certificates or that, if he did, the good-faith exemption in section 6-103 of the Mental Health Code did not apply. ¶37. While the appellate court understood that the Mental Health Code provides specific timing requirement for certain actions with respect to involuntary detention, the appellate court found that the plaintiff did not point to any provision outright precluding the preparation of multiple first certificates, such that doing so, alone, reflected a violation of the statute. ¶37.

The appellate court disagreed that, viewed in plaintiff’s favor, the evidence reflected bad faith or negligence in Dr. Field’s preparation of the first certificates. ¶38. The appellate court found that, to the contrary, the evidence demonstrated only that Dr. Fields prepared the certificates to comply the with the Mental Health Code and to facilitate, in accordance with the statute’s requirements, plaintiff’s transfer to a mental-health facility. ¶38. The appellate court found that Dr. Fields completed the certificates after reviewing plaintiff’s medical records—including her suicide attempt—examining her, and developing an opinion that she was at risk of harming herself. ¶38. “He did so believing, in his professional psychiatric opinion, that had he not done so, plaintiff would have died from a successful suicide.” ¶38. The appellate court noted that to the extent that other parties, acting in reliance upon Dr. Field’s certificates, held plaintiff while failing to prepare and file with the court a petition and second certificate, serve her with documents, or release her in compliance with the Mental Health Code, plaintiff either had not pursued legal actions against them or had reached a settlement with them. ¶38.

In sum, the appellate court held that plaintiff had not established that Dr. Fields restrained her, that he failed to comply with the Mental Health Code, or that, if he did, his actions were not taken in good faith. ¶39. The appellate court finally held that as his actions in treating plaintiff were not unlawful, the trial court properly granted summary judgment in Dr. Field’s favor on plaintiff’s false-imprisonment claim. ¶39. The judgment of the circuit court was affirmed. ¶41, 42.

Andreas Liewald is a staff attorney with the Illinois Guardianship and Advocacy Commission, West Suburban (Hines) Office.