Tedrick v. Community Resource Center, Inc.
235 Ill. 2d 155, 920 N.E.2d 220, 336 Ill. Dec. 210 (2009)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In Illinois, a healthcare provider's duty of care runs exclusively to the patient and not to non-patient third parties. A non-patient cannot maintain a medical malpractice action against a provider unless there is a direct physician-patient relationship or a special relationship between the patient and the third party, a narrow exception not met by the marital relationship.
Facts:
- Richard Street was married to Teresa Street.
- Richard suffered from paranoid delusions that his wife, Teresa, was committing adultery and attempting to poison him.
- Richard expressed thoughts of killing his wife and made threats to kill her.
- Between May 13, 2003, and June 6, 2003, Richard sought medical and psychiatric care from the defendants, a group of healthcare providers.
- The defendants were aware of Richard's delusions and his threats to kill his wife.
- On June 9, 2003, Richard Street killed Teresa Street.
Procedural Posture:
- Brenda Tedrick, as administrator of Teresa Street's estate, filed a wrongful death and survival action against Richard Street's healthcare providers in the Circuit Court of Marion County (the trial court).
- The defendants filed motions to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
- The trial court granted the defendants' motions, dismissing the complaint on the grounds that the defendants owed no recognized legal duty to the decedent, Teresa Street.
- The plaintiffs (now appellants) appealed to the Illinois Appellate Court.
- The appellate court reversed the trial court's dismissal, finding that the complaint sufficiently alleged causes of action based on voluntary undertaking and transferred negligence theories, and remanded for further proceedings.
- The defendants (now appellants) petitioned for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Illinois, which was granted.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a healthcare provider's duty of care extend to a non-patient third party, such as a patient's spouse, under either a voluntary undertaking theory or a transferred negligence theory, when the provider's patient harms that third party?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Karmeier
No. A healthcare provider’s duty of care does not extend to a non-patient spouse under theories of voluntary undertaking or transferred negligence. The court held that Illinois law, as established in Kirk v. Michael Reese Hospital and Doe v. McKay, strictly limits a provider's duty to their patient to avoid conflicts of loyalty and protect confidentiality. The voluntary undertaking doctrine (Restatement §324A) does not apply in the medical malpractice context to create a duty to a non-patient. Furthermore, the transferred negligence doctrine from Renslow v. Mennonite Hospital is confined to the 'singular and unique' relationship between a mother and fetus and does not extend to the marital relationship for the purpose of a direct personal injury action. The court explicitly affirmed its rejection of the Tarasoff duty to warn, finding that Illinois public policy prioritizes the provider-patient relationship over a duty to third parties.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies Illinois's position as a jurisdiction that narrowly defines the scope of a healthcare provider's duty, restricting it almost exclusively to the patient. By rejecting both the voluntary undertaking and transferred negligence theories in this context, the court significantly limits the ability of third parties harmed by a patient to seek recovery from that patient's medical providers. The ruling reinforces the principles from Kirk and Doe, prioritizing the integrity of the physician-patient relationship and confidentiality over a broader public safety duty, effectively insulating therapists and doctors in Illinois from liability to foreseeable third-party victims.
