Unterreiner v Pernikoff 2011 IL App (5th) 110006 NO. 5-11-000 I. A. B. C. D. E. II. A. Procedure Who are the parties?

ure Who are the parties? Plaintiffs: Cheryl and Kim Uterreiner Defendant: David Pernikoff, M.D. Who brought the action? Plaintiffs Cheryl and Kim In what court did the case originate? Circuit court of Madison County Who won at the trial court level? Plaintiffs What is the appellate history of the case? Facts What are the relevant facts as recited by this court? October 6, 2010 plaintiffs filed complaint in circuit court of Madison County. The complaint alleged medical malpractice against defendant. October 26, 2010 defendant filed motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. December 10, 2010 circuit court denied motion of defendants. Plaintiffs are long time residents of Highland, Illinois. Defendant Pernikoff is a Missouri resident. Defendant is a physician licensed to practice medicine in Missouri but not in Illinois. Codefendant David J. Pernikoff, M.D., P.C., is the professional corporation Dr. Pernikoff practices. Defendant never advertised for clients in Illinois. Defendant never owned or leased any real or personal property in Illinois. Cheryl underwent aortic valve replacement with a mechanical valve and was placed on Warfarin as anticoagulant in 2002. Defendant monitored anticoagulant levels. Cheryl traveled to Missouri for medical care appointments with defendant. September 4, 2008 Cheryls blood was drawn for level checks. Results were not immediately available. Within a few days, an employee of defendant called Cheryls Illinois home and left a message to call because anticoagulant levels were low. A returned telephone call instructed Cheryl to take more Warfarin and to return to defendants office in a month to have levels checked again. October 8, 2008, prior to return appointment, Cheryl suffered a stroke resulting in serious injuries. Cheryl alleges negligent care by defendant caused stroke.

B. Are there any facts that you would like to know but that are not revealed in the opinion? How did Cheryl find Dr. Pernikoff? III. Issues A. What are the precise issues being litigated, as stated by the court? Reverse order of the circuit court that denied defendants movement to dismiss. B. Do you agree with the way the court has framed those issues? IV. Holding A. What is the courts precise holding? The trial courts dismissal of defendants motion was reversed and the plaintiffs complaints were dismissed. B. What is its rationale for that decision? There were not enough facts present C. Do you agree with that rationale? V. Implications A. What does this case mean for healthcare today? If you travel to another state to seek medical attention you should be fully aware of all risks that may be entailed. The patient should be held liable for services if they go to another state. B. What were its implications when the decision was announced?