I.

A.

B.

C.

D.

E.

Anderson v Wagner
79 Ill.2d 295 402 N.E.2d 560 (1979)

Procedure
Who are the parties?
Plaintiffs: Thomas and Marilyn Anderson
Defendant: William Wagner, M.D
Who brought the action?
Plaintiffs Thomas and Marilyn
In what court did the case originate?
Circuit court of Macon County
Who won at the trial court level?
Defendant William Wagner
What is the appellate history of the case?
The appellate court affirmed.

II.
Facts
A. What are the relevant facts as recited by this court?
Plaintiffs alleged that defendant failed to inform them that Marilyn tested
positive for rubella in first trimester pregnancy test given in 1972.
Plaintiffs alleged defendant failed to inform of the likelihood of mental
retardation in child born under these circumstances.
May 20, 1973 a child was born to plaintiffs.
Child was later proved to be mentally retarded.
Plaintiffs allege they did not discover defendants malpractice until January
26, 1976.
Circuit court of Macon County dismissed complaint on motion of the
defendant.
Held that section 21.1 barred the action.
In amended complaint, plaintiffs alleged that defendant fraudulently
concealed cause of action from them.
Concealment, they alleged tolled the running of the statue of limitations.
Plaintiffs contended that section 21.1 is unconstitutional.
They state it violates due process and equal protection clauses of both
Federal and State constitutions.
Primary contention is that section 21.1 violates article IV, section 13 of
Illinois Constitution of 1970.
This is special legislation because it separates medical malpractice from all
other professional malpractice.
B. Are there any facts that you would like to know but that are not
revealed in the opinion?
Do the plaintiffs have an issue with having a mentally retarded child?
Would they have done something different if they knew she was positive for
rubella?

III.
A.

B.

Issues
What are the precise issues being litigated, as stated by the court?
Malpractice dismissed due to section 21.1
Do you agree with the way the court has framed those issues?
Yes, if there was a statue that defended it theres nothing to be done.

IV.
A.

B.

C.

Holding
What is the courts precise holding?
The trial court dropped the case.
What is its rationale for that decision?
The statue was not tolled therefore complaints were dismissed.
Do you agree with that rationale?
Yes.

V.
A.

B.
C.

Implications
What does this case mean for healthcare today?
Limitation statues are more extensive.
What were its implications when the decision was announced?
How should healthcare administrators prepare to deal with these
implications?
D. What would be different today if the case had been decided differently?