Decision Summary
On June 5, 2003, the Illinois Supreme Court issued a landmark opinion preventing the application of the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) to hospitals that surgically implant medical devices that are later found to be substandard. For the first time, the Court applied the "predominant purpose" test for transactions in goods under the UCC to the hospital-patient relationship. The Court found that because the transaction between the patient and the hospital was one for services and not for goods, the plaintiff could not bring a breach of warranty claim against the hospital. This decision overruled the only other appellate court decision to address the issue, Garcia v. Edgewater Hosp., 244 Ill.App.3d 894 (1st Dist. 1993). It also brings the State of Illinois in line with the national trend on this issue.
Case: Brenda Brandt v. BostonScientific Corporation (Sarah Bush Lincoln Health Center)
In the specific case Brenda Brandt v. Boston Scientific Corporation (Sarah Bush Lincoln Health Center), the plaintiff suffered severe complications following the surgical implantation of a medical device that was later recalled by the manufacturer for being substandard. Brandt filed an amended complaint that included a breach of implied warranty of merchantability claim (810 ILCS 5/2-314 (West 1998)) under the Uniform Commercial Code (810 ILCS 5/1-101 et seq. (West 2000)) against the hospital. The circuit court of Coles County dismissed the claim, and the appellate court affirmed (329 Ill. App. 3d 348). The Illinois Supreme Court granted Brandt's petition for leave to appeal (177 Ill. 2d R. 315) to resolve the question whether Brandt can bring a viable cause of action for breach of the UCC implied warranty of merchantability against the Health Center after a defective medical device was surgically implanted during her medical treatment in that hospital.
Specifically, Brandt was admitted to the Health Center to receive treatment for urinary incontinence. While there, a ProteGen Sling was surgically inserted on December 23, 1998. A charge for the sling was included in her bill from the hospital. In January 1999, the sling’s manufacturer, Boston Scientific Corporation, issued a voluntary recall of the product because the product was causing medical complications in 7% of patients. Brandt suffered serious complications. In response to these complications, the sling was surgically removed in November 1999.
Brandt filed a six-count complaint in July 2000, alleging negligence, strict liability, and breach of warranty against defendants Boston Scientific Corporation and Sarah Bush Lincoln Health Center.
Abbreviated Case History and Analysis
The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s dismissal of the UCC count of the amended complaint, though on different grounds than the trial court. Specifically, the appellate court found that the transaction between Brandt and the Health Center was primarily for services rather than goods so that the UCC did not apply. The appellate court expressly declined to follow the Garcia case.
Upon review, the Illinois Supreme Court explained that Article 2 of the UCC imposes the implied warranty of merchantability. In order to succeed on a claim of breach of implied warranty of merchantability, a plaintiff must allege and prove: (1) a sale of goods (2) by a merchant of those goods, and (3) the goods were not of merchantable quality. After a thorough legal analysis which took into account the fact that the hospital actually sold the sling to the plaintiff, the Court found that the hospital’s actions were “predominantly” service oriented. Thus, the “sale of goods” element was lacking, making the count insufficient as a matter of law.
The defense of Sarah Lincoln Bush Health Center was led by the Chicago office of national law firm Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP, with attorney Timothy Shelton representing the health center on appeal.
Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP is a national law firm with 475 lawyers in 25 offices coast-to-coast. The firm offers a full-service practice, with an emphasis in litigation, corporate, environmental, employment and construction law, as well as professional liability matters. The firm provides services to a range of clients in financial services, construction, health care, not-for-profit, insurance, legal, manufacturing, real estate, retail, transportation and other industries. Firm clients also include government agencies, municipalities and schools.
Hinshaw was founded in 1934. The firm is headquartered in Chicago, and maintains offices in 12 states: Arizona, California, Florida, Illinois, Indiana, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Missouri, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island and Wisconsin.