Conrad v. Wauconda Healthcare & Rehab. Ctr.

Full title: BARBARA CONRAD, Executrix for the Estate of Ralph Krueger, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. WAUCONDA HEALTHCARE AND REHABILITATION CENTRE, LLC, an Illinois Limited Liability Company, d/b/a Wauconda Care; LANCASTER LTD., an Illinois Corporation; SYMPHONY DIAGNOSTIC SERVICES NO. 1, LLC, a California Limited Liability Company, d/b/a Mobilex USA; JAMES I. COLLINS, M.D.; and WENCES YNIEGO, R.N., Defendants, Wauconda Healthcare and Rehabilitation Centre, LLC, an Illinois Limited Company, d/b/a Wauconda Care; Lancaster Ltd., an Illinois Corporation; and Wences Yniego, R.N., Defendants-Appellees.

Court: Illinois Appellate Court, First District, Third Division

Date published: Dec 1, 2021

Facts

Lancaster owned Wauconda Care, a long-term care facility located in Wauconda. Krueger had been hospitalized in late February and early March 2018, during which he had a feeding tube inserted into his stomach. The hospital discharged Krueger on March 6, 2018, and Wauconda Care, where Yniego was a supervising nurse, admitted him later that day. The next day, Krueger’s feeding tube became dislodged, and he needed the tube to be reinserted inside his stomach. After a Wauconda Care staff member reinserted the tube, someone ordered an x-ray of Krueger’s abdomen to verify the proper placement of the tube. Dr. Collins, who the complaint alleged was an agent of Symphony, a diagnostic services company, authored a report based on that x-ray. The complaint further alleged that Dr. Collins concluded the Wauconda Care staff member properly reinserted the tube into Krueger’s stomach. On March 8, 2018, Krueger experienced shortness of breath and lethargy, which required him to be transported to the hospital. Two days later, Krueger passed away as a result of septic shock and severe acute peritonitis. Shortly thereafter, a superior court in North Carolina issued letters testamentary naming Conrad the executrix of Krueger’s estate.

Issue

Decision

For the foregoing reasons, we reverse the circuit court’s order granting appellees’ motion to dismiss with prejudice and remand the cause for further proceedings consistent with this order.

Reversed and remanded.

Also, Read

Related Post

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

six − 3 =