In Lutzenkirchen v. OSF Healthcare System, 2025 IL App (1st) 250028, the appellate court reversed a Cook County trial court’s denial of a motion to transfer venue, holding that all applicable forum non conveniens factors either favored transfer to Winnebago County or were neutral. The Court found that retaining the case in Cook County, where neither the events occurred nor the parties primarily reside, was an abuse of discretion.
Background
Plaintiff Andrew Lutzenkirchen filed a medical malpractice suit in Cook County following the death of his father, William, who died after receiving treatment in Rockford, Illinois (Winnebago County). All medical treatment occurred in Winnebago County, and the alleged negligence by the health care providers—including laceration of William’s palate and uvula during a surgical procedure—took place at the hospital there.
While the defendant OSF Healthcare operated facilities in both Winnebago and Cook Counties, the treating providers and key witnesses were located in or near Winnebago County. William resided in neighboring Stephenson County. Of his four children, one resided in Winnebago County and another in Stephenson County. Plaintiff, who lived in Kane County, selected Cook County as the forum. Two of the individual defendants resided in Cook County.
Defendants moved to transfer venue to Winnebago County under the doctrine of forum non conveniens. The circuit court denied the motion, giving limited weight to the inconvenience factors and emphasizing Cook County’s ability to manage a heavy docket. Defendants sought interlocutory review under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 306(a)(2).
Appellate Analysis – Standard of Review
The appellate court applied the abuse of discretion standard, reiterating that under this deferential test, reversal is appropriate only if no reasonable person would agree with the trial court’s decision. Starr v. Presence Central & Suburban Hospitals Network, 2024 IL App (1st) 231120. In assessing whether a circuit court has abused its discretion in denying a motion to transfer venue, the appellate court first considers plaintiff’s selected forum and then reviews the applicable private and public interest factors.
Plaintiff’s Choice of Forum
While a plaintiff’s forum choice is typically given deference, the court held that deference is significantly diminished when the plaintiff does not reside in the forum and the cause of action did not arise there. The court noted that forum shopping in such circumstances cuts against the goals of judicial efficiency. Fennell v. Illinois Central R.R. Co., 2012 IL 113812, ¶ 18; Dawdy v. Union Pacific R.R. Co., 207 Ill. 2d 167 (2003). The lack of connection Plaintiff and the cause of action to Cook County substantially undercut the deference the Court gave to Plaintiff’s choice of forum.
Private Interest Factors
The Court found that each private interest factor either supported transfer to Winnebago County or was neutral:
- Convenience of parties and witnesses: Nearly all witnesses resided or worked in or near Winnebago County. Only two defendants resided in Cook County.
- Access to testimonial, documentary, and real evidence: Medical treatment occurred exclusively in Winnebago County.
- Cost of attendance for willing witnesses: Traveling to Cook County would impose higher costs and burden on witnesses.
- Possibility of viewing premises: Though unlikely in a medical malpractice case, this factor was not considered at all by the trial court—a notable omission under Kuhn v. Nicol, 2020 IL App (5th) 190225.
- Practical considerations: Traffic, distance, and logistics overwhelmingly favored transfer to Winnebago County.
Public Interest Factors
The appellate court also found that the public interest factors weighed strongly in favor of transfer:
- Court congestion: Judicial data showed that Cook County had significantly more than 15,000 high-dollar civil filings compared to fewer than 400 in Winnebago County. The trial court erred in giving this factor little weight.
- Unfairness of imposing jury duty on unrelated counties: The court emphasized that Cook County residents had no connection to the litigation—an important civic fairness issue under Fennell.
- Local interest in local controversies: Winnebago County had the stronger interest in resolving the dispute which involved medical care given in Winnebago County. The trial court incorrectly gave little weight to this factor, relying on the fact that defendant OSF Healthcare had facilities and rendered healthcare services in Cook County. The Court states that such shared operations do not establish a material connection for venue purposes, citing Monteagudo v. The Gardens of Belvidere, LLC, 2023 IL App (1st) 220045, ¶¶ 54 and Meier v. Ryan, 2023 IL App (1st) 211674
Conclusion
The appellate court reversed the denial of the motion to transfer venue and remanded the case with directions to transfer it to Winnebago County. While the circuit court acknowledged many of the relevant facts, it gave insufficient weight to both private and public interest factors that overwhelmingly favored transfer. The opinion serves as a reminder that forum non conveniens is not simply about docket size—it’s about fairness, efficiency, and genuine community connection.
Special Concurrence
While Justice Oden Johnsen agreed with the outcome, he strongly disagreed with the majority’s remand with instructions to transfer the case outright. Judge Johnson wrote separately to emphasize that he believed the Court should have remanded the matter with instructions for the trial court to analyze the motion for transfer while applying the proper standard and considering all of the public interest factors, particularly the jury burden and local interest elements. Judge Johnson warned that appellate courts should not “review the facts on a clean slate” but rather evaluate whether the trial court’s decision was one no reasonable person could reach, consistent with Langenhorst and Susman. Only after the trial court made a complete analysis applying each of the required factors could the appellate court then properly review the trial court’s judgment.
