A request to admit that a fact is true or that a document is genuine may be served on an opposing party in an effort to narrow the issues in a case. Supreme Court Rule 216 provides that proper responses to a request to admit include: 1) an admission; 2) a sworn statement of denial; 3) a sworn statement detailing the reasons why the responding party cannot truthfully admit or deny; or 4) a written objection that the requested admissions are privileged or irrelevant or that the request is otherwise improper.
In personal injury cases, a common issue of contention between a plaintiff and a defendant is whether a plaintiff's medical treatment is reasonable and necessary as a result of the subject accident and whether the cost for the treatment is fair and customary. Over the past several years, it has become a trend for plaintiff's attorneys to serve defendants with Requests to Admit on these issues prior to trial in an effort to lighten plaintiff's burden at trial. Assuming these facts are admitted by the defendant or deemed admitted by the court, the plaintiff does not have to call a medical expert to testify at trial on these issues.
Initially, when confronted with a Request to Admit on the reasonableness and necessity of treatment or the fairness of medical bills, defendants attempted to object that such requests were improper because they called for an opinion or conclusion, rather than a fact. However, several Illinois Appellate Courts over the past years have specifically ruled that "the amount of medical expenses a plaintiff incurred as a result of an event, the necessity and reasonableness of medical services, and the fair reasonable cost of medical services rendered are all proper subjects for requests to admit." Troyan v. Reyes, 367 Ill. App. 3d 729, 739 (3rd Dist. 2006); see also Szczeblewski, et al. v. Gossett, 342 Ill. App. 3d 344 (5th Dist. 2003); Hubeny v. Chairse, 305 Ill. App. 3d 1038 (2nd Dist. 1999).
In Troyan, plaintiff served Requests to Admit on defendant that sought, among other things, to have defendant admit: "That as a result of the collision, Plaintiff suffered $4,052.38 in medical bills that were reasonable and customary charges related to Plaintiff's injuries." 367 Ill. App. 3d at 731. Defendant objected to the Request, claiming that it called for an opinion. Id. at 739. However, in addition to objecting, defendant also responded to the Request by stating that she could not admit or deny the facts requested because she had no personal knowledge of the information and the matters were protected by the physician/patient privilege. Id. at 740. The Third District overruled defendant's objection. Id. It further held that the physician-patient privilege did not apply since plaintiff put his medical condition at issue and had already provided defendant with the relevant medical records and bills needed to respond to the Request. Id. Therefore, on remand, the defendant was given leave to amend her responses to the requests to admit. Id.
If only considering Troyan, one would think that a defendant is left with few options when confronted with a request to admit dealing with the reasonableness and necessity of a plaintiff's medical treatment in a personal injury case. The majority decision in Troyan seems to indicate that a defendant cannot properly object to the request, but also that it is insufficient for a defendant to state that he lacks sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the request. In fact, the majority seems to suggest that, since defendant had been provided with plaintiff's medical records, defendant was somehow in a position to draw medical conclusions from them. Fortunately, the Fifth District's earlier decision in Szczeblewski, relied upon by Justice McDade in his dissenting opinion in Troyan, may be a defendant's saving grace on this precise issue.
In Szczeblewski, plaintiff listed the amount and date for each of his medical bills and asked the defendant to admit that each bill "represent[ed] charges for services which were reasonable and necessary treatment for conditions occurring as a result of the occurrence which is the subject of the instant suit." 342 Ill. App. 3d at 346-347. Defendant responded to each request by stating: "This defendant can neither admit or deny [the] Request for Admission of Fact in that it requires him to give a medical opinion which he is not qualified to do. Defendant has insufficient knowledge to admit or deny." Id. at 347. The Fifth District found that defendant's responses to the requests were appropriate, assuming he had made a reasonable effort to secure the answers from persons and documents within his control before claiming he had insufficient knowledge. Id. at 349. In other words, the Court held that a defendant must make his response based not only on his own knowledge, but also that of his attorneys and agents. Id.
To date, the Illinois Supreme Court has not ruled on this precise issue. Until they do, Circuit Courts in the Third District are bound by Troyan and Circuit Courts in the Fifth District are bound by Szczeblewski. However, as to the remaining Circuit Courts, they are free to choose between these two decisions since there is a degree of conflict. As expected, plaintiffs are only citing Troyan in their attempts to have similar requests deemed admitted. Therefore, defendants must be ready to cite Szczeblewski when confronted with this situation. More importantly, defendants confronted with a request to admit the reasonableness and necessity of plaintiff's medical treatment must not simply object to the request as improper. If appropriate, also be sure to include a response to the request that addresses defendant's inability to truthfully admit or deny the request, as well as defendant's reasonable attempt to secure answers to the requests from persons and documents within defendant's control.
* * *
Diana Reiter, an associate in our Wheaton, Illinois office concentrates her practice in automobile and premises liability litigation. She has tried 11 cases to verdict, all of which have resulted in verdicts of either "not guilty" or less than the plaintiff's demand.
If you have any questions regarding the article above, please feel free to call Diana at 630-653-2600, or via dreiter@querrey.com.
