Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Ohio Security Insurance Co. v. Premier Pain Specialists LLC

United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division

July 19, 2018

OHIO SECURITY INSURANCE CO., Plaintiff,
v.
PREMIER PAIN SPECIALISTS, LLC, by its legal name and under its assumed name PREMIER PAIN & SPINE LLC; OMAR SAID, MD; and MARY ANN ELAM Defendants.

          MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

          MATTHEW F. KENNELLY DISTRICT JUDGE.

         Ohio Security Insurance Company (OSIC) seeks a declaratory judgment that it has no duty to defend or indemnify Premier Pain Specialists, LLC (PPS) or Dr. Omar Said in a negligence action brought by Mary Ann Elam, who alleges she was injured after a procedure at a PPS facility. Both sides have moved for judgment on the pleadings.

         Background

         In a motion for judgment on the pleadings, the Court must "tak[e] all facts pleaded in the complaint as true and construe all inferences in the [nonmoving party's] favor" while "review[ing] the complaint and all exhibits attached to the complaint." Forrest v. Universal Sav. Bank, FA, 507 F.3d 540, 542 (7th Cir. 2007).

         I. Parties

         OSIC is an insurance company organized under the laws of New Hampshire with its principal place of business in Massachusetts. PPS operates as Premier Pain & Spine LLC; all of its members are Illinois citizens. Omar Said is an Illinois citizen and physician who works at a PPS location. (From here on, the Court refers to the defendants generally as PPS, unless otherwise indicated.)[1] Mary Ann Elam, also an Illinois citizen, sued PPS in the Circuit Court of Cook County for negligence to recover for injuries she sustained after falling at the PPS facility at which Said worked.

         II. Insurance policy

         PPS holds a business owner's insurance policy from OSIC. The insurance policy provides that "[w]e will pay those sums that the insured becomes legally obligated to pay as damages because of "bodily injury"." D.E. 21, Pl.'s Ex. 4 at 34 (Business Owners Coverage Policy). (For exhibits of the insurance policy, the Court refers to the ECF pagination, as the page numbers of the exhibits are not internally consistent.) "Bodily injury" is defined as "[b]odily injury, sickness, disease, or incidental medical malpractice injury sustained by a person[.]:" D.E. 21, Pl.'s Ex. 5 at 40 (Business Owners Liability Extension Endorsement). The policy defines "incidental medical malpractice injury" as "bodily injury arising out of the rendering of or failure to render, during the policy period, the following services: (a) medical, surgical, dental, x-ray, or nursing service or treatment . . . or (b) the furnishing or dispensing of drugs or medical, dental or surgical supplies or appliances." Id. at 38. The policy states, however, that incidental medical malpractice coverage does not apply to "any insured engaged in the business or occupation of providing any of the services described under a. and b. above[.]" Id.

         Also relevant to the parties' claims is the professional services exclusion, which excludes from coverage any injury "caused by the rendering or failure to render any professional service." Id., Pl.'s Ex. 4 at 41. The definition of professional services includes "[m]edical, surgical, dental, X-ray or nursing services treatment, advice or instruction" and "[a]ny health or therapeutic service treatment, advice or instruction[.]" Id.

         III. Underlying claim

         PPS argues that OSIC has a duty to defend and indemnify it in a negligence suit. The Court draws facts about the suit from the complaint filed in that suit and a video of the incident, both of which OSIC attached to its complaint as exhibits. Elam, the plaintiff in the underlying lawsuit, alleges that, on January 20, 2015, she underwent a procedure to mitigate neck pain through epidural injections, for which she also received anesthesia. The video begins by depicting Elam walking alongside an attendant through the PPS recovery room. A second staff member is seated at a desk; she is not attending to Elam. The first attendant turns his back to Elam, who reaches up to her neck and then stumbles to the left. She falls through a curtain, which obscures a chair. Elam collides with the chair as she falls. Id., Pl.'s Ex. 2 (Security Camera Video Clip). Elam claims to have broken her femur and several ribs in the fall.

         In her lawsuit against PPS, Elam asserted two counts of medical negligence and one count of general negligence, the latter of which PPS argues falls within its OSIC policy. Elam alleges PPS was generally negligent when it:

A. Failed to properly assess and evaluate [Elam] before placing her in the recovery room;
B. Failed to properly monitor [Elam] while in the recovery room;
C. Failed to properly restrain and secure [Elam] while in the recovery room to ensure that she did not fall;
D. Failed to assign proper and adequate personnel to monitor and assist [Elam] while in the recovery room;
E. Failed to ensure that [Elam] was properly attended to at all times while at [Premier Pain's] facility in ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.