ILCS » Chapter 735 · Act 5
Illinois Compiled Statutes

735 ILCS 5/13-212 (2026)

Physician or hospital

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section IL-ILGAilga.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(735 ILCS 5/13-212) (from Ch. 110, par. 13-212)
    Sec. 13-212. Physician or hospital.
    (a) Except as provided in Section 13-215 or 13-215.1 of this Act, no action for damages for injury or death against any physician, dentist, registered nurse or hospital duly licensed under the laws of this State, whether based upon tort, or breach of contract, or otherwise, arising out of patient care shall be brought more than 2 years after the date on which the claimant knew, or through the use of reasonable diligence should have known, or received notice in writing of the existence of the injury or death for which damages are sought in the action, whichever of such date occurs first, but in no event shall such action be brought more than 4 years after the date on which occurred the act or omission or occurrence alleged in such action to have been the cause of such injury or death.
    (b) Except as provided in Section 13-215 or 13-215.1 of this Act, no action for damages for injury or death against any physician, dentist, registered nurse or hospital duly licensed under the laws of this State, whether based upon tort, or breach of contract, or otherwise, arising out of patient care shall be brought more than 8 years after the date on which occurred the act or omission or occurrence alleged in such action to have been the cause of such injury or death where the person entitled to bring the action was, at the time the cause of action accrued, under the age of 18 years; provided, however, that in no event may the cause of action be brought after the person's 22nd birthday. If the person was under the age of 18 years when the cause of action accrued and, as a result of this amendatory Act of 1987, the action is either barred or there remains less than 3 years to bring such action, then he or she may bring the action within 3 years of July 20, 1987.
    (c) If the person entitled to bring an action described in this Section is, at the time the cause of action accrued, under a legal disability other than being under the age of 18 years, then the period of limitations does not begin to run until the disability is removed.
    (d) If the person entitled to bring an action described in this Section is not under a legal disability at the time the cause of action accrues, but becomes under a legal disability before the period of limitations otherwise runs, the period of limitations is stayed until the disability is removed. This subsection (d) does not invalidate any statute of repose provisions contained in this Section. This subsection (d) applies to actions commenced or pending on or after the effective date of this amendatory Act of the 98th General Assembly.
(Source: P.A. 103-478, eff. 1-1-24.)

    
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 154 cases (26 in the last 5 years), 1993–2026 · leading case: Brucker v. Mercola, 886 N.E.2d 306 (Ill. 2007).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Brucker v. Mercola, 886 N.E.2d 306 (Ill. 2007). · cites it 12× “Plaintiffs' only other argument on this point is a brief four-sentence argument that section 13-212 does not apply because Barbara Pierce, the employee who filled the L-glutamine bottle with the wrong substance, was an office receptionist, not a licensed health-care provider.”
Augutis v. United States, 732 F.3d 749 (7th Cir. 2013). · cites it 5× “Illinois’s statute of repose is part of the substantive law of the state where the tortious act or omission occurred Section 13-212 of the Illinois Code of Civil Procedure states that “[ejxcept as provided in Section 13-215 of this Act, no action for damages for injury or death…”
Kaufmann v. Jersey Cmty. Hosp., 919 N.E.2d 1077 (Ill. App. Ct. 2009). · cites it 11× “Neither section 8-101 of the Tort Immunity Act (745 ILCS 10/8-101 (West 2006)) nor section 13-212 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Code) (735 ILCS 5/13-212 (West 2006)), which also contains the same language, defines the phrase "arising out of patient care.”
Orlak v. Loyola Univ. Health Sys., 885 N.E.2d 999 (Ill. 2007). · cites it 3× “The circuit court granted Loyola's motion to dismiss, finding that plaintiff's action was barred by the statute of repose contained in section 13-212(a) of the Code of Civil Procedure (Code) (735 ILCS 5/13-212(a) (West 2002)). The appellate court affirmed (No.”
Lawler v. The Univ. of Chicago Med. Ctr., 2017 IL 120745 (Ill. 2017). · cites it 3× “Plaintiff, Sheri Lawler, filed an amended complaint alleging a wrongful death claim against defendants, numerous medical providers.”
Moon v. Rhode, 2016 IL 119572 (Ill. 2016). · cites it 3× “Defendants asserted that plaintiff’s cause of action was time-barred, citing both section 13-212(a) of the Code (735 ILCS 5/13-212(a) (West 2012)) and section 2(c) of the Act (740 ILCS 180/2(c) (West 2012)), because it was filed more than two years after Kathryn’s death.”
Tosado v. Miller, 720 N.E.2d 1075 (Ill. 1999). · cites it 4× “The trial judge, however, found that the case involved a question of law as to which there is a substantial ground for difference of opinion and certified to the appellate court, in substance, the following question: In a medical malpractice case against a local entity and/or…”
Clark v. Child.'s Mem'l Hosp., 2011 IL 108656 (Ill. 2011). · cites it 3× “Burton and Children’s Memorial–by then the only remaining defendants–moved for summary judgment on the ground that plaintiffs failed to bring suit against them within the two-year limitations period set forth in section 13-212 of the Code of Civil Procedure (735 ILCS 5/13-212…”
Wells v. Travis, 672 N.E.2d 789 (Ill. App. Ct. 1996). · cites it 5× “Justice HUTCHINSON, dissenting: The majority concludes plaintiff would not be able to prove any set of facts demonstrating that her amended complaint against Valika was timely under section 13-212 of the Code (735 ILCS 5/13-212 (West 1994)). I freely admit that upon remand…”
Horlacher v. Cohen, 2017 IL App (1st) 162712 (Ill. App. Ct. 2018). · cites it 5× “735 ILCS 5/13-212(a) (West 2014) (“no action for damages for injury *** against any *** dentist *** arising out of patient care shall be brought more than 2 years after the date on which the claimant knew *** of the existence of the injury”).”
Horlacher v. Cohen, 2017 IL App (1st) 162712 (Ill. App. Ct. 2017). · cites it 5× “735 ILCS 5/13-212(a) (West 2014) ("no action for damages for injury * * * against any * * * dentist * * * arising out of patient care shall be brought more than 2 years after the date on which the claimant knew * * * of the existence of the injury").”
Frigo v. Silver Cross Hosp. & Med. Ctr., 876 N.E.2d 697 (Ill. App. Ct. 2007). · cites it 3× “The majority correctly point out that the two-year statute of limitations and four-year statute of repose applicable to this action against Silver Cross appear in section 13-212 of the Illinois Code of Civil Procedure, (735 ILCS 5/13-212 (West 2000)). The surgery at issue was…”
Show all 154 citing cases →
— 735 ILCS 5/13-212(a) — 116 cases
Orlak v. Loyola Univ. Health Sys., 885 N.E.2d 999 (Ill. 2007). “The circuit court granted Loyola's motion to dismiss, finding that plaintiff's action was barred by the statute of repose contained in section 13-212(a) of the Code of Civil Procedure (Code) (735 ILCS 5/13-212(a) (West 2002)). The appellate court affirmed (No.”
Lawler v. The Univ. of Chicago Med. Ctr., 2017 IL 120745 (Ill. 2017). “Plaintiff, Sheri Lawler, filed an amended complaint alleging a wrongful death claim against defendants, numerous medical providers.”
Augutis v. United States, 732 F.3d 749 (7th Cir. 2013). “Illinois’s statute of repose is part of the substantive law of the state where the tortious act or omission occurred Section 13-212 of the Illinois Code of Civil Procedure states that “[ejxcept as provided in Section 13-215 of this Act, no action for damages for injury or death…”
Moon v. Rhode, 2016 IL 119572 (Ill. 2016). “Defendants asserted that plaintiff’s cause of action was time-barred, citing both section 13-212(a) of the Code (735 ILCS 5/13-212(a) (West 2012)) and section 2(c) of the Act (740 ILCS 180/2(c) (West 2012)), because it was filed more than two years after Kathryn’s death.”
Tosado v. Miller, 720 N.E.2d 1075 (Ill. 1999). “The trial judge, however, found that the case involved a question of law as to which there is a substantial ground for difference of opinion and certified to the appellate court, in substance, the following question: In a medical malpractice case against a local entity and/or…”
— 735 ILCS 5/13-212(b) — 18 cases
Brucker v. Mercola, 886 N.E.2d 306 (Ill. 2007). “Plaintiffs' only other argument on this point is a brief four-sentence argument that section 13-212 does not apply because Barbara Pierce, the employee who filled the L-glutamine bottle with the wrong substance, was an office receptionist, not a licensed health-care provider.”
Kaufmann v. Jersey Cmty. Hosp., 919 N.E.2d 1077 (Ill. App. Ct. 2009). “Neither section 8-101 of the Tort Immunity Act (745 ILCS 10/8-101 (West 2006)) nor section 13-212 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Code) (735 ILCS 5/13-212 (West 2006)), which also contains the same language, defines the phrase "arising out of patient care.”
Kaufmann v. Schroeder, 946 N.E.2d 345 (Ill. 2011).
Frank J. Schweihs v. Thomas Burdick, Charlene Mitchell, & Simon & Schuster, a Corp., 96 F.3d 917 (7th Cir. 1996).
Hinkle v. Henderson, 85 F.3d 298 (7th Cir. 1996).
— 735 ILCS 5/13-212(c) — 5 cases
Brucker v. Mercola, 886 N.E.2d 306 (Ill. 2007). “Plaintiffs' only other argument on this point is a brief four-sentence argument that section 13-212 does not apply because Barbara Pierce, the employee who filled the L-glutamine bottle with the wrong substance, was an office receptionist, not a licensed health-care provider.”
Mitchell v. Michael's Sports Lounge, 2023 IL App (1st) 220011 (Ill. App. Ct. 2023).
Goering v. Midwest Neurology, Ltd., 2021 IL App (2d) 200735 (Ill. App. Ct. 2021).
Franklin v. Cernovich, 679 N.E.2d 98 (Ill. App. Ct. 1997).
Hinkle v. Henderson, 956 F. Supp. 1430 (C.D. Ill. 1997).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.