In re Marriage of West, 2021 IL App (3d) 200171-U

1. Case citation and parties
- Rosie Hendricks, as Independent Administrator of the Estate of Ola Williams v. Petersen Health Quality, LLC (d/b/a Bement Health Care Center), Petersen Health Care Management, Inc., and Guyla Leason, RN, No. 3‑20‑0171, 2021 IL App (3d) 200171‑U (Order filed Apr. 9, 2021; Rule 23).

2. Key legal issues
- Whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying defendants’ motion to transfer venue on the ground of forum non conveniens under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 187.
- Proper allocation of deference to a plaintiff’s choice of forum and the required showing by a defendant that public and private interest factors “strongly favor” transfer.

3. Holding/outcome
- The appellate court held the trial court erred in denying defendants’ motion to transfer the case from Peoria County to Piatt County (where the nursing home was located). The matter was reversed (and remanded consistent with that holding).

4. Significant legal reasoning (concise)
- Governing law: forum‑non‑conveniens transfer requires balancing public and private interest factors; no single factor is dispositive; plaintiff’s forum choice receives deference, and the defendant bears the burden of proving the balance “strongly favors” transfer. (Citing Fennell, Langenhorst, Gridley.)
- Facts the defendants relied on: the alleged negligent care occurred at Bement Health Care Center in Piatt County; key fact witnesses (nurses who cared for the decedent) resided and worked in Piatt County; affidavits detailed practical burdens (staffing disruption, coverage difficulties, impact on resident care) if witnesses were compelled to appear in Peoria. Defendants also argued Piatt had the stronger local interest in policing health care in its county.
- Trial court’s errors (as found by the appellate court): the trial court over‑credited deference to plaintiff’s forum choice and treated Peoria’s connection (corporate management located there) as neutral or controlling without adequately weighing the convenience and public‑interest factors favoring Piatt. The appellate court concluded the totality of circumstances supported transfer and that the lower court abused its discretion.

5. Practice implications for attorneys
- When seeking transfer under Rule 187, submit specific, speaker‑sworn affidavits enumerating witness residences, distances/travel burdens, staffing/coverage impacts, and locality’s public interest—show how these factors “strongly” favor transfer.
- Anticipate and rebut plaintiff’s forum‑choice deference (residency, location of corporate offices, dispersed witnesses, electronic records).
- Seek detailed findings from the trial court on each public/private factor to preserve issues for appeal.
- Consider interlocutory appeal options (Rule 306) where denial of transfer raises significant procedural/prejudice concerns.