DiFranco v. Kusar

Digitally signed by

Reporter of Decisions

Reason: I attest to the

Illinois Official Reports accuracy and

integrity of this

document

Appellate Court Date: 2018.01.23

15:23:35 -06'00'

DiFranco v. Kusar, 2017 IL App (1st) 160533

Appellate Court GUISEPPINA DiFRANCO and EUGENIO DiFRANCO, Plaintiffs-

Caption Appellants, v. CONSTANCE KUSAR, Defendant-Appellee.

District & No. First District, First Division

Docket No. 1-16-0533

Rule 23 order filed September 29, 2017

Motion to publish

allowed October 31, 2017

Opinion filed November 6, 2017

Decision Under Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook County, No. 13-L-6288; the

Review Hon. Edward S. Harmening, Judge, presiding.

Judgment Affirmed.

Counsel on Horvath & Weaver, P.C., of Chicago (John F. Horvath and Michael T.

Appeal McCracken, of counsel), for appellants.

Bruce Farrel Dorn & Associates, of Chicago (Ellen J. O’Rourke and

Jean M. Bradley, of counsel), for appellee.

Panel PRESIDING JUSTICE PIERCE delivered the judgment of the court,

with opinion.

Justices Harris and Mikva concurred in the judgment and opinion.

OPINION

¶1 Guiseppina DiFranco sued Constance Kusar to recover for injuries that plaintiff sustained

in a motor vehicle accident.1 At the jury trial, defendant admitted negligence, and thus the

only issues at trial were whether defendant’s negligence was the proximate cause of

plaintiff’s injuries and the amount of damages, if any. The jury entered a verdict in favor of

plaintiff and awarded her $1000 for the reasonable expense of necessary medical care,

treatment, and services received; $0 for the loss of normal life; and $0 for pain and suffering.

The circuit court denied plaintiff’s posttrial motion for a new trial. The circuit court also

granted in part and denied in part plaintiff’s posttrial motion for costs. On appeal, plaintiff

contends that (1) the jury’s damages award is against the manifest weight of the evidence,

(2) the circuit court erred in denying her motion for a new trial, and (3) the circuit court erred

in denying in part her posttrial motion for costs. We find no error and affirm.

¶2 BACKGROUND

¶3 The following facts were presented at trial.

¶4 On June 9, 2011, plaintiff was driving in stop-and-go traffic, and while stopped, her

vehicle was struck from behind by a vehicle operated by defendant. The collision caused

plaintiff’s vehicle to hit the vehicle in front of hers. It also caused her body to move forward

and backward, and her knees struck the dashboard. Immediately following the collision, she

experienced pain in her neck, back, and arm. She was taken by ambulance to GlenOaks

Hospital (GlenOaks). She testified that while she was in the emergency room, her pain was a

9 on a scale of 1 to 10. At GlenOaks, she was examined and instructed to follow up with her

family physician, Edwin W. Anderson, M.D. On June 13, 2011, plaintiff followed up with

Dr. Anderson.

¶5 Dr. Anderson’s evidence deposition was admitted into evidence at trial. He testified that

plaintiff told him that she had pain in her arm, neck, and back related to the June 9 collision.

Dr. Anderson examined plaintiff and found tenderness in her lower back, a normal range of

motion of the neck, a normal shoulder exam, a normal elbow exam, and tenderness in the

right pelvis area. He stated that plaintiff reported she felt “moderate pain.” He concluded that

she sustained a cervical strain, an arm strain, a forearm strain, and a back strain. Dr.

Anderson recommended that plaintiff undergo physical therapy and take over-the-counter

pain relievers. According to plaintiff, she performed her physical therapy at GlenOaks.

¶6 Dr. Anderson examined plaintiff again on July 15, 2011. He stated that she complained of

pain radiating down from her neck into her right arm and lower back. Dr. Anderson

1

Although both Guiseppina and Eugenio DiFranco were plaintiffs below and are listed as

appellants, the jury found in favor of Kusar and against Eugenio. Eugenio does not advance any

argument on appeal with respect to any of his claims or the jury’s verdict against him.

-2-

determined that this new complaint was related to the June 9 collision and that plaintiff

sustained an injury to her lower back and neck from the collision. He recommended that she

continue with her physical therapy and gave her prednisone for her inflammation and

swelling. He also referred her to Dr. Lawrence Frank, a nonsurgical back doctor, because her

condition was “worsening with physical therapy and not improving.”

¶7 According to plaintiff, Dr. Frank recommended that she undergo physical therapy at

GlenOaks, which she did for four months. After completing the physical therapy, Dr. Franks

told plaintiff to follow up with Dr. Anderson if her pain continued. Plaintiff testified that she

was still experiencing pain after January 12, 2012, and that her pain got worse.

¶8 Dr. Anderson examined plaintiff again on August 9, 2012, when she came in complaining

of right arm and hand numbness. Dr. Anderson concluded that the pain was possibly nerve

related, “either carpel tunnel or cervical radiculopathy,” and his “working assumption” was

that this was related to the June 9 collision. He recommended that plaintiff get an

electromyelogram (EMG), which was performed at Alexian Brothers Medical Center. Based

on the results of the EMG, Dr. Anderson concluded that plaintiff had “a pinched nerve in the

cervical area as well as a right carpal tunnel syndrome” and that the pinched nerve was due to

the June 9 collision.

¶9 On August 20, 2012, Dr. Anderson recommended that plaintiff undergo an MRI, the

results of which demonstrated “multiple abnormalities in the cervical spine.” Dr. Anderson

stated that, based on his education and examinations of plaintiff, the course of treatment he

recommended was necessary as a result of the June 9 collision.

¶ 10 Plaintiff testified that Dr. Anderson referred her to Dr. Rosenblatt, whom plaintiff

described as a “bone specialist.” Dr. Rosenblatt prescribed physical therapy, which plaintiff

underwent at Athletico.

¶ 11 At trial, plaintiff offered into evidence bills she had received for treatment following the

June 9, 2011, collision. In total, she was billed $29,331.88, which included amounts billed

for the emergency room visit on June 9, 2011; her follow-up visits with doctors Anderson,

Frank, and Rosenblatt; her physical therapy; all of her diagnostic testing; and her

prescriptions.

¶ 12 Julie Johnson, a customer service supervisor from Adventist Midwest Health, with which

GlenOaks is affiliated, testified that GlenOaks’s bills reflected reasonable and customary

charges for services rendered in the GlenOaks emergency room, as well as for X-rays, labs,

and physical therapy. On cross-examination, Johnson stated that she did not know how much

other hospitals charged for similar services. She acknowledged that GlenOaks uses current

procedural terminology (CPT) codes, which were developed by the American Medical

Association and which are used by all medical providers to mean the same thing for a

geographical location. Johnson acknowledged that she would not know whether the CPT

codes used on a GlenOaks bill accurately reflected the actual clinical services provided.

Plaintiff’s emergency room bills reflected that she was billed twice for X-rays and was billed

under CPT code 99284, which designates a level 4 severe condition. Johnson also could not

say why plaintiff was charged under CPT code 99288 for “direct advanced life support” and

acknowledged that she could not say that such a charge was usual or customary under the

circumstances.

¶ 13 Defendant presented the evidence deposition of Dr. Richard Rabinowitz, an orthopedic

surgeon, as her expert witness. Dr. Rabinowitz testified that he had reviewed plaintiff’s

-3-

medical records from both before and after the collision. Plaintiff’s records showed

documented complaints dating back to 2003 that were similar to the complaints plaintiff had

after the collision. In 2003, she was diagnosed with cervical brachial syndrome, brachial

neuralgia, myofacial pain, and cervical region pain, which Dr. Rabinowitz described as “pain

about the neck and referred pain into the shoulder and arm.” Plaintiff also had pain between

her shoulder blades, as well as some finger numbness. In 2005, plaintiff presented to Dr.

Anderson with complaints of “numbness and pain and tingling in the right arm into the right

hand and wrist,” which resulted in plaintiff being restricted from repetitive motion activities.

In February 2009, plaintiff was seen by a Dr. Goldberg. Plaintiff presented with a collection

of complaints, including numbness in her right hand and pain in her thumb, index finger, and

middle finger and pain in her right shoulder, with no suggestion of trauma. Dr. Goldberg

diagnosed plaintiff with carpel tunnel syndrome. In October 2009, Dr. Anderson had a series

of phone conversations with plaintiff about an X-ray of her shoulder. He noted that she had

neck pain near where her shoulder and neck meet but in a different area than what was

reflected on the X-ray. In Dr. Rabinowitz’s opinion, plaintiff’s complaints from 2003

forward were part of the same continuum of symptoms. In November 2009, plaintiff again

complained of pain in her neck and upper arm. Between June and August 2010, she again

complained of pain in the neck and radiating into the shoulder, and in August 2010, she still

had symptoms in those areas. Dr. Rabinowitz described plaintiff’s pain in her neck, shoulder,

and arm as “chronic.”

¶ 14 Furthermore, on June 9, 2011, before the accident giving rise to the claims here, plaintiff

called Dr. Anderson’s office complaining about her right arm and hand falling asleep and

having a burning sensation that would wake her up while sleeping, accompanied by

numbness and tingling. Dr. Anderson’s office called her back later that day saying that it

sounded like a pinched nerve.

¶ 15 Dr. Rabinowitz also reviewed plaintiff’s medical records from after the accident. In the

emergency room, plaintiff complained of pain in the back of her neck that radiated into her

right shoulder. The emergency room records did not reflect any prior history of neck,

shoulder, or arm pain. The records stated that plaintiff was alert with no acute distress. An

examination suggested a full range of motion in the upper extremities without pain or

tenderness. An X-ray showed no acute injury, although it did show some degenerative

change. Dr. Rabinowitz acknowledged that plaintiff was diagnosed in the emergency room as

having a cervical strain and added that “the most troubling part is that there aren’t the typical

physical findings that we would see for [a cervical strain], but given her complaints and her

continuum of care, I felt it was reasonable to assume based on her subjective complaints that

she had a cervical strain.” He explained that “there was no evidence of tenderness or spasm

or significant restricted motion. There was no evidence of contusion.” He agreed that “the

treatment that she received relating to this cervical strain was appropriate and fair from the

time of the automobile collision through her release from Dr. Frank in January of 2012.” Dr.

Rabinowitz did not state that the treatment plaintiff received was necessary.

¶ 16 On September 25, 2015, the jury found in favor of plaintiff and against defendant. The

jury awarded plaintiff $1000 for “the reasonable expenses of necessary medical care,

treatment, and services rendered.” The jury awarded plaintiff $0 for “pain and suffering

experienced as a result of the injuries,” and $0 for “loss of a normal life experienced.” Also

-4-

on September 25, 2015, the circuit court entered a judgment in favor of plaintiff on the jury’s

verdict.

¶ 17 Plaintiff filed a timely motion for a new trial, arguing that the jury’s verdict was against

the manifest weight of the evidence. Plaintiff also filed a motion for costs. On January 20,

2016, the circuit court denied the motion for a new trial and granted in part and denied in part

plaintiff’s motion for costs. The circuit court awarded plaintiff $2264 in costs ($567 in filing

fees, $60 for service fees, and $1637 for the evidence deposition of Dr. Anderson) but did not

award plaintiff an additional $243.67 in requested “witness fees.” Plaintiff filed a timely

notice of appeal from the jury’s verdict, the denial of her motion for a new trial, and the

partial denial of her motion for costs.

¶ 18 ANALYSIS

¶ 19 On appeal, plaintiff argues that the jury’s verdict was against the manifest weight of the

evidence because the jury ignored “proven elements of damages.” She also argues that the

circuit court abused its discretion by denying her motion for a new trial. We address these

arguments together. She also argues that the circuit court abused its discretion by denying in

part her posttrial motion for costs. We address this argument in turn.

¶ 20 Plaintiff’s first argument on appeal is that the circuit court abused its discretion in

denying her motion for a new trial because the jury’s verdict was against the manifest weight

of the evidence. She contends that the jury ignored “proven elements of damages” because

Dr. Rabinowitz testified that the medical treatment she received from the date of the accident

to her discharge by Dr. Frank, totaling $15,770.88, was “necessary and reasonable.”

According to plaintiff, Dr. Rabinowitz testified that the treatment “was necessitated by the

collision and was reasonable and customary for the injuries she sustained.” She argues that

Dr. Rabinowitz testified that plaintiff sustained an “objective injury” as a result of the

collision, specifically tenderness in her back, and that the treatment she received in the

emergency room at GlenOaks was reasonable and necessary. She further contends that she

received a medical bill from the emergency room totaling $3742.75, and therefore, the jury

ignored a proven element of damages when it awarded her only $1000. Additionally, she

argues that the jury’s award of $0 for pain and suffering was against the manifest weight of

the evidence because it was “uncontroverted” that she suffered an injury and that the medical

treatment she received for that injury was “reasonable, customary, and necessary.”

¶ 21 When ruling on a motion for a new trial, the circuit court weighs the evidence and

determines if the jury’s verdict is contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence. Lawlor v.

North American Corp. of Illinois, 2012 IL 112530, ¶ 38. “A verdict is against the manifest

weight of the evidence only where the opposite result is clearly evident or where the jury’s

findings are unreasonable, arbitrary and not based upon any of the evidence.” (Internal

quotation marks omitted.) Young v. Alden Gardens of Waterford, LLC, 2015 IL App (1st)

131887, ¶ 46. We will only reverse the circuit court’s ruling on a motion for a new trial

where the moving party affirmatively shows the circuit court abused its discretion. Velarde v.

Illinois Central R.R. Co., 354 Ill. App. 3d 523, 537-38 (2004). “In determining whether the

trial court abused its discretion, the reviewing court should consider whether the jury’s

verdict was supported by the evidence and whether the losing party was denied a fair trial.”

Maple v. Gustafson, 151 Ill. 2d 445, 455 (1992).

-5-

¶ 22 The standard for an award of compensatory damages under Illinois law is whether a

reasonable jury could have awarded the damages it did. People ex rel. Department of

Transportation v. Smith, 258 Ill. App. 3d 710, 715-16 (1994). A reviewing court will

overturn a jury verdict when damages are manifestly inadequate because the proven elements

of damages were ignored or if the amount awarded bears no reasonable relationship to the

loss suffered by the plaintiff. Id. Illinois courts have repeatedly held that the amount of

damages to be assessed is peculiarly a question of fact for the jury and that great weight must

be given to the jury’s decision. Snelson v. Kamm, 204 Ill. 2d 1, 36-37 (2003). “The mere fact

that the verdict is less than the claimed damages does not necessarily mean the award is

inadequate *** since the jury is free to determine the credibility of the witnesses and to

assess the weight accorded to their testimony.” Montgomery v. City of Chicago, 134 Ill. App.

3d 499, 502 (1985).

¶ 23 We conclude that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion by denying plaintiff’s

motion for a new trial because the jury’s verdict was not against the manifest weight of the

evidence, since a reasonable jury could conclude that not all of the treatment plaintiff

received was reasonable and necessary and that she was not entitled to compensation for the

full amount of the services for which she was billed. First, plaintiff’s argument that the jury

ignored “proven damages” is unfounded because the issues of whether the accident was the

proximate cause of her injuries and whether the treatment she received was necessary were

disputed. She repeatedly asserts that Dr. Rabinowitz testified that her treatment was

“necessary,” but her assertion is not supported by the record. Dr. Rabinowitz testified that,

based on plaintiff’s subjective complaints, he assumed that she suffered a cervical strain,

although he qualified that assumption by stating that the physical findings in the emergency

room records were not typical of a cervical strain. He further explained that GlenOaks’s

emergency room records contained no evidence of the typical signs associated with cervical

strain, which include tenderness, spasm, significant restricted motion, and contusion. Dr.

Rabinowitz acknowledged that the treatment plaintiff received from the time she went to the

emergency room on the date of the accident to the time she was discharged by Dr. Frank was

appropriate, but he never agreed that it was necessary. The questions of whether defendant’s

negligence was the proximate cause of plaintiff’s injuries and whether the treatment she

received for those injuries was reasonable and necessary were disputed at trial. We therefore

reject plaintiff’s claim that the jury ignored “proven damages.”

¶ 24 Furthermore, the jury heard testimony from which it could conclude that plaintiff lacked

credibility. The jury heard that plaintiff did not provide the GlenOaks emergency room

physicians with a history of her neck, back, and shoulder pain, including the numbness she

experienced immediately prior to the accident. Plaintiff testified that she experienced “minor

aches and pains” before the accident. But the jury also heard that plaintiff repeatedly sought

treatment for pain in those areas since 2003. Plaintiff testified that when she was in the

emergency room at GlenOaks, her pain was a 9 out of 10, but the GlenOaks emergency room

records stated that she was not in any acute distress following the accident. Here, the jury

heard all of the evidence and determined that plaintiff was entitled to compensation for some,

but not all, of the treatment she received for the injury she sustained in the accident.

¶ 25 Plaintiff relies on Anderson v. Zamir, 402 Ill. App. 3d 362 (2010), to support her

argument that she is entitled to a new trial. Anderson is distinguishable. There, the plaintiff

sued to recover for injuries she sustained to her neck and shoulder in a car accident. The

-6-

defendants admitted liability for the injury to plaintiff’s neck but contested liability as to the

plaintiff’s shoulder injury. Id. at 364-65. At trial, the plaintiff’s physicians testified that the

plaintiff’s shoulder injury was caused by the accident. Id. at 365-67. The defendants

presented no evidence to contradict the plaintiff’s evidence. Id. at 368. Despite the

uncontested evidence related to causation and uncontested evidence that the plaintiff’s nearly

$29,000 in medical bills were necessary and reasonable, the jury awarded the plaintiff only

$5000 in damages. Id. We reversed and remanded for a new trial on the issues of damages,

finding that “the jury’s verdict simply bears no reasonable relationship to the injuries

established by [the plaintiff] at the trial, and accordingly, the damages award must be

reversed.” Id. Here, defendant presented contrary evidence from which the jury could

conclude that plaintiff had preexisting pain in her neck, shoulder, and back and that the

accident was not the cause of all of plaintiff’s injuries. Furthermore, the jury heard testimony

that called into doubt whether all of the emergency room charges were necessary or

reasonable. We find that Anderson is factually distinguishable and therefore does not control

the outcome here.

¶ 26 We also find unpersuasive plaintiff’s reliance on Tipsword v. Johnson, 59 Ill. App. 3d

834 (1978). There, plaintiffs sued to recover for injuries sustained in an automobile accident.

The plaintiffs went to the emergency room, where they were diagnosed as having suffered

“inertia strain of the neck.” Id. at 835. The jury found that the defendants were liable for

plaintiff’s injuries but awarded the plaintiff $0 in damages. Id. We reversed because there

was no dispute that the plaintiffs had suffered injuries and incurred medical expenses as a

result, and therefore the jury’s award of no damages was erroneous. Id. at 837. Tipsword is

distinguishable because there, the jury awarded $0 in damages despite there being no dispute

that the plaintiffs were injured and incurred some medical expenses that were indisputably

related to their injuries. Here, the jury awarded plaintiff $1000 in damages for medical

expenses, which suggests that the jury believed that plaintiff incurred some medical expenses

for injuries caused by defendant but that plaintiff was not entitled to the full measure of

damages that she sought.

¶ 27 We also reject plaintiff’s argument that the jury’s verdict was against the manifest weight

of the evidence because she was awarded damages that were less than the emergency room

bill she received. The jury heard testimony from Julie Johnson that called into doubt whether

plaintiff was accurately billed for the emergency room services she received. There was

evidence that plaintiff may have been billed twice for X-rays, and that the coding of the

medical services did not objectively correspond to plaintiff’s condition as reflected in the

emergency room records. A reasonable jury could conclude that not all of the emergency

room services for which plaintiff was billed were necessary or reasonable.

¶ 28 Next, plaintiff argues that the jury’s award of $0 for pain and suffering is against the

manifest weight of the evidence because the jury ignored “proven elements damages” related

to pain and suffering. She contends that there was no evidence to contradict Dr. Anderson’s

testimony that plaintiff suffered pain as a result of the injuries she sustained in the collision,

or Dr. Rabinowitz’s testimony that she suffered a cervical strain. But as discussed, Dr.

Rabinowitz testified that there were no objective signs of cervical strain, and that he

assumed, based on plaintiff’s subjective complaints, that plaintiff suffered a cervical strain.

Our supreme court has explained that “[a]n award for pain and suffering is especially

difficult to quantify.” Snover v. McGraw, 172 Ill. 2d 438, 448 (1996). We are to consider the

-7-

distinction between subjective complaints of pain and objective symptoms. Id. at 449. The

court explained:

“In cases in which a plaintiff’s evidence of injury is primarily subjective in nature and

not accompanied by objective symptoms, the jury may choose to disbelieve the

plaintiff’s testimony as to pain. In such a circumstance, the jury may reasonably find

the plaintiff’s evidence of pain and suffering to be unconvincing.” Id.

¶ 29 Here, we find that the jury could reasonably conclude that plaintiff’s complaints of pain

and suffering were unconvincing and that she was not entitled to any damages for pain and

suffering. All of her complaints of pain were subjective. In June 2011, Dr. Anderson

concluded that plaintiff sustained a cervical strain, arm strain, forearm strain, and back strain

based on his evaluation of her as well as her subjective complaints of moderate pain.

Likewise, Dr. Rabinowitz testified that GlenOaks’s medical records on the date of the

accident reflected no objective findings of cervical strain and stated that plaintiff was in no

acute distress. The jury heard conflicting evidence regarding the amount of pain plaintiff was

in when she went to the GlenOaks emergency room on June 11 and could reasonably

conclude that plaintiff’s trial testimony regarding her pain level affected her credibility

regarding the amount of pain she experienced. Furthermore, the jury heard testimony that

plaintiff had a history of pain in her neck, shoulder, and back and could reasonably conclude

that any pain she experienced following the accident was not caused by the accident itself.

We find that the jury did not ignore any proven elements of damages, as defendant presented

some evidence challenging the proximate cause of plaintiff’s injuries, and the jury was free

to make credibility determinations regarding whether plaintiff was entitled to compensatory

damages for her subjective complaints of pain.

¶ 30 In sum, we find that there was at least some evidence from which the jury could conclude

that not all of the medical treatment that plaintiff received was necessary and related to the

accident and that not all of the bills for the medical treatment she received were for services

that that were necessary or reasonable. Furthermore, the jury was free to consider and reject

plaintiff’s subjective complaints of pain and suffering when determining whether to award

compensatory damages for pain and suffering. The jury did not ignore any proven elements

of damages, and therefore we conclude that the jury’s verdict awarding plaintiff $1000 in

damages was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. And, by default, the circuit

court did not abuse its discretion by denying plaintiff’s motion for a new trial.

¶ 31 Finally, we consider whether the circuit court abused its discretion by denying in part

plaintiff’s posttrial motion for costs. Plaintiff contends that the circuit court disallowed

$243.67 in “witness fees,” which she argues are recoverable under section 5-108 of the Code

of Civil Procedure (Code) (735 ILCS 5/5-108 (West 2014)). She argues that these costs were

for record requests for medical bills and that “because the records were introduced at trial

and are witness fees, the trial court abused its discretion when it denied [her] request for

[costs] pursuant to [section 5-108 of the Code].” We disagree.

¶ 32 Section 5-108 of the Code provides:

“If any person sues in any court of this state in any action for damages personal to the

plaintiff, and recovers in such action, then judgment shall be entered in favor of the

plaintiff to recover costs against the defendant, to be taxed, and the same shall be

recovered and enforced as other judgments for the payment of money, except in the

cases hereinafter provided.” Id.

-8-

Although this provision entitling a plaintiff to costs is mandatory, the statutory mandate is to

be narrowly construed because statutes permitting recovery of costs are in derogation of the

common law. Moller v. Lipov, 368 Ill. App. 3d 333, 346-47 (2006). Our supreme court has

previously distinguished between taxable “court costs” and nontaxable “litigation costs.”

Vicencio v. Lincoln-Way Builders, Inc., 204 Ill. 2d 295, 302 (2003). “Court costs” are those

“charges or fees taxed by the court, such as filing fees, jury fees, courthouse fees, and

reporter fees,” whereas “litigation costs” are “the expenses of litigation, prosecution, or other

legal transaction, esp[ecially] those allowed in favor of one party against the other.” (Internal

quotation marks omitted.) Id. Section 5-108 of the Code “mandates the taxing of costs

commonly understood to be ‘court costs,’ such as filing fees, subpoena fees, and statutory

witness fees, to the losing party.” Id. Statutory witness fees include the “fees and mileage

allowance provided by statute for witnesses attending courts in this State.” (Internal

quotation marks omitted.) Id. at 304. However, generally, a successful litigant is not entitled

to recover the ordinary expenses of litigation. Wiegman v. Hitch-Inn Post of Libertyville, Inc.,

308 Ill. App. 3d 789, 804 (1999).

¶ 33 The “witness fees” here are nontaxable litigation costs. Plaintiff fails to acknowledge the

distinction between a taxable court cost and a nontaxable litigation cost. She cites no

authority to support her claim that the costs she incurred to secure medical bills that were

then introduced as exhibits at trial constitute “court costs.” She makes no argument that the

“witness fees” were for statutory witness costs for transportation or attendance at court, as

described in Vicencio. Instead, the “witness fees” appear to be nothing more than the costs to

secure medical bills, which are costs that more closely resemble nontaxable litigation costs

under section 5-108 of the Code. Construing the statute narrowly, as we must, we decline to

find that “witness fees” consisting of record requests for medical bills later introduced as

exhibits at trial amount to taxable court costs. The circuit court did not abuse its discretion

when it declined to award these expenses as costs to plaintiff.

¶ 34 CONCLUSION

¶ 35 For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the circuit court is affirmed.

¶ 36 Affirmed.

-9-