# Tosado v. Miller

> Illinois Supreme Court · October 21, 1999 · 188 Ill. 2d 186

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9742174

## Case

- **Full name:** LINNETTE CONCEPCION TOSADO, Appellant, v. A. MILLER Et Al., Appellees; GAIL PHIPPS, Appellant, v. LINCOLN MEDICAL CENTER, LTD., Et Al., Appellees
- **Court:** Illinois Supreme Court
- **Decided:** October 21, 1999
- **Citations:** 188 Ill. 2d 186; 242 Ill. Dec. 120; 720 N.E.2d 1075; 1999 Ill. LEXIS 975
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Harrison
- **Judges:** Miller, Heiple, Freeman, Harrison, McMorrow, Rathje
- **Cited by:** 67 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9742174

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- finding that retroactive application of its decision was appropriate because the statutory language of the statute interpreted by the decision foreshadowed its interpretation; therefore, the decision did not announce a new principle of law

## Opinion text

JUSTICE HARRISON, dissenting:
Contrary to the plurality, I believe that Lanxon v. Magnus, 296 Ill. App. 3d 377 (3rd Dist. 1998), Cleaver v. Marrese, 253 Ill. App. 3d 778 (5th Dist. 1993), and Murray v. Sheahan, 991 F. Supp. 1052 (N.D. Ill. 1998), were correctly decided. Accordingly, plaintiffs’ medical malpractice actions should be governed by the two-year limitations period for medical malpractice actions set forth in the Code of Civil Procedure rather than the generic one-year limitations period set forth in the Tort Immunity Act. Because plaintiffs filed their complaints within the applicable two-year limitations period, defendants’ motions to dismiss were properly denied, and the judgment of the appellate court should be reversed.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9742174. Public record. Not legal advice.