In re T.J
IL Appellate Court 1st District March 25, 2026 2026 IL App (1st) 242406
Expert medical testimony required in medical-neglect cases; medical records alone cannot substitute for proof of medication necessity and health consequences.
Hospital investigative reports fail business-records exception; CAPS reports are investigative documents prepared in anticipation of litigation, not routine business records.
Relevant for child welfare practitioners challenging neglect findings, DCFS attorneys defending evidentiary standards, and parents' counsel opposing removal orders without proper procedural safeguards.

In re T.J. addresses three critical evidentiary and procedural issues in a child welfare case where the circuit court found a minor neglected based on the mother's refusal to administer prescribed anti-seizure medication. The court vacated the neglect finding, holding that the State failed to present sufficient evidence because it relied exclusively on medical records without live expert testimony explaining the necessity of the medication and consequences of non-treatment. The court rejected the notion that judges can reliably translate complex medical information into concrete medical conclusions without expert assistance, overruling dicta in In re Erin A. suggesting expert testimony is never required in medical-neglect cases.

The court also vacated the admission of a CAPS investigative report under the business-records exception, finding that hospital abuse-and-neglect investigative reports—which involve reviewing years of records, interviewing physicians, and reaching legal conclusions—exceed the scope of routine business records and lack required statutory certification. The report may be admissible on remand as an "indicated report" under a separate statutory provision.

Finally, the court vacated the order vacating the protective order, holding that the State's oral motion violated statutory procedure requiring a written petition and that the circuit court violated due process by denying the mother an opportunity to respond before severing the parent-child bond. This decision significantly strengthens evidentiary standards in medical-neglect cases and procedural protections for parents in child welfare proceedings.

Overrules: In re Erin A., 2012 IL App (1st) 120050, ¶ 7 (dicta suggesting expert testimony is never required in medical-neglect cases); In re H.B.-H., 2025 IL App (1st) 242275, ¶ 74 (relying on Erin A. dicta); In re R.R., 2021 IL App (4th) 200563-U, ¶ 17 (relying on Erin A. dicta)
Manolachi v. Costea
IL Appellate Court 1st District March 23, 2026 2026 IL App (1st) 240524
Judicial admissions in verified complaints establish employee status and bar negligence claims under Workers' Compensation Act's exclusive remedy provision.
Courts may consider factual admissions in verified pleadings on motions to dismiss; 1099 forms insufficient to contradict control-based admissions.
Relevant for employment counsel defending negligence claims by workers, and litigators challenging pleadings containing admissions that resolve factual disputes.

Emil Manolachi filed a negligence complaint against Gheorghe C. Costea and Osiris Construction, Inc. following a workplace injury. The original complaint was dismissed as a sanction in 2022 due to plaintiff's suborning of perjury. Plaintiff refiled in April 2023 with a verified complaint. Defendants moved to dismiss under section 2-619(a)(9), arguing the Workers' Compensation Act's exclusive remedies provision barred the claim. The trial court granted the motion with prejudice, and plaintiff appealed.

The appellate court affirmed the dismissal, holding that plaintiff's verified complaint contained judicial admissions establishing his employee status. Specifically, the complaint admitted that defendants exclusively controlled and directed the manner of work, plaintiff was under defendants' direct supervision, and defendants built and maintained the scaffold. These admissions withdrew factual disputes from issue and established plaintiff as an employee covered by the Workers' Compensation Act under 820 ILCS 305/5(a) and 305/11. The court rejected plaintiff's reliance on 1099 forms, finding them insufficient to contradict the admissions regarding defendants' control.

The court also held that trial courts properly consider judicial admissions in verified pleadings when ruling on motions to dismiss. Factual admissions in verified complaints bind the pleader throughout litigation and cannot be contradicted absent mistake or inadvertence. Defendants' cross-appeal regarding sanctions was dismissed as moot.