Attorneys representing Prime Healthcare, the company that owns St. Mary’s Hospital in Kankakee, filed a motion asking for sanctions against the Kankakee County State’s Attorney office.

The Feb. 17 filing was discussed Friday during the latest court hearing in the state’s suit against Prime Healthcare relating to the 2025 hearing before the Illinois Health Services and Review Board.

The filing of the motion came from the Chicago law firm of Baker and Hostetler, which represents Prime Healthcare.

Attorney Ryan Hedges argued that in two responses to their motion to dismiss, the state’s attorney’s office has stated incorrect information generated by AI.

“There are two, a response and an amended response, both of which are replete with AI-hallucinated cases, hallucinated quotes, hallucinated page sites,” Hedges said.

“In one instance, the brief changes the statutory language in order to make an argument that isn’t supported by the actual statutory language.”

Rowe said this is the first time his office has had a motion for sanctions when it comes to AI aiding in research.

“We do not have AI programming in our office,” Rowe said in response to a question from the Daily Journal.

“The defendants questioned three specific cases out of many cited in our lawsuit; we corrected and clarified the case citations with an amended filing and are prepared to argue their motion to dismiss.”

Assistant State’s Attorney John Coughlan and Rowe are representing the state.

Google was used to cite cases to argue why the case should not be dismissed.

The two sides are back in court June 17 to sort the motion for sanctions.

AI tools and the law

According to the National Center for State Courts, “AI tools are transforming legal work with the ability to scan millions of cases, statutes, and regulations in seconds. These systems use machine learning, natural language processing, and large language models trained on vast legal datasets to “understand” legal terminology and concepts within their specific domains, and provide insights, identify relationships, and generate content requested by a user.

“Beyond serving legal professionals, AI is expanding access to legal help for people navigating the legal system without an attorney. Chatbots and virtual assistants can prepare legal materials and assist with governmental filings, making verification of AI outputs even more critical.

“Using AI carries both responsibilities and risks for legal professionals, who may be tempted to overrely on AI output without adequate verification.”

Next hearing date

Associate Judge Andrew Purcell asked if both sides could return on May 15 to continue the hearing.

Purcell replaces Circuit Judge Lindsay Parkhurst, who initially was hearing the case.

Prime Healthcare attorneys filed a motion for a substitute judge, which was granted by Chief Judge William Dickenson.

By state statute, each party is allowed one substitution of judge as a matter of right, and it is not necessary to provide any reason.

According to the exhibits attached to the motion for sanctions. Hedges contacted Rowe and Coughlan via email about three cases cited by prosecutors that were incorrect.

A return email from Coughlan thanked Hedges for bringing up the inaccurate citing of case law.

Hedges said in the amended response that the inaccuracies remained.

Coughlan said they would need a month to prepare a response to the sanctions motion.

“How much time do you need on that?” Purcell asked Coughlan.

“I want to go to May 15, your Honor,” Coughlan said.

Hedges was asked how much time he would need to respond. He said two weeks, but had a question.

“I guess I would ask whether there’s a third response for you coming on the motion to dismiss,” Hedges said.

“Well, we’re gonna deal with the motion for sanctions first,” Purcell said.

“So, your point, Mr. Hedges, is because you alleged the initial response included AI hallucinations and amended response, there have been two responses filed. Both have the same issues.

“And I’m not sure what your motion for sanctions is seeking, but I do believe that that’s gonna be tied to their response.

“Do you disagree that the motion for sanctions may need to be addressed first?”

“I don’t disagree,” Hedges said. “One of our points is we shouldn’t be filing a reply to a brief that’s a little bit made up.”

“I understand that,” Purcell said.

When the two sides meet again in court on June 17, there will be only a hearing on sanctions.

Case history

Rowe is asking the court to approve a temporary restraining order against Prime Healthcare, which took ownership of St. Mary’s in March 2025.

In the complaint filed in June 2025, Rowe argued that Prime Healthcare was not being honest when it provided testimony before the state health facilities board regarding Prime Healthcare’s acquisition of St. Mary’s and seven other hospitals from Ascension.

That public hearing was held in September 2024 in Kankakee by the Illinois Health Facilities and Services Review Board.

During the hearing, Fred Ortega, corporate director of public relations for Prime Healthcare, affirmed in his statement to the board that “Prime Healthcare has committed to continuing all services at these facilities and hopes to expand services based upon community needs,” according to a court filing.

When taking over the hospitals, Prime said no changes would occur for 18 to 24 months as it studied the cost of services being offered.

The board approved the sale in December 2024, and Prime Healthcare took ownership on March 1, 2025.

Since formally taking ownership of the nonprofit St. Mary’s Hospital and other facilities, Prime has eliminated the childbirth, labor and delivery services in Kankakee, as well as patient care managers. These actions occurred less than 50 days after the sale was closed, Rowe argued in the original filing.

In Prime Healthcare’s motion to dismiss, they argue that Prime requested a voluntary suspension of its Level II trauma designation from the state based on its lack of OB surgical coverage.

The health care company said every service-line change has followed all applicable requirements of the Illinois Health Facilities and Services Review Board and the Illinois Department of Public Health.

The motion to dismiss said that the complaint must allege facts supporting the essential elements of a cause of action.

The motion to dismiss also said that Rowe’s office does not have the authority to bring this case under the state’s Planning Act.

That responsibility belongs to the Illinois Health Facilities and Services Review Board, the Illinois Department of Public Health and the Attorney General.