Cookson v. Price, No. 109321 presented the question as to whether trial court properly dismissed plaintiff’s medical malpractice claim for failure to provide sufficient physician’s report required under 735 ILCS 5/2-622 where plaintiff attempted to amend insufficient report with second report that had been authored by different medical professional. Trial court found that plaintiff was not seeking to amend consultation report, but was attempting to substitute wholly new report that was not timely since it had been tendered after 90-day extension of time that had previously been granted to plaintiff under section 2-622. Appellate Court, in reversing trial court, found that plaintiff could amend initial report since there was no statutory bar to substituting report by new author. This case will impact medical malpractice cases.