 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Neal v. Yang9/30/2004
ersion of the Act immunizes a doctor from liability if a three-part test is passed: (1) the doctor must not have notice of the injury; (2) the doctor must provide emergency care; and (3) the doctor must not charge a fee. Blanchard, 331 Ill. App. 3d at 967. Plaintiff does not dispute that defendant satisfied these elements. Rather, plaintiff maintains that, in a case where a physician, such as defendant, has a particular employment contract requiring her to render resuscitation to patients, or, in other words, a pre-existing duty to render such care to patients, then the aid the physician offers is not "voluntary" in the sense of a Good Samaritan. Plaintiff points out that the legislature addressed this limited applicability of the Act in the Act's legislative purpose statement, which provides:
"The General Assembly has established numerous protections for the generous and compassionate acts of its citizens who volunteer their time and talents to help others. These protections or good samaritan provisions have been codified in many Acts of the Illinois Compiled Statutes. This Act recodifies existing good samaritan provisions. Further, without limitation the provisions of this Act shall be liberally construed to encourage persons to volunteer their time and talents." (Emphasis added.) 745 ILCS 49/2 (West 1996).
Plaintiff argues that the Act applies only to those persons who volunteer their services and that, therefore, a court must address the additional element of whether the person claiming the Act's immunity was a "volunteer" with no pre-existing duty to render care to the patient.
We must analyze this question under the rules of statutory construction. The primary rule of statutory construction requires courts to give effect to the intent of the legislature. Boaden v. Department of Law Enforcement, 171 Ill. 2d 230, 237 (1996). The best indication of the legislature's intent is the language of the subject statute, and courts must give clear and unambiguous terms in a statute their plain and ordinary meaning. Brooks v. City of Peoria, 305 Ill. App. 3d 806, 811 (1999). A court has no right to say that the legislature did not mean what the plain language of the statute provides. In re D.L., 191 Ill. 2d 1, 9 (2000).
We find that the plain language of section 25 contains no requirement that a physician prove the absence of a pre-existing duty to the patient for the Act to apply. Moreover, although the legislature indicated its desire to foster volunteerism in emergency medical cases in the preamble to the Act, it did not expressly require that a doctor be a "volunteer" to be immunized under section 25. The legislature required only that the doctor have no notice, provide emergency care, and not charge a fee. It is apparent that, in enacting section 25, the legislature intended to protect physicians who render emergency medical care from malpractice actions.
Plaintiff claims that, in those Good Samaritan immunity cases related to emergency care rendered in hospital settings, the courts have always assessed first whether there was a pre-existing duty to render emergency aid. There are only a handful of cases in Illinois addressing section 25 of the Act under circumstances where emergency situations arose within hospital settings. While the Act was originally enacted to "encourage good samaritans to do the right thing on the streets of Illinois, * without fear of repercussions in a court of law" (89th Ill. Gen. Assem., House Proceedings, March 25, 1996, at 100 (statements of Representative Lang)), it is clear that courts have liberally construed the plain language of the Act and have applied it to emergency situations at hospitals with physicians who allegedly ha
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Illinois Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|