Bass v. Cook County Hospital , 29 N.E.3d 1130 ( 2015 )

2015 IL App (1st) 142665SIXTH DIVISION
OPINION FILED:March 20, 2015
No. 1-14-2665
______________________________________________________________________________
IN THE
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS
FIRST DISTRICT
________________________________________________________________________
DENISE BASS, Indiv. and as Independent ) Appeal from the Circuit Court
Adm'r of the Estate of Donail Weems, ) of Cook County
Deceased, )
)
Plaintiff-Appellee, )
)
v. ) No. 08 L 14343
)
)
Cook County Hospital d/b/a Provident )
Hospital, )
)
Defendant )
)
University of Chicago Hospital, ) Honorable
) Moira S. Johnson,
Defendant-Appellant. ) Judge, Presiding.
______________________________________________________________________________
PRESIDING JUSTICE HOFFMAN delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion.
Justices Hall and Rochford concurred in the judgment and opinion.
OPINION
¶1 The plaintiff, Denise Bass, Individually and as Independent Administrator of the Estate of
Donail Weems, Deceased 1, filed a medical malpractice action against the defendants, Cook
1
Initially, Bass sued as mother and next friend of Donail, a minor. However, Donail died during
2015 IL App (1st) 142665County Hospital d/b/a Provident Hospital (Provident) and the University of Chicago Hospital
(UCH), alleging that 11-year-old Donail received negligent emergency medical treatment on
September 3, 2006. UCH filed a motion for summary judgment, pursuant to section 2-1005 of
the Code of Civil Procedure (Code) (735 ILCS 5/2-1005 (West 2012)), asserting civil immunity
from the plaintiff's allegations under section 3.150 of the Emergency Medical Services Systems
Act (Act) (210 ILCS 50/3.150. (West 2012)). On July 23, 2014, the circuit court denied UCH's
motion, but it certified one question, pursuant to Illinois Supreme Court Rule 308 (eff. Feb. 26,
2010), for our review:
"Whether a defendant hospital is immune from vicarious liability under the Emergency
Medical Services Systems Act for the allegedly negligent medical services rendered by
its certified flight physician after he arrives at the transferring hospital, assumes care, and
transports the patient to another hospital?"
¶2 UCH timely filed an application for leave to appeal under Rule 308, which we granted on
September 24, 2014. For the reasons that follow, we answer the certified question in the
affirmative.
¶3 For purposes of context, we briefly discuss the general provisions of the Act. The Act
has been described as a "comprehensive, omnibus source of rules governing the planning,
delivery, evaluation, and regulation of emergency medical services." Abruzzo v. City of Park
Ridge, 231 Ill. 2d 324, 341 (2008). The purpose of the Act is to provide "minimum standards for
the statewide delivery of" emergency services, recognizing that "diversities exist between
the pendency of this litigation, and on January 27, 2014, Bass filed a second amended complaint
reflecting this fact and substituting her position as the administrator of Donail's estate.
-2-
2015 IL App (1st) 142665different areas of the State, based on geography, location of health care facilities, availability of
personnel, and financial resources." 210 ILCS 50/2 (West 2012).
¶4 In order to fulfill the stated purpose, the Act provides that the Department of Public
Health (Department) shall designate Emergency Medical Services (EMS) regions (210 ILCS
50/3.15 (West 2012)) and oversee each region's "EMS System" (210 ILCS 50/3.20 (West 2012)).
An EMS System is defined as "an organization of hospitals, vehicle service providers and
personnel approved by the Department in a specific geographic region." 210 ILCS 50/3.20(a)
(West 2012). The entities within an EMS System coordinate and provide services pursuant to a
plan submitted to and approved by the Department. Id. Each system must have a "resource
hospital," and that hospital is required to create its region's EMS System plan, appoint an EMS
Medical Director, administer and oversee its plan, and educate the participants regarding plan
protocols. 210 ILCS 50/3.35 (West 2012). All other hospitals within the designated region
which have "standby, basic or comprehensive level emergency departments" function in their
EMS System as either an "Associate Hospital" or "Participating Hospital." 210 ILCS 50/3.20(b)
(West 2012). Associate or participating hospitals must "follow all System policies specified in
the System Program Plan." Id.¶5 The EMS System plan is required to address protocols for patient transports, disaster
preparedness plan, and other scenarios that arise during emergencies, such as the handling of
"Do Not Resuscitate" instructions. 210 ILCS 50/3.30 (West 2012). The scope of services
encompassed by the Act includes advanced, intermediate, and basic life support services, first
response services, pre-hospital care, inter-hospital care, and critical care transport. 210 ILCS
50/3.10 (West 2012) (defining each type of service).
-3-
2015 IL App (1st) 142665¶6 In this case, UCH served as one of four designated resource hospitals in Chicago, and
Provident was a participating hospital within UCH's EMS System plan. UCH's Aeromedical
Network (UCAN) participates in the EMS System plan as UCH's medical transport service for
pre-hospital and inter-hospital transfers of patients to and between hospitals. See 210 ILCS
50/3.20(b) (West 2012) (stating that all hospitals and vehicle service providers participating in an
EMS System must specify their level of participation). Dr. Eric Beck, a UCH physician, served
as the EMS Medical Director for this region and was responsible for administering the EMS
System plan approved by the Department. As the EMS Medical Director, Dr. Beck was
authorized by the Act to designate other physicians to administer the plan in his absence. See
210 ILCS 50/3.35(b) (West 2012). Dr. Ira Blumen, a UCH emergency room physician, was the
physician designated by Dr. Beck to administer the plan in his absence on September 3, 2006,
the date of Donail's emergency inter-hospital transfer.
¶7 The undisputed facts establish that Donail began to have breathing difficulties on the
evening of September 2, 2006. Pursuant to a previous diagnosis of asthma in 2003, Bass and
Donail were instructed to use an Albuterol inhaler and nebulizer to treat Donail's symptoms as
needed. On that night, after Donail's Albuterol inhaler and nebulizer treatments failed to help
him, Bass called an ambulance. Donail was taken to Provident Hospital, where he was treated in
the emergency room by Dr. Linda Lynch and resident physician, Dr. Michael Hohlastos. At
approximately 6:45 a.m. on the morning of September 3, 2006, Donail was intubated and
connected to a mechanical ventilator, and his physicians determined that he needed to be
transferred to the nearest hospital with a Pediatric Intensive Care Unit (PICU).
¶8 At approximately 7:20 a.m. on that morning, Dr. Hohlastos contacted Provident's
resource hospital, UCH, to request an emergency transport for Donail to UCH's PICU. Dr.
-4-
2015 IL App (1st) 142665Norma Lopez-Molina, a UCH PICU physician, received the call from Dr. Hohlastos and
contacted UCAN to request the emergency transfer. Dr. Blumen, in his capacity as acting EMS
Medical Director, authorized the transfer and directed Dr. Nicholas Strane, a UCH emergency
room resident physician and UCAN certified flight physician, to assist in the transport. Dr.
Strane was also authorized under the EMS System plan as an "Emergency Communications
Physician."
¶9 After receiving Dr. Blumen's order, Dr. Strane and certified flight registered nurse,
Therese Campbell 2, rode in the UCAN-ambulance to pick up Donail at Provident. They arrived
at approximately 8:27 a.m. Dr. Strane assessed Donail's condition, determining that he was in
respiratory distress, extremely tachycardic, sedated, intubated, and unresponsive. The EMS team
took Donail off the mechanical ventilator and placed him on a manual bag ventilator. Donail
was transferred onto a gurney and into the ambulance. The ambulance left Provident at 8:48
a.m., with Dr. Strane and Nurse Campbell taking turns operating Donail's manual bag ventilator.
¶ 10 At 9:07 a.m., the ambulance arrived at UCH, and the EMS team accompanied Donail to
the PICU. On the way to the PICU, Donail became severely bradycardic and required chest
compressions on two occasions to improve his circulation. The EMS team arrived in the PICU
at 9:09 a.m. at which time Donail went into cardiac arrest. At that same time, Dr. Strane and
Nurse Campbell released Donail to the care of the attending UCH PICU physicians and nurses
and that team revived him. However, Donail sustained an anoxic brain injury and subsequently
died on July 12, 2013.
2
¶1 Nurse Campbell's conduct is not at issue in this case.
-5-
2015 IL App (1st) 142665¶ 11 On December 30, 2008, Bass filed a medical malpractice action against Provident. On
June 18, 2012, she filed an amended complaint adding UCH as a defendant, alleging, in relevant
part, that UCH was vicariously liable for Dr. Strane's negligence in failing to: manage and treat
Donail's abnormally high pCO2 levels prior to his transfer; perform aggressive asthma
management and treatment prior to his transfer; address Donail's worsening respiratory failure
prior to his transfer; recognize the improper paralytics administered in the emergency room prior
to transfer; and provide proper ventilator management prior to and during the transfer.
¶ 12 After extensive discovery, UCH moved for summary judgment on May 5, 2014, arguing
that the civil immunity provided by section 3.150 of the Act (210 ILCS 50/3.150 (West 2012))
applied to the medical treatment provided by Dr. Strane to Donail during the emergency inter-
hospital transport. Therefore, UCH contended that it was also immune from liability as Dr.
Strane's employer. On July 23, 2014, the circuit court denied UCH's motion, acknowledging that
another circuit court in Cook County had issued an opposite decision in a case involving similar
facts.
¶ 13 As noted, this appeal comes to us in the form of a certified question pursuant to Rule 308,
and the resolution of that question requires us to interpret section 3.150 of the Act. The
fundamental principle of statutory construction is to ascertain and give effect to the legislature's
intent. Illinois Dep't of Fin. & Prof'l Regulation v. Rodriquez, 2012 IL 113706, ¶ 13. The
language of the statute is the most reliable indicator of the legislature's objectives in enacting a
particular law, and we give statutory language its plain and ordinary meaning. Id. Where the
language of a statute is clear and unambiguous, we must apply it without resort to further aids of
statutory construction. Id. Moreover, "[w]e must not depart from the plain language of the Act
by reading into it exceptions, limitations, or conditions that conflict with the express legislative
-6-
2015 IL App (1st) 142665intent." Town & Country Utilities, Inc. v. Illinois Pollution Control Bd., 225 Ill. 2d 103, 117
(2007). Finally, "words and phrases should not be construed in isolation, but must be interpreted
in light of other relevant provisions of the statute." Id. Questions of law, such as those involving
statutory construction, are reviewed de novo. O'Casek v. Children's Home & Aid Society of
Illinois, 229 Ill. 2d 421, 440 (2008).
¶ 14 UCH contends that the treatment rendered by Dr. Strane falls under the immunity
provisions provided by section 3.150(a) of the Act, which states:
"(a) Any person, agency or governmental body certified, licensed or authorized
pursuant to this Act or rules thereunder, who in good faith provides emergency or non-
emergency medical services during a Department approved training course, in the normal
course of conducting their duties, or in an emergency, shall not be civilly liable as a result
of their acts or omissions in providing such services unless such acts or omissions,
including the bypassing of nearby hospitals or medical facilities in accordance with the
protocols developed pursuant to this Act, constitute willful and wanton misconduct." 210
ILCS 50/3.150(a) (West 2012).
¶ 15 According to UCH, Dr. Strane fits each requirement for immunity under section 3.150(a),
including that he: (1) is a person licensed or authorized pursuant to the Act or rules thereunder;
and (2) provided emergency medical services (3) in the normal course of conducting his duties.
Because Dr. Strane is immune under this section of the Act, UCH maintains it is also immune as
his employer under the doctrine of respondeat superior. Bass counter-argues that the Act was
not intended to provide civil immunity for all emergency physicians, but only to the types of
EMS personnel clearly defined within it.
-7-
2015 IL App (1st) 142665¶ 16 We agree with Bass that the Act defines and sets forth the licensing requirements for
various types of EMS personnel. See 210 ILCS 50/3.50 (West 2012) ("Emergency Medical
Technician"); 210 ILCS 50/3.60 (West 2012) ("First Responder"); 210 ILCS 50/3.65 (West
2012) ("EMS Lead Instructor"); 210 ILCS 50/3.70 (West 2012) ("Emergency Medical
Dispatcher"); 210 ILCS 50/3.75 (West 2012) ("Trauma Nurse Specialist (TNS) Certification");
210 ILCS 50/3.80 (West 2012) ("Pre-Hospital RN and Emergency Communications Registered
Nurse"); 210 ILCS 50/3.85 (West 2012) ("Vehicle Service Providers"); 210 ILCS 50/3.86 (West
2012) ("Stretcher Van Providers"). While Dr. Beck averred in his affidavit that Dr. Strane "was
licensed to be part of the EMS System as an Emergency Communications Physician (ECP)," the
Act does not provide a definition or licensing requirements for an "Emergency Communications
Physician." However, we disagree with Bass's position that this fact establishes that the Act did
not intend to provide civil immunity for Dr. Strane in the case at bar.
¶ 17 Section 3.150(a) does not limit its protection only to those "licensed" pursuant to the Act
as it states that "[a]ny person *** certified, licensed, or authorized pursuant to this Act or rules
thereunder *** shall not be civilly liable as a result of [his] acts or omissions in providing"
emergency services in the normal course of conducting his duties. (Emphasis added.) 210 ILCS
50/3.150(a) (West 2012). "Authorize" is defined as: "to endorse, empower, justify, or permit by
or as if by some recognized or proper authority"; "to furnish grounds for"; "to give legality or
effective force to (a power, instrument, order)"; "to endow with authority or effective legal
power, warrant or right." Webster's New International Dictionary 146 (3rd ed. 1986). Applying
the plain meaning of "authorize" to the Act's language, we find that, while Dr. Strane may not
have been "licensed" pursuant to the Act, he certainly was "authorized" by it to participate in
Donail's inter-hospital emergency transport.
-8-
2015 IL App (1st) 142665¶ 18 It is not disputed that Dr. Beck had designated Dr. Blumen to act as EMS Medical
Director and that, on September 3, 2006, Dr. Blumen granted the request of a participant hospital
to provide an emergency inter-hospital transport for Donail, pursuant to the regional EMS
System Plan. As part of the responsibilities of a resource hospital and EMS Medical Director,
UCH and Dr. Blumen were required to:
"Utilize levels of personnel required by the Department to provide emergency
care to the sick and injured at the scene of an emergency, during transport to a hospital or
during inter-hospital transport and within the hospital emergency department until the
responsibility for the care of the patient is assumed by the medical personnel of a hospital
emergency department or other facility within the hospital to which the patient is first
delivered by System personnel." 210 ILCS 50/3.35(n) (West 2012).
¶ 19 Specifically, for critical care transports, the Act states that:
"When medically indicated for a patient, as determined by a physician licensed to
practice medicine in all of its branches, an advanced practice nurse, or a physician's
assistant, in compliance with subsections (b) and (c) of Section 3.155 of this Act, critical
care transport may be provided by:
(1) Department-approved critical care transport providers, not owned or operated
by a hospital, utilizing EMT-paramedics with additional training, nurses, or other
qualified health professionals; or
(2) Hospitals, when utilizing any vehicle service provider or any hospital-owned
or operated vehicle service provider." 210 ILCS 50/3.10(f-5) (West 2012).
¶ 20 In reading sections 3.35(n) and 3.10(f-5), it is clear that the Act contemplated that
medical personnel with expertise beyond the scope of that of EMT's and paramedics, including
-9-
2015 IL App (1st) 142665physicians, will be called upon when executing EMS System plans for transporting critically ill
patients, such as Donail. As further evidence thereof, Dr. Strane was trained in the EMS System
plan and authorized to participate as an ECP and in transports of critically ill patients. We agree
with UCH that, when Dr. Blumen assigned Dr. Strane to assist in Donail's transport, he did so
using the authorities proscribed to him by the Act. Thus, Dr. Strane was also "authorized" under
the Act to participate in the emergency transport of Donail.
¶ 21 In so holding, we reject Bass's argument that section 3.155 supports her position that the
Act did not intend to provide immunity to emergency physicians. Section 3.155 states:
"(a) Authority and responsibility for the EMS System shall be vested in the EMS
Resource Hospital, through the EMS Medical Director or his designee.
(b) For an inter-hospital emergency or non-emergency medical transport, in which
the physician from the sending hospital provides the EMS personnel with written medical
orders, such written medical orders cannot exceed the scope of care which the EMS
personnel are authorized to render pursuant to the Act.
(c) For an inter-hospital emergency or non-emergency medical transport of a
patient who requires medical care beyond the scope of care which the EMS personnel are
authorized to render pursuant to this Act, a qualified physician, nurse, perfusionist, or
respiratory therapist familiar with the scope of care needed must accompany the patient
and the transferring hospital and physician shall assume medical responsibility for that
portion of the medical care."
¶ 22 Reading this provision along with section 3.10(f-5), it is clear that, when medical care
exceeding the scope of a paramedic's duties is necessary for an inter-hospital emergency transfer,
a physician or other medical professional is required to assist. Further, the transferring hospital
- 10 -
2015 IL App (1st) 142665assumes medical responsibility for the patient during that transport. While this section makes it
clear that the transferring hospital will assume medical responsibility for that portion of the
patient's care, it is silent as to the legal liability for that medical care. We do not read a
limitation in section 3.155 which is not present.
¶ 23 Our conclusion is supported by our supreme court's decision in Wilkins v. Wilkins, 2013
IL 114310, ¶ 20. In Wilkins, the supreme court determined that the Act provided immunity to an
ambulance driver for a third-party negligence claim, noting that the plain language of the Act did
not limit statutory immunity only to the claims raised by patients in the ambulance. Id., ¶ ¶ 20,
22 (the court must not read an exception into a statute that does not exist). Likewise, we do not
find that section 3.155's reference to "medical responsibility" creates a limitation on the
immunity afforded in section 3.150(a).
¶ 24 Bass also argues that sections 3.150(c) (210 ILCS 50/3.150(c) (West 2012) and 3.150(g)
(210 ILCS 50/3.150(g) (West 2012)) establish the Act's intention to limit immunity. She asserts
that, had the Act intended to provide blanket immunity, section 3.150(c), which states that
"[e]xemption from civil liability for emergency care is provided in the Good Samaritan Act (745
ILCS 49/1 et seq. (West 2012)), and section 3.150(g), which affords immunity specifically to
EMS Medical Directors, would be superfluous. We disagree.
¶ 25 It is a general rule of construction that where a statute can be reasonably interpreted so as
to give effect to all its provisions, a court will not adopt a strained reading which renders one part
superfluous. Panarese v. Hosty, 104 Ill. App. 3d 627, 628-29 (1982). Our interpretation of
section 3.150(a) as applying to Dr. Strane does not render sections 3.150(c) or 3.150(g)
superfluous. Section 3.150(c) simply states that civil immunity afforded to situations involving
volunteer medical personnel is derived through the Good Samaritan Act. In this case, it is
- 11 -
2015 IL App (1st) 142665undisputed that all medical personnel involved were acting within the scope of their
employment. Further, while section 3.150(a) provides for civil immunity for those providing
emergency medical services to "any person," section 3.150(g) provides immunity, not limited to
medical services, for "damages in any civil action" for EMS Medical Directors exercising, in
good faith, "his responsibilities under [the] Act." (Emphasis added.) Accordingly, we reject
Bass's contention that finding section 3.150(a) applies to Dr. Strane's conduct renders other
provisions of the Act meaningless.
¶ 26 Moreover, we find that existing cases, although not directly on point with the facts of this
case, have determined that physicians providing services within the scope of the Act enjoy
immunity. For instance, in Washington v. City of Evanston, 336 Ill. App. 3d 117, 119 (2002), the
plaintiff sued St. Francis Hospital and Dr. Therese Kloempken after the doctor provided verbal
instructions to paramedics responding to the her emergency breech-baby delivery. The attending
emergency room physician, Dr. Hector Aguilera, asked Dr. Kloempken, an obstetrical resident at
the hospital, to assist in directing the paramedics on what to do. Id. The trial court granted
summary judgment in favor of the defendants on the bases that they were immune under the Act.
Id. at 121. The appellate court determined that Dr. Kloempken was not immune under section
3.150(a) of the Act because: she was not an emergency room physician; she was unfamiliar with
EMS protocols; and she had not been approved by the EMS Director to participate in the EMS
System plan of St. Francis Hospital, the resource hospital for its region. Id. at 122-23. However,
the appellate court determined that Dr. Kloempken was nonetheless immune pursuant to section
3.150(b) of the Act, because at Dr. Aguilera's request, she supervised the paramedics. Id. at 123.
The court noted that it was "uncontested that the paramedics were certified pursuant to the Act
and that the delivery of the baby [was] within the scope of emergency medical services
- 12 -
2015 IL App (1st) 142665contemplated by the Act." Id. Thus, the court determined that there was "no question that Dr.
Kloempken was engaged in 'supervision' of 'emergency medical services personnel certified,
licensed or authorized pursuant to [the] Act' and [that] her alleged misconduct occurred 'in
connection with activities within the scope of [the] Act.' " Id., quoting 210 ILCS 50/3.150(b)
(West 1996)). Finally, the court determined that St. Francis Hospital itself was immune pursuant
to section 3.150(b), because, as the resource hospital, it "coordinates, monitors and supervises
the EMS System" for its region. Id. at 129.
¶ 27 Bass argues that Dr. Strane was an "ER doctor providing care to Donail during a hospital
to hospital transfer" and that he "was acting within his training as an emergency room physician."
Bass contends that the Act provides immunity to physicians only when supervising or instructing
EMT's or paramedics, such as Dr. Kloempken was doing in Washington. However, we neither
read the plain language of the Act nor the holding in Washington to contain such limitation.
Wilkins, 2013 IL 114310, ¶ ¶ 20, 22. Applying the logic in Washington to the facts of this case
leads to our outcome; that is, the immunity provided in section 3.150(a) applies to the services
Dr. Strane delivered during Donail's emergency inter-hospital transport. Unlike Dr. Kloempken
in Washington, Dr. Strane is an emergency physician who was familiar with and trained under
the EMS System plan. Specifically, he was trained and certified in the plan protocols and
authorized to participate as an ECP and flight physician. Furthermore, Dr. Strane was directed
by Dr. Blumen, the acting EMS Medical Director, to assist in Donail's emergency transport, a
medical service undisputedly contemplated by the Act. It then follows that, because Dr. Strane is
immune, UCH is also immune from the plaintiff's claims based on vicarious liability. Vancura v.
Katris, 238 Ill. 2d 352, 375 (2010). We therefore answer the certified question in the
affirmative.
- 13 -
2015 IL App (1st) 142665¶ 28 For the sake of completeness, we note that Washington similarly supports UCH's
alternate argument that it is immune under section 3.150(b). That section states:
"(b) No person, including any private or governmental organization or institution
that administers, sponsors, authorizes, supports, finances, educates or supervises the
functions of emergency medical services personnel certified, licensed or authorized
pursuant to this Act, including persons participating in a Department approved training
program, shall be liable for any civil damages for any act or omission in connection with
administration, sponsorship, authorization, support, finance, education or supervision of
such emergency medical services personnel, where the act or omission occurs in
connection with activities within the scope of this Act, unless the act or omission was the
result of willful and wanton misconduct." 210 ILCS 50/3.150(b) (West 2012).
¶ 29 In Washington, the court determined that St. Francis Hopsital was immune from civil
liability for Dr. Kloempken's role supervising paramedics on the telephone regarding a breech-
baby delivery. Id. at 129. The court determined that St. Francis, as its region's resource hospital,
had to coordinate, monitor and supervise its EMS System. Id. Dr. Aguilera, in his capacity as
the EMS Medical Director designee, chose to utilize Dr. Kloempken in the EMS System plan,
despite her unfamiliarity with it, because of her obstetrical training and the nature of the
plaintiff's emergency. Id. at 129-30.
¶ 30 Likewise, UCH, as the region's resource hospital, "administers *** or supervises the
functions of emergency medical services personnel certified, licensed or authorized pursuant to
[the] Act." 210 ILCS 50/3.150(b) (West 2012). Dr. Blumen, in his capacity as acting EMS
Medical Director, decided that Donail's medical condition required medical emergency services
exceeding the scope of services an EMT-paramedic could provide, and assigned Dr. Strane to
- 14 -
2015 IL App (1st) 142665assist in the transfer. Under these facts, like St. Francis Hospital in Washington, UCH is also
immune from civil liability under section 3.150(b).
¶ 31 Finally, we reject the plaintiff's contention that our outcome somehow provides blanket
immunity for practicing emergency physicians. On the contrary, the scope of services covered
by the Act is limited to the emergency medical services described therein, which includes inter-
hospital emergency transports of critically-ill patients. Our decision further supports the policy
behind the Act, as succinctly stated by another court:
"[The Act] expressly states that the intent of this legislation is to provide Illinois a
system for emergency medical services by establishing a central authority to coordinate
and integrate the planning, evaluation, and regulation of pre-hospital emergency medical
services systems. With that general purpose in mind, we are persuaded that by enactment
of the immunity provision, the legislature intended to encourage emergency response by
trained medical personnel without risk of malpractice liability for every bad outcome or
unfortunate occurrence. Emergency situations are often fraught with tension, confusion,
and as here, difficult physical locations for giving medical care. Emergency personnel
must not be afraid to do whatever they can under less than ideal circumstances." Gleason
v. Village of Peoria Heights, 207 Ill. App. 3d 185, 188-89 (1990) (in context of EMTs
response to victim of diving accident at beach which resulted in quadriplegia despite
efforts to stabilize spine at the scene and during transport to hospital).
¶ 32 For similar reasons, we believe the Act's immunity provision intended to cover those
medical personnel attending to an emergency inter-hospital transport like Donail's. The various
provisions of the Act make it clear that EMS Medical Directors are authorized to engage
qualified medical personnel, including physicians, when an emergency situation necessitates
- 15 -
2015 IL App (1st) 142665medical services exceeding the skill of EMTs or paramedics and that such personnel must not be
afraid to participate under the less-than-ideal conditions which exist during a frantic ambulance
transport. An opposite outcome would serve to discourage EMS Medical Directors from
utilizing medical personnel with advanced training during such emergencies and non-emergency
transports, which would defeat the very purpose behind the Act and its immunity provision.
¶ 33 Based on the foregoing reasons, we answer the certified question in the affirmative and
remand the cause to the circuit court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
¶ 34 Certified question answered; cause remanded.
- 16 -