Home Star Bank & Fin. Servs. v. Emergency Care & Health Org., Ltd.

Decision Date20 March 2014
Docket NumberNo. 115526.,115526.
Citation379 Ill.Dec. 51,2014 IL 115526,6 N.E.3d 128
PartiesHOME STAR BANK AND FINANCIAL SERVICES, Guardian of the Estate of Edward Anderson, a Disabled Person, et al., Appellees, v. EMERGENCY CARE AND HEALTH ORGANIZATION, LTD., et al., Appellants.
CourtIllinois Supreme Court

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Kevin J. Verdrine, Christopher J. Solfa and Robert L. Larsen, Cunningham, Meyer & Vedrine, P.C., Warrenville, for appellant.

Keith A. Hebeisen, Clifford Law Offices, Chicago (Robert P. Sheridan, of counsel), for appellees.

Mary Alice McLarty and Valerie M. Nannery, Washington, D.C., and James P. Costello, Costello, McMahon, Burke & Murphy, Ltd., Chicago, for amicus curiae American Association for Justice.

OPINION

Justice THOMAS delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion.

¶ 1 Plaintiffs, Darby Thomas and Home Star Bank & Financial Services, as guardian of the estate of Edward Anderson, a disabled person, filed suit against defendants Michael T. Murphy, D.O., and his employer, Emergency Care & Health Organization, Ltd. (ECHO), alleging that Dr. Murphy was negligent in treating Anderson. The circuit court of Cook County concluded that Dr. Murphy was immune from liability pursuant to section 25 of the Good Samaritan Act (the Act) (745 ILCS 49/25 (West 2010)) and granted summary judgment to defendants. Plaintiffs appealed, and the Appellate Court, First District, reversed and remanded. 2012 IL App (1st) 112321, 367 Ill.Dec. 891, 983 N.E.2d 45. The court held that the Act was meant to apply to volunteers, not to those who treat patients within the scope of their employment and are compensated for doing so. We allowed defendants' petition for leave to appeal and, for the reasons that follow, we affirm the appellate court.

¶ 2 BACKGROUND

¶ 3 On August 22, 2001, Anderson was admitted to Provena St. Mary's Hospital through the emergency room and was later transferred to the intensive care unit. Anderson was diagnosed with epiglottitis. On August 25, Anderson began having labored breathing and pain on swallowing. A Code Blue was called at approximately 3:20 a.m. Dr. Murphy, who was working in the emergency room at the time, responded to the Code Blue and attempted to intubate Anderson. Anderson suffered a severe and permanent brain injury. Plaintiffs filed a negligence action against Dr. Murphy and ECHO, alleging that Dr. Murphy's care and treatment of Anderson were the cause of Anderson's injuries.

¶ 4 Dr. Murphy denied the allegations and moved for summary judgment, asserting that he was immune from liability for negligence under section 25 of the Act. ECHO later joined the motion for summary judgment. Section 25 provides as follows:

“Any person licensed under the Medical Practice Act of 1987 or any person licensed to practice the treatment of human ailments in any other state or territory of the United States who, in good faith, provides emergency care without fee to a person, shall not, as a result of his or her acts or omissions, except willful or wanton misconduct on the part of the person, in providing the care, be liable for civil damages.” 745 ILCS 49/25 (West 2010).

Dr. Murphy contended that section 25 applied because he provided emergency care to Anderson, and Anderson was not billed for that care. Although ECHO had billed Anderson for services its physicians provided him during a previous emergency room visit on August 22, 2001, it did not bill for Dr. Murphy's services during the Code Blue. The hospital billed Anderson for supplies used during the Code Blue, but not for any physician's services.

¶ 5 In their response to the motion for summary judgment, plaintiffs argued that the Good Samaritan Act was inapplicable because Dr. Murphy was simply doing his job when he treated Anderson, and he was not providing his services “without fee.” ECHO was the exclusive provider of emergency room physicians at Provena, and Dr. Murphy was under contract with ECHO. ECHO paid Dr. Murphy by the hour, and he was not allowed to bill patients directly. Plaintiffs argued that, just because no discrete bill was sent for Dr. Murphy's services, that did not mean that Dr. Murphy was providing his services “without fee.”

¶ 6 The parties submitted various exhibits and discovery depositions in support of their positions. First, with respect to Dr. Murphy's job responsibilities, an “independent contractor agreement” between ECHO and Dr. Murphy provided that Dr. Murphy would provide emergency medical services in the hospital's emergency department and that he would be paid by the hour. The hourly amount would be the sole amount he would receive for his services. In addition to Dr. Murphy's responsibilities in the emergency department, the agreement provided that Dr. Murphy would have the following “inpatient” responsibilities:

“Physician shall not provide any general or routine care of patients already hospitalized under the care of another physician.

However, in dire emergencies, i.e., cardiorespiratory (or impending) arrest, Physician may render service to any patient, as long as there is not an emergency department patient requiring his/her immediate presence, and only until the patient[']s personal physician has assumed ongoing care.”

The agreement further provided that Dr. Murphy would abide by, and render emergency medical services in accordance with, the bylaws, rules and regulations of the hospital and departmental policies and procedures, using his professional judgment.

¶ 7 The “exclusive emergency room services agreement” between ECHO and the hospital provided that ECHO would be the exclusive provider of emergency room physician services at the hospital. Under the agreement, the “primary obligation of ECHO's physicians when in service at HOSPITAL's emergency room shall be to care for any and all patients presenting themselves for treatment at the emergency room.” The agreement made clear that ECHO's physicians were independent contractors rather than employees of the hospital, and that they were to provide treatment only until the patient's attending physician could be present and assume responsibility. ECHO's physicians were required to discharge their duties in accordance with the “Bylaws, Rules, Regulations, and policies of HOSPITAL and the MEDICAL STAFF Bylaws.” Further, ECHO would bill patients directly for the services its physicians provided.

¶ 8 The hospital's “Clinical Operations/Nursing” policy set forth the procedures for the “Code Blue and Cardiac Arrest Team.” This policy set forth the Code Blue responsibilities of the ER physician as follows:

“Responds to all Code Blues in the hospital. Directs Code Blue Team in CPR, defibrillation and cardioversion and medication therapy. Intubates the patient. For DNR patients in Ancillary Departments, assess for Code continuance.”

Nancy Frizzell, who was the nursing supervisor at St. Mary's on the night of Anderson's Code Blue, explained in her deposition that, although this document is a nursing policy, every employee of the hospital was expected to follow it. It was Frizzell's experience that when a Code Blue occurs at night, the emergency room physician normally responds. She said that when a Code Blue was called, the emergency room doctor would drop what he or she was doing to respond to the code. Also, even when physicians on the unit responded to a Code Blue, the emergency room doctor would come when he or she could.

¶ 9 In his deposition, Dr. Murphy left no doubt that responding to Code Blues was part of his job:

“Q. Had you responded to any Code Blues at St. Mary's before this one?

A. Yes.

Q. And was the emergency—was the emergency room physician on duty the physician who would be expected to respond to a Code Blue?

A. Yes.

Q. Were you the only emergency physician working at that—that night at the hospital?

A. Yes.

Q. As soon as you were notified of the code, did you go immediately to the room?

A. I believe so, yes.”

¶ 10 Dr. Joseph Danna, the president and CEO of ECHO, was more equivocal in his deposition. When asked whether it was part of Dr. Murphy's job to respond to Code Blues, Danna said, “no,” and that it “was not an inherent prescribed part of his work, of his job.” Danna said that, rather, if there were a dire emergency elsewhere in the hospital, an ECHO physician would respond “in the manner a good samaritan would respond to that dire emergency.” He assumed that Dr. Murphy responded to the Code Blue because he was the only person available to respond. Danna was aware that ECHO physicians responded to Code Blues at the hospital, but said that he had “no understanding” that they were “part of the team.” Rather, they were one of many resources available, and an ECHO physician would typically be the last person that would respond.

¶ 11 Eunice Rimer was a certified registered nurse anesthetist who responded to Anderson's Code Blue. She testified in her deposition that she had worked at the hospital since 1994 and it was her understanding that the emergency room physician would respond when Code Blues were called. According to Rimer, the emergency room physician was “usually there first.”

¶ 12 Anderson's laryngologist, Kenneth Johnson, testified that he received a call at home during the early morning of August 25. He was told that Anderson was having serious respiratory problems and that Dr. Murphy, the emergency room physician, was attempting an intubation. It was Dr. Johnson's understanding that an in-house emergency room physician would respond to Code Blues.

¶ 13 Paula Jacobi, the president and CEO of St. Mary's, acknowledged in her deposition that ECHO's agreement with the hospital did not specifically address whether ECHO physicians would respond to Code Blues. The nursing department “Code Blue and Cardiac Arrest Team” policy addressed the responsibility of the emergency room physician during a Code Blue, but Jacobi did not know if this was addressed in writing anywhere else. However, Jacobi testified that it had been hospital policy for many years that...

To continue reading

Request your trial
26 cases
  • People v. Balark
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • 20 Noviembre 2019
    ...plain meaning of statutory text, it can provide guidance in resolving statutory ambiguities." Home Star Bank & Financial Services v. Emergency Care & Health Organization, Ltd. , 2014 IL 115526, ¶ 40, 379 Ill.Dec. 51, 6 N.E.3d 128. Additionally, "[w]hen discerning legislative intent, it is a......
  • Rehfield v. Diocese Joliet
    • United States
    • Illinois Supreme Court
    • 4 Febrero 2021
    ...the limitation suggested by defendant into the clear, unambiguous language of the statute. See Home Star Bank & Financial Services v. Emergency Care & Health Organization, Ltd. , 2014 IL 115526, ¶ 24, 379 Ill.Dec. 51, 6 N.E.3d 128 ("It is improper for a court to depart from the plain statut......
  • Andrews v. Metro. Water Reclamation Dist. of Greater Chi.
    • United States
    • Illinois Supreme Court
    • 19 Diciembre 2019
    ...goal of statutory construction is to discern and effectuate the intent of the legislature. Home Star Bank & Financial Services v. Emergency Care & Health Organization, Ltd. , 2014 IL 115526, ¶ 24, 379 Ill.Dec. 51, 6 N.E.3d 128. The best indicator of legislative intent is the language of the......
  • Bettis v. Marsaglia
    • United States
    • Illinois Supreme Court
    • 18 Diciembre 2014
    ...us to construe section 10–10.1(a), and issues of statutory construction are reviewed de novo. Home Star Bank & Financial Services v. Emergency Care & Health Organization, Ltd., 2014 IL 115526, ¶ 22, 379 Ill.Dec. 51, 6 N.E.3d 128. ¶ 13 When construing a statute, this court's primary objectiv......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT