Warning: Declaration of AVH_Walker_Category_Checklist::walk($elements, $max_depth) should be compatible with Walker::walk($elements, $max_depth, ...$args) in /home/seonews/public_html/wp-content/plugins/extended-categories-widget/4.2/class/avh-ec.widgets.php on line 62
Code Blue | SEONewsWire.net http://www.seonewswire.net Search Engine Optimized News for Business Fri, 02 Jan 2015 23:15:16 +0000 en-US hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=6.0.8 In medical malpractice case, Illinois Supreme Court defines “Good Samaritan” http://www.seonewswire.net/2015/01/in-medical-malpractice-case-illinois-supreme-court-defines-good-samaritan/ Fri, 02 Jan 2015 23:15:16 +0000 http://www.seonewswire.net/2015/01/in-medical-malpractice-case-illinois-supreme-court-defines-good-samaritan/ “Good Samaritan” laws exist in many states to ensure that people who volunteer to help in an emergency are not sued for damages if they negligently cause harm to another. Good Samaritan laws create an immunity where liability would otherwise

The post In medical malpractice case, Illinois Supreme Court defines “Good Samaritan” first appeared on SEONewsWire.net.]]>
“Good Samaritan” laws exist in many states to ensure that people who volunteer to help in an emergency are not sued for damages if they negligently cause harm to another. Good Samaritan laws create an immunity where liability would otherwise exist, so that people are not discouraged from helping others out of a fear of being sued. In Illinois, the statute provides that licensed medical professionals who provide emergency care “without fee” are not liable for damages.

A recent Illinois Supreme Court case tested the meaning of the phrase “without fee.” In Home Star Bank and Financial Services v. Emergency Care and Health Organization, Ltd., the Court unanimously held that an emergency room doctor was not entitled to immunity under the Illinois Good Samaritan Act when he responded to a “Code Blue” emergency in a different part of the hospital.

The case involved a physician working in the emergency room who responded to a Code Blue emergency in the intensive care unit. The doctor attempted to intubate the patient, and the patient suffered severe brain injuries. Plaintiffs sued the doctor and his employer for medical malpractice, and the doctor moved for summary judgment, arguing that he was entitled to immunity under the Good Samaritan statute because the patient was not billed for the doctor’s services. Plaintiffs argued that the issue of billing was irrelevant and that the doctor was not volunteering, but doing his job.

The trial court granted summary judgment, but the Appellate Court reversed, and the Supreme Court unanimously affirmed the Appellate Court’s decision.

Paul Greenberg is a medical malpractice lawyer in Chicago and malpractice attorney with Briskman Briskman & Greenberg. To learn more call 1.877.595.4878 or visit http://www.briskmanandbriskman.com/.

The post In medical malpractice case, Illinois Supreme Court defines “Good Samaritan” first appeared on SEONewsWire.net.]]>

Deprecated: Directive 'allow_url_include' is deprecated in Unknown on line 0