A split Illinois Supreme Court has ruled ambulance companies can be sued for negligence in traffic crashes involving their ambulances which occur during non-emergency trips.
The majority opinion in the 4-3 decision, filed June 18, was penned by Justice Michael Burke, with concurrence from Justices Mary Jane Theis, Lloyd Karmeier and Thomas Kilbride. Justices P. Scott Neville Jr. and Rita Garman dissented, as did Chief Justice Anne Burke.
The majority opinion clarified limits to the immunity furnished by the Illinois Emergency Medical Services Systems Act.
In 2016, Roberto Hernandez was driving near Chicago's Navy Pier when he collided with a privately owned ambulance driven by Joshua M. Nicholas. According to Hernandez, the ambulance, which did not have its siren and emergency lights activated, ran a red light. The ambulance was on its way to pick up a patient 20 miles away at a dialysis clinic, then take the patient home. The ambulance was operated by Lifeline Ambulance, which has offices in Skokie and Lincoln Park, Mich.
Hernandez and his insurance company sued Lifeline and Nicholas in Cook County Circuit Court for Hernandez's injuries, alleging negligence, as well as wanton and willful misconduct. The insurer did not take part in appeals.
Cook County Judge Allen Walker dismissed the case, finding Lifeline had immunity against negligence under the Emergency Medical Services Sytems Act. The immunity did not apply if the ambulance driver engaged in willful and wanton misconduct. Walker did not dismiss that allegation.
Hernandez went to Illinois First District Appellate Court, where that body, in a 2-1 decision, overturned the lower court's ruling, saying there had to be a patient in the ambulance for immunity to kick in. Lifeline then appealed to the state high court.
Lifeline argued the Act immunizes conduct before and during "transport of the patient inside the ambulance." Hernandez countered that at the time of the crash, the ambulance driver was engaged only in “the operation of a vehicle, unrelated and independent of any scope of medical services described under the Act” and that "driving an ambulance to a health care facility, by itself, does not fall within the scope of non-emergency medical services and the Act.”
Justice Burke sided with Hernandez, in part quoting the Act and saying: "Nicholas’s 'acts or omissions' in driving and then running the red light were not integral or in any way related to providing non-emergency medical care."
Burke added, "It would contort the statutory language beyond recognition to hold, as defendants would have it, that 'medical care, clinical observations, or medical monitoring rendered to patients' may include the mere non-integral act of driving many miles from the patient."
In dissent, Justice Neville said his interpretation of the Act revolved around the meaning of the word "render."
"My colleagues in the majority 'find it would be impossible to render any medical care, clinical observations, or medical monitoring prior to arriving at the scene.' However, this conclusion overlooks the fact that a common definition of 'render' is to 'deliver,'" Neville wrote.
"At the time of the instant accident, Nicholas was rendering non-emergency medical services in the normal course of conducting his duties and within his statutorily prescribed scope of practice. While he was responding to the dispatch, as regulated by the EMS Act, Nicholas was literally in the process of delivering or transmitting medical care," Neville said.
Neville also contended the Act immunizes activity before an ambulance engages in transport, rather than only during transport, as the appellate court said.
In addition, Neville maintained the Act provides immunity whether or not an ambulance has its emergency lights and siren operating.
The case was remanded to circuit court for further proceedings.
Hernandez has been represented by Chicago lawyer Michael W. Kelly.
Lifeline has been represented by the Chicago firm of SmithAmundsen.