determining that 8 No. 21-2778 “[t]here is no indication in the record that Dr. Ali rendered treatment to Collins in February 1987,” even though Dr. Ali “recommended that Collins return to the hospital’s Family Planning Clinic in three months and to the Gynecological Clinic in one year”
How later courts described this case
- determining that 8 No. 21-2778 “[t]here is no indication in the record that Dr. Ali rendered treatment to Collins in February 1987,” even though Dr. Ali “recommended that Collins return to the hospital’s Family Planning Clinic in three months and to the Gynecological Clinic in one year”
- upholding constitutionality of Tort Immunity Act against certain remedy clause challenge because “passage of the Tort Immunity Act constituted an exercise by the General Assembly of its broad power to determine whether a statute that restricts or alters an existing remedy is reasonably necessary to promote the general welfare”
- applying the Tort Immunity Act where “ ‘the gravamen of plaintiffs action against defendants is that defendants’ failure either to perform examinations or to adequately perform examinations led to defendant[s’] failure to diagnose Collins’ breast cancer, which, in turn, proximately caused her death’ ”
- reasoning that the “legislature has the inherent authority to repeal or change the common law and may do away with all or part of it”
Written by the judges who cited it.
Distinguished
Distinguished by Mills v. County of Cook, 338 Ill. App. 3d 219 (2003)
Michigan Avenue National Bank and Mabry are inapposite, as both cases involved a clear failure on the part of the doctors to correctly examine and diagnose their patients' medical conditions and, thus, the courts held in those cases that section 6-105 and section 6-106(a) immunity applied.
The opinion
CHIEF JUSTICE HARRISON, dissenting:
The Local Governmental and Governmental Employees Tort Immunity Act is in derogation of the common law action against local public entities. It must therefore be strictly construed against the public entity involved. Aikens v. Morris, 145 Ill. 2d 273, 278 (1991). Applying this strict construction, I would hold that plaintiff may proceed against defendants pursuant to sections 6 — 106(c) and 6 — 106(d) of the Act (745 ILCS 10/6— 106(c), (d) (West 1992)). Sections 6 — 106(c) and 6 — 106(d) specify that public entities and their employees are not exonerated from liability for injuries proximately caused by their negligence in prescribing or administering treatment for physical illness. There is no question that defendants prescribed and administered treatment for the decedent’s illness in the case before us. The problem with their conduct, and the reason they are not immune, is that after they ascertained that the decedent was afflicted with a physical condition that posed a hazard to her health, they prescribed a course of care that was fatally deficient. Instead of ordering mammograms and biopsies, chemotherapy or surgery, defendants relegated the decedent to a passive régimen of waiting and watching, and they waited too long.
Because the wrong remedy was wrongly administered, defendants’ conduct falls squarely within the terms of subsections (c) and (d) of section 6 — 106. Any other conclusion is inconsistent with the public policy underlying that statute, which “militates in favor of holding public employees liable for negligently prescribing or administering treatment which causes injury.” O’Brien v. Township High School District 214, 83 Ill. 2d 462, 468 (1980). Accordingly, the judgment of the circuit court should be reversed, and the cause should be remanded for further proceedings. I therefore dissent.