 |
Good News for Good Samaritans |
Rivera v. Arana
A recent Appellate Court decision supports physician immunity from medical malpractice liability when performing healthcare services on an emergency, charity basis.
In Rivera v. Arana, a woman who was the de facto guardian of her nephew urgently asked her physician to examine him at a Chicago clinic. The doctor examined the child as an "add-on" patient, diagnosing a serious foot infection and possible anemia, and prescribed medication. Since the aunt did not have a public aid card for the child, the doctor waived payment and told her to return the child in a few weeks for blood tests, regardless of her ability to pay.
The woman did not return, however, and was hospitalized after being severely beaten by her husband. Her husband was subsequently charged with child abuse, and the Department of Children and Family Services took custody of her children - including her nephew. At that point, the child's birth mother sued the physician for malpractice, alleging failure to detect child abuse, as required by the Abused and Neglected Child Reporting Act.
In response, the physician appealed for summary judgment, arguing that he was immune from liability because the care he provided fell within the guidelines of the Good Samaritan Act. The court agreed, concluding that the physician provided care in response to a serious medical condition, he received no payment, and never issued a bill to the child's guardian.
The plaintiff appealed the decision, but the Appellate Court simply re-affirmed the defendant's victory, stating that health care professionals licensed under the Medical Practice Act of 1987 who provide emergency care without charge are immune from civil liability, except in cases of wanton misconduct.