claim is afforded the protections under the good samaritan state which as you know as a provision in the beginning that says that this act is designed to practitioner here and him again s diagnosed him with gerd if i'm an acid sent him on his way he came back in a few weeks later saying it hasn't helped at all i now have problems with  had difficulty breathing tired going after eating at that point she diagnosed him with the possibility of cardiovascular problems although she never ordered a test that would have ruled it in a rule bloomington alleging negligence on the part of the nurse practitioner for her failure to diagnose and treat in a timely manner his cardiovascular disease which was a correct condition and we also alleged claim against the physician who was the supervising physician at the clinic as well as a claim against the clinic all of the bennett's move to dismiss the action alleging that they were protected their positions they were obviously kind of cute in the affidavits they did not disclose and there after that the nurse practitioner was an employee of the house in was being paid by the hospital to see patients and us arguing specifically the court found that because of a provision in the good samaritan act contrary to the general purpose of the act in the stated legislative purpose of which was to promote volunteerism and to  encourage volunteerism and to protect those who truly volunteer their time and services to help the indigent in our communities the court ruled against us on that saying that because of zero sentence or actually one word entitled to the immunity in the good samaritan act even though she was not involved and was being paid for her services wasn't the hospital volunteer well that would be that would be correctly the fact the only justification  the only way you can really read a purpose into the statute is exactly your point that what the legislature although it's not in the legislative history but what the legislature maybe was intending to do was do we want to encourage people to volunteer for free but we also want to encourage hospitals or medical corporations to donate their personnel to the clinic i did that is a lawyer my firm i work for general bach in chicago for a period time this summer they would donate lawyers to do pro bono work the lawyers were paid they weren't losing any money by doing the pro bono but it was a donation by the law firm to encourage work for the indigent and you're exactly correct but for what we discovered during the pendency of the appeal it really discovered they were they disclosed to us the fact that there was this personnel to work at this clinic this was a hospital that was had a contract with the club that's the sceptically require the clinic every month to reimburse the hospital for the compensation paid to the nurse so that this wasn't a hospital having anything they had an agreement and agreement that's not only just further i mean you look at the language of the agreement that it's interesting because it's part of our brief not only for the wages that were paid but also for the better bits that the nurse received from the hospital so this this clinic was reimbursed saying the hospital by contract required to by contract that source means nothing it really makes no sense whatsoever there's only one other explanation for that and that's a mistake that really should have read any source because when you look at the legislative history makes no sense and even if you look at that provision of the statute that medical care of this clinic i'm getting paid well you already have been getting compensated both by the prestige and by the dollars that flow into my pocket while i'm doing this good work well it was a mistake that they were truly intending to protect the people who volunteer their time services it's a good samaritan those you purposes and they also wanted to protect those individuals who were being lent and given free to these clinics by corporations medical corporations or hospitals and that would be fine and that would be ok and it would be justifiable bar for the lease agree the lease agreement negates that completely the hospital isn't being benevolent they have a contractual relation with this clinic that they set up the final patients away from st joe's of urgency and what do they do they get paid for and in fact if you look at the statute if you read down the statute it's really even more interesting because this is why i think it's absolutely incorrect any other interpretation of it statute especially the interpretation that bennett's want to give if you go to section eat the provision in there that talks about if there are contributions made altered contributions made by the patient that that provision specifically says if you look at it that the any voluntary contributions collected for providing care at the free medical clinic should be used only to pay overhead expenses of the clinic no fortune or any money collected show be used to provide feed or compensation to any person licensed under the medical practice that that's that's clear is day we all know with as this records before this chorus whether or not any monies that they collected from patients who volunteered donations to the clinic were used to pay the lease agreement that they had with the hospital we don't know that and how does that provision ever be read consistent with the provision on section thirty above it doesn't make any sense it can't be consistent and if you look at even more so the we're moving to much if you look at the two thousand and five said specifically that any health care professional receiving an exemption under this section may not receive any fee or other compensation in connection with any services provided to the clinic again plain as day let out part of the present day statute because it was how long constitutional because of the caps but that clearly indicates the legislature's head there was nothing discussed about that provision when they enacted the truth out the five tort reform package nothing at all and so obviously the legislature far off that similar to what we all thought to be the case of the good samaritan act escalated would be the purpose behind it would be to protect people who volunteer volunteer their services at the clinic for obama i'm a doctor i'm a go work at the clinic on saturdays i'm a nurse practitioner i'm going to go work on the on my days off or we're going to protect those individuals who are being donated by hospitals or medical corp then you could read that source to mean that they're not being paid directly by clinic but in this particular instance unfortunately they are being compensated if you look at a lease agreement the actual title of the section because there are sufficient come sit by the clinic they are being compensated by the client in this particular instance they are because there is an section says compensation and it says in that section that you're going to every month give us the amount of money for the nurse practitioner or anybody else that we good plain and simple so i mean did the legislature really intend this to be the case do we really believe that the legislature and the good samaritan act intended for employees or looks like it because they chose  the purpose of the statute which is to promote volunteer is number one secondly it's in contravention of the later provision in the same statute that says if they get money from contributions voluntary contributions from their patients that none of that money can be used to pay for the people who work there so that's obviously contravention of stature and if what you're saying is correct who cares why would one purpose could there possibly be for the legislature to exempt the client want this case and the only logical solution i can tell you is that either that that should have been ending and it was clearly a mistake or as justice pointed out they wanted to encourage the donation of personnel to the clinic but i don't believe that that occurs here when they're being reimbursed for that because it truly is not a donation this is an old law firm mean that the legislature intended and again i'd like somebody anybody to tell me why if what you're saying is correct why do we care about the clinic why do we care one way or the other if the clinic pays these people or not these people are getting free medical care and if that's the only encourage then why can't we just say why put it in because american act there is no reason to do it just make a provision we have it for community hospitals maybe hospitals who can be sued for encourage voluntary earth and i submit again there's only one interpretation that you can rationally make here although again not supported by the language of the statute is that we want to encourage hospitals to donate their services of people to about this gentleman told this lawsuit under the medical practice saxon's he cannot be held liable simply because of the collaborative agreement it was proper to dismiss him so we would ask for her and dr patterson's and that's this missile background three states in a back based practice nurse who provides medical treatment as part of the services of free medical clinic providing care to medically indignant patients and this is the order part of who receives no fear compensation from that source is protections for the generous and compassionate acts of the citizens who volunteer their time in towels certainly volunteerism is in there but it's focused on the compassionate generous acts in the homestar case that plaintive cites which we referred to in our brief this illinois supreme court reviewed section twenty five of the good samaritan act and the history of it is that started actually within the medical practice act where the legislature removed immunity from any doctor who assisted somebody and a car accident or a nuclear attack eventually that was modified to remove civically harsens and nuclear attacks to make it more broadly in the one nine hundred ninety six the legislature an act of the good samaritan act the purpose behind that is in a doctors there aside i don't how much this i don't have my staff i don't know that's sterile i'm just going to avoid this because i don't want to get sued you want to remove the liability for that situation so the doctors free to render the aid you know in that emergency situation the legislature later added the section that dealt with free medical clinics free medical clinics provide treatment of people who are indigent can't afford medical care the compassionate generous act is that you know in order to make sure that there are some medical care available that they can go to these clinics and not pay a fee for the care they receive in this case plaintive did not receive you know was not charged a fee if you go into the medical clinic to buy the statute you see signs on the wall that says are free medical clinic and that you know the people who are providing service or are immune from civil liability to refer the homestar bank home starbase in that case a person went bill and so they said that under section twenty five they were review and the supreme court analyzed them out of opinions from the state as well as from federal and ins and they said really that that the without the phrase there was not so much a bill but whether or not the doctors paid and in that situation he was a doctor as i call adequate hospital there was a code blue yet no discretion not to go he went there was an expectation that he was going to be paid if you really look at back case it's really more what is the expectation of the person who is receiving the aid so much as the person who is rendering that if the person goes into a hospital expecting to be treated and they are a pain pain patient and you know people render service are giving you are viable civil munity going to the expectation that you know in exchange for that service that you're getting for free that you're not going to have civil liability now to the question of whether or not  contract so i don't know i can't states on the record you know whether she raised her hand and went about volunteered to go over the clinic but the clinic and the hospital do have an arrangement but she isn't dependent upon the clinic so you know just because the hospital receives proper sation and it's general accounts which then uses its use process payroll for all of its employees doesn't mean that she specifically has an agreement with the clinic to get paid by the clinic she's not an employee to get to the purpose of why there would be that carve out for just that source as opposed to any source it's because if you have a free medical clinic this isn't an emergency situation this is ninety five monday through friday and if the clinic is going to have its doors open it may need to make sure that there's somebody there for the people during the time that says it's going to be open i think counsel said that people should go on their free time other weekend but if somebody is available that somebody is not available there needs to be some sort of mechanism so they can provide for the you know to provide for staff on duty in order to give the care for the people who come in and if the hospital were to completely volunteer that is great but if there's an arrangement where the hospital is going to be compensated just for its costs i mean that also works as well because you know the hospital i think you made the analogy that you could send your associate or partner to land the lincoln and you know atlanta lincoln would compensate you and there you are giving anything up we're giving up the profit you would've made during that time i may not be out of pocket anything for your cost but you've certainly given up the time where you could have been focused on your business and making money you know here the nurses not at the hospital working for the betterment hospital she's at the clinic providing the free medical care and so the hospital is volunteer in something that's a volunteer in the promise of that but it made so you know i think that the the important part of the act is not the volunteer part his volunteer doesn't necessarily have to be without any fee i mean the legislature specifically said from that source it could have said from any source and at other places throughout the good samaritan act does refer to places where without any fear compensation you know a volunteer just because they're volunteering their time doesn't mean they're not in the military as a volunteer you know branch of service you know they get paid nobody would say they're not  r so the mere fact that she's paid from any source doesn't take this out of the statute it would have to be from that source and in this arrangement she was not paid i swear i read your comments talking about what compassion to show for this hospital to be real or to be paid back reimburse whatever phrase for this person i understand when she said that it be better to have her on staff hospital maybe they had to hire a different and additional nurse practitioner i understand that part in terms of p r it doesn't rain compassion well i think that providing professional and they're just getting them reimbursed for the front costs of having another person on staff or whatever press that's still a good thing yes i mean they could just say no we have no interest in doing that but they have  if it's somebody who's just volunteer and you know you have no idea if they've been working late ok thank you thank you thank you and that is whether the virus later intended to grant immunity directly to the free medical clinic or whether it intended to limit that community apply only to individual individuals and leave the clinic out  vision is to ensure that everyone in mclean county has access to health care stay very simply that these are turbulent times in our country with respect to access to health care and this quick and others are quite good throughout the state provid crucial crucial safety or who are primarily low income working families with no other access to health care i'd like to take issue with the powers characterization of the twenty as designed to funnel patien as i noted well i guess i should start by saying that the statute here is in that us i don't know that it's a contest about that my my colleague here didn't argue it but i think i'll say that i've read it dozens of times and it's still wrestling with the language and because it is in the us we can look beyond the language of the statute what was the what was the purpose what was the intent of the statute and i think of how it's reading which states that unity should only be provided for the through the free medical if they're getting free services at a hospital they don't receive that except under limited circumstances which will get to the moment same with an outpatient free services they're no the immunity depends on the existence of the statute it also depends on the actions of the free medical clinic first we know that a free medical clinic has to post a sign explaining the unity in their houses here health care when it is done that there's no question about that but it's something quite a task to do to secure that a community under the statute second and this is that exception i mentioned just a moment ago if a health care provider is working referrals from the clinic and that's because they've been brought under the clinics umbrella if it frankly strains logic to believe that the legislature intended to provide for doctors and nurses working in the only to health care providers which in the way provides an incomplete incentive for those providers to volunteer i think an illustration is the most clear way to explain this if provided has put the clinic on the line as per the clinics reputation she's going to have to go to trial and she may face all right with tori issues with the only part in the financial and emotional regulation of all of these things all of these hassles that that position volunteer has to face discourage volunteer because if the clinic is not in him then the health care provider still has to go through all of those inconveniences all those hassles of litigation and once she does everyone else who knows that she's had to go through those things isn't going to want to volunteer when either a chilling effect on winning threatens the clinic when it may ha clinic but the fact that it's not in this fashion no young lawyer years ago goofy probably filed a lawsuit over in st louis alleging that police officers assure christian county was  because lack of personal jurisdiction but for convenient reason for him or his locker for improper event i refile the action in christian county and they moved to this miss saying that well in proper venue those relates to that unfortunately though the statute doesn't say it and it clearly says otherwise the very purpose was dark and we never alleged that he was negligent because of his collaboration as a physician working with a nurse practitioner ledge that he should supervise stroke and if you look at the same lease agreement we talked about a number of times over and over again that these agreements specifically delegates the responsibility of supervising these personnel from the hospital to the clinic and the medical director at the quote so for some of this lease agreement it says specifically that they have to supervise so this is not something that should have been addressed and dismissed on a motion pursuant to six twenty nine and he did have those obligations under the lease agreement as provided by the police for him to the hospital and the implant again we have not heard one again not one person suggested why what they say is true all they had to do things pollute the clinic why did they have to say from that source why do we care if the clinic paid these people or not what rational basis is there what's their argument why would if someone else is paying them we're going to give them immunity but the clinic pays them or not what the clinic was going to say you know what we've got some employment law issues anybody who works at our clinic we have to pay you minimum wage police because you're employed working on it for so many hours in the state of illinois were required by minimum wage according to the really there's no immunity even though they're donating a substantial amount of doctor who's dollars an hour thirty all that time to get ten dollars an hour certainly falls within the purview of the law certainly falls within the justification for the statute that we want people to volunteer this doctor or nurse practitioner or nurse are clearly voluntary  sometimes getting paid nothing or very little but they would be protected why what's the purpose behind excluding the clinic there is no purpose and again the only possible rationale would be the suggestion that you have that we and you can look at the lease agreement and it says the separately compensation for at least employee that's the title of the section in the lease agree and it's not just wages lisi that's a clinic shall pay using the money that's donated or granted to the clinic or contributed to the clinic by these patients the productive salary and wages and the nonproductive wages paid by the lease or an amount equal to the benefits that these hospitals paying for these