especially involving a situation where you have an emergency physician who is providing emergency care which is his job and he's being paid for them and on both the issues of the with alfie and the good faith aspect  and the summary judgment is a drastic remedy dr murphy no question as an emergency room physician that's all he does that's all the company does that he was employed by he responded to the code he admitted in his that the emergency room physician who was involved in this case dr murphy put request that a bill not sent by eckl if the the family or the patient was unhappy with the outlaw and we definitely have a case here where you would be and i want to turn to the reversal out right which is the second part of human and i want to point out if it isn't clear from what we've submitted to the to the court already this is the first case that has ever been in the appellate court system where there is an emergency room physician whose job it is to respond to emergencies who's being paid to do exactly there where the good samaritan act has ever been involved and i the second part of this of the absurdity in this case of somebody whose job it is to respond to emergencies that has the ability to manipulate the billing mechanism and take yourself off the hook is  happened in the case law file the case law of all the way up to the seventh circuit rojas opinion is the courts are starting to look at this more carefully and think about it more carefully and realizing that the initial reaction to this if you blindly just take the and apply them without using any legal reasoning or judgment that you that doesn't that doesn't fit the reality especially of the way medicine is practiced now because when the good samaritan act was first passed we had direct billing that was how the act i believe this is a stronger argument and in this case we're just arguing about the words room doctors that's the most extreme absurd application of the statute i guess it could be law for another day whether if your honour's believe that in this case where the doctor was out in the parking lot and am trying to take care of somebody in a car he did or snack in his emergency room he wasn't and i thought that was often i don't know if he was  access to equipment and everything and that is that we did the spirit of what this was intended to cover at least i do believe is that he's not doing his job in his normal environment where he has all the benefits and the things that he's supposed to blindly applied words without using legal reasoning but we go behind the the language when certainly interpret it two different ways well and that goes back to i you know thinking back into it from the absurd result of the absurd result that a doctor who's working in the past little whose job it is always does take care of emergencies service use common sense he could he could have done the same thing in it what if he was in the emergency department and they decided not to send the bill if enabling really say that actually be covered by the good samaritan act that way at any time there's a think the issue lies in the dichotomy that the cases are sent out it terms of when you define for a fee this does that go both ways does it go to or on the floor because according to governance in the case his own admission it was part of his job to be there and do there as a trained professional emergency physician to do those things so location i greet the particularly in this practices but in all reality in the contract between the medical service and the hospital medical service would bill for all of the services doctors provide patients regardless of the payer and matter who is paying the medical service bill for all the doctor services now this is the situation where at the time of the cancer provided the medical providers did a fee for service billing procedure so in that regard all of the services of a doctor would provide you agree with counsel that this is the first time that this particular scenario is being confronted for purposes of interpretation of the stitches that is a doctor working in a hospital signed the emergency room response to another patient in a code blue situation there's no other case like this has anyone ever claimed for that doctor working in the emergency room you know responding to another situation in the hospital is seeking the protection of a good samaritan and there's been a similar cases on this one case i know where there is a doctor that was working  not doing his job his normal environment which is outside of the verse in this particular case but that case it was just another doctor who was called an ally and he had with akhil in terms of his salary didn't from didn't matter if you responded to code blues or not didn't matter what he did didn't matter if there was no patients that ever came in that they whatsoever in the first part it simply was he was being salary but the fact the matter is the cases obviously even suggest that there is some question so how is it clear i think it's clear that in this particular case no he was charged for the services that are provided by d in a code blue would have been called in he responded to in the burns apartment which happens at times as well that they were given specific patient billing for those services because it was an emergency department in this case you provide emergency care outside of as there's absolutely no evidence anywhere in the record appeal that that was in any way different from the normal practice of the way that they have those types of situations well let's skip the exit the language  the title is called the good samaritan or the first up line refers to exemption from civil liability for emergency care and then we have this other language about  whether this was ever intended for people working in a hospital i'm not sure but what about the comments of those that created this piece of legislation and their comments that were trying to exempt from liability those people back tears that happened upon a situation outside the hospital setting someone falls down the stairs they're injured and the doctor provides here we're not going to impose liability except for their will what do we do with it it seems like that could have been an interpretation it's a valid one that's what they said they were intending when they created the sec because there's cases that have gone off in all sorts of directions doesn't mean that that liability for physicians working in hospitals and me a good reason to have that i mean that the mr anderson who's expecting patient care it i mean where where would be the logic behind your position that become familiar with circumstances that are certainly ones that he would not have any general knowledge of or any prior knowledge of in terms of what was going on with that particular therefore you're going in basically blind to the position in that particular from liability if they leave the emergency room and respond to a code blue absolutely not i would have but i believe specifically for what happened here for a doctor who comes in blind and be able to provide the best care he possibly here she possibly could in a situation where it's not his environment it's not his patient to be able to provide care same thing if the doctor comes across the nation on the side of the road just brought up i mean your hands do not really have to stop and respond to that i think the patient really gets the short end of the proverbial stick in that situation and you know if you're in if you're not in the emergency room in your transfer to the i paid for the moments that he was in that room responding to the code blue is that right i mean he was during the act passage of time he was earning money is not right he was being paid but i could i think that's know on the one hand we're being told you look at just what the status of us and the other hand we're being told feet means fee for specific services which one you want to give you want us to look at  want to look at this additional cost for specific services because we don't say for specific services that brings me back to my scenario from one o'clock to two o'clock he's getting paid for that he's done without yack if you try to hit you later that would be a bad faith and you don't follow the statute or you wouldn't admit that there's an ambiguity that i don't pick because you're saying you're saying to us it's it's without feed the patients and then you also said it's it's without fee for a specific service and my question is if you want to read into the work without feet those additional phrases hima is there more than one reasonable definition of the work the song out now or hearing themes fee to the patient or fee for specific service or we also in the case well bill or whether you get ill when you go to a hospital you're going there to get care but you are supposed to pay for that so another reached the interpretation is that this was never meant to apply you know the statute then it is ambiguous then you look behind the language to see what the intent was plus the intent ever to exempt from liability doctors nurses medical personnel working in now we're talking about stare decisis that's what the whole discussion has been today and yet the legislature never used any word like services it killed us here to make a difference has anyone looked as opposed to without he would not there still language about services that i think the absence of the word services no i mean just a moment to think about his question is the the action so there would go against the argument the appleby's are making that there has to be a bill for specific services i think that would logically way against it argue that's the only response i can come with that's a very good question that's the best i can come up with and the third thing i wanted the point out is that  if there's any suggestion by yeah i believe that somehow in the legislative history there are some contrary language about what the intent of the statute was i would point out that the language that week or the i don't think there's any other line which in the legislative history that would support what you are your what's being argued to you today and the like there was even a debate on this this wasn't a debate where there were two sides or people were arguing about this but i thought i believe that the quotes we gave you from the legislative history from or from the sponsors of the bill s to what the intent of the bill was this was not a debate and i don't think we selectively gave you just you know that's the anyone who hears just the parts that helped us i don't think i think the legislat