No. 2-- 07--0858 Fil ed: 3-2-09

______________________________________________________________________________ IN THE APP ELL ATE C OURT

OF IL LINO IS SECOND DI STRICT

______________________________________________________________________________ REBECCA J. QUIGG, ) Ap peal f rom th e Ci rcui t Court ) o f D u P ag e C o un t y. Pl ai n ti f f -A pp el l an t, )

) v. ) No. 07-- L--128 ) WA LGREEN COMPAN

Y, )

) Defe ndan t-Appell ee )

) Ho no r ab le ( Ric ha r d J . Qu ig g a nd P at r icia Mo nt go mer y, ) John T. El sner, Def endan ts). ) Judge, Presi din g.

______________________________________________________________________________ PRESIDING JU STICE ZENOF F del i vered the opi ni on of the court: Pla int iff, Re

b ec ca J. Qui gg , a

pp ea l s f rom an ord er of th e c i rc ui t cou rt of Du Page Cou n ty dismissing

wit h p r eju dic e her co mplaint ag ainst defend ant , Wa lgre en Co mpany (Walgr een) . We affir m. FA CTS BACK GROUND Pla int iff, a m

edi cal doc tor, w asmarr

i ed to Ri ch ard J. Q ui gg, also a medi cal doctor, an d t he ir ma rriage wa s d i ss ol v ed b y th e c i rc ui t cou rt of Coo k C oun

ty on Ma y 24, 200 4. Du

ri ng the cou rs e of t he dis so lut io n a ndcu st o dy lit iga t io n, sp ec ifica lly in June 20 03 , Ric ha r d o bt ain ed fr o m Walgre en's Web sit e p laint iff's "C o nfid en t ial P at ien t I nfo rmat io n P r es cr ipt io n P r o file, " w hic h d is cl osed that pla int iff was pre scr ibed by her p sychiat rist , a mong ot her dr ugs , Zo loft , a n ant idepr essa nt , a ndNo. 2-- 07--0858

1 Ma r ilyn Lem ak, who was m

arried to a physi ci an, m

urdered their three ch

il dren i n thei r Napervil le h ome on March 4, 1999, during the pendency of the coup le' s div

orce p roceed in

gs. -2- clo na ze pa m, an ant ianxiety medica t ion. On Ju ne 27, 2003, Rich ard dis cl osed to the court -appointed atto rney f orthe Qui gg c hi l dre n th e p res cri ption profi le , along wi

th Ri chard's

opini on that plai

ntif f h ad "serious psych

iatric problem

s" and a "drug abuse problem" th at res ul ted i n beh av i or th at had

"too many si mi la riti es to t he Lem

ak 1 ca se f or c om f ort. " Despi

te t he se al l eg ati ons , th e f i na l di ss ol ution or der gr ant ed p laintiff cust od y of t he Qu igg childr en. THE DU PAGE COMPLA INT On Fe br ua ry 5, 20 07 , pla int iff filed a 2 4- co un t co mpla int in t he cir cu i t cou rt o f Du Page Co un t y, 23 c ou nt s o f which wer e dir ect ed a gainst Richar d and his pre sent wif e, P at r icia Mo nt go mer y, f orall eged actions ta ken i

n what can be descri

bed only as an acrim

onious postdecree coexistence am ong the three of

t hem. H ow ever , c ou nt XXI II of t he co mplaint w as d irect ed a gainst Walgre en, alle gin g that it violated

th e M en tal He al th an d D ev el opm en tal Disa b i l i ti es Con f i den ti al i ty A ct (A ct) (740 IL CS 11 0/15 (W

est 200 6)) by

di scl osi ng p l ai ntif f 's pres cri pti on prof i l e to Ri chard. On Ap r il 12 , 20 07 , Wa lgr ee n file d a co mbine d mo t ion to dism i ss cou n t XXIII pu rsua n t to se cti on 2--619.1 o f the C ode of Ci vi l Procedure (Code) (735 ILCS 5/ 2- -6 19. 1 ( West 200 6) ), on t he bases t hat t he co unt did no t st at e a c aus e o f act ion u nder t he Ac t an d w as , in any event , ba rr ed by t he sta tute o f limit at io ns. While t his mot ion wa s pe nding, plaint iff so ught a vo lunt ar y dismi ssal o f the case, pla nnin g t o r efile it in C o o k C o un t y. Richar d and Pat ricia we re volu nt ar ily dismissed fr om t he su it on May

23, 2007. Walgreen

objec t ed t o t he mot ion fo r vo lunt ar y dismi ssal, and t he tria l court deni ed pla in tif f' s m ot ion as to Walgreen

on June 28, 2008. Then on Jul y 25 , 2 007 , t he tria

l courtNo. 2-- 07--0858

-3-

granted Wal green's comb in ed m ot ion to dismi

ss count XXIII with prej udic e. Pla int iff filed a t imely ap pe al. DISCUSSION Pla int iff rai se s th re e a rgum en ts. Fi rs t, she c ont ends t hat t he trial court erred in

appl ying a oneye ar o r , at t he o ut sid e, a t wo - yea rst at ut e o f limit at io ns ; s ec on d, she argues t hat her clai m agai nst W al gr een i s rec ogn ize d u n der the A

ct; and thi rd, she maint ains t hat t he t rial co ur t er re d in denying her mot ion fo r vo lunt ar y dismi ssal. In a ddit ion t o t he part ies' br iefs , we ar e a ss ist ed in r es o lving t his appeal by two am ic us curi ae bri ef

s, one on be half of t he I lli nois D epa rt ment o f Financial and Professi onal Regu l ati on (De partm en t), wh i ch reg ul ate s th e p racti ceof

pharm ac y , an d the other on be ha lf of t he Na t ional Asso ciat ion o f Chain Dr ug S t or es ( NACD S) , w hos e members , includ ing Walgre en, operate over 1,40 0 pharm aci es i n Il l i noi s. T he Depa

rtment and NA

CDS urge that we af f i rm th e tr i al cou rt' s j udgm en t. We i ni tia l l y f i nd i t nec ess ary

to comm en t on plai ntif f 's open i ng b ri ef . The sta tem en t of f ac ts is argumen tative i n vi olation of Supreme C ourt Rul e 341(h)(6) (210 I ll. 2d R. 3 41(h )(6)). "W here an appella nt's b rief f ail s to com

pl y wi th su prem e court rul

es, [th e] court h as th e i n h eren t au th ori ty to dism iss the appeal." Epstein v . Galuska , 362 Ill . Ap p. 3 d 36 , 4 2 ( 200 5) . T he co ur t also has t he option of strik i ng th e statem en t of f acts. Ham

il to n v. Conl

ey , 356 Ill . App. 3d 1048, 1052 (2005 ). Howev er, we do n ot b el i ev e th at th e i m pr opri eti es are g re at e n oug h to war ra nt eithe r sa nct ion. Instead, we adm

onis h counsel to be mi ndf uli n the f uture to esc

hew argu men t. Ha m i l ton , 35 6 I ll. App. 3d at 1052, ci

ting Friend s o f the Par ks v. Chi cago Park District , 203 Il l . 2d 312 , 319 (2 003). Furth er, we wi l l i gnore the a rgum en tativ e porti ons of

the statem

en t of f acts. Ha m i l ton , 35 6 I ll. App. 3d at 10 52-53 .No. 2-- 07--0858

-4-

We f i rs t ad dr es s w h eth er th e tr i al cou rt erre d i n den y i n g p l ai n ti f f 'sm ot i on f

or vol unta ry dis miss al. If

the trial court erred, then we would h ave n o occasion to reachplai

ntif f' s ot her iss

ues. Se ct io n 2- -1 00 9( a) o f t he C o de allo ws a p laint iff voluntaril

y to dism iss an acti on without prejudi ce at an y tim e b ef ore tri al or hea ri ng begi ns , upon p ay

men t of the other s i de' s cos ts. 735 ILCS 5/2
-- 1009(a) (West 2006) . Subsection (b) pr ovides:

"The court may

hear an d deci de a m

oti on th at hasbe en

f i l ed pri orto a m ot ion f il ed under su bs ec ti on (a) of t his Sec t ion whe n t hat pr ior fil ed mo t ion, if f

avo ra bly ruled o n by the cou rt, coul d re sul

t i n a f i na l di sp osi ti on of the ca use ." 735 ILCS 5/2--1 009(b) (We st 2006 ). The t rial co ur t has d iscre t ion t o he ar and dec ide a p ot ent ially dispo sitive mot ion befo re ru ling on a pla int iff 's motion f or vol unta ry di sm i ssa l . Morrison v . Wagne

r , 191 Il l . 2d 162 , 165 (2 000). According ly, werev

i ew f or ab us e of di screti on th e tri al cou rt' s den i al of the m oti on f or v ol untar y dis miss al. Pla int iff con ten dsth at, b ec au se

W al gr een wa s on l y on e p ar ty to th e s ui t, grantin g its com bi ned
m oti on to dism iss wo uld no t r es ult in

a fi nal dis positi on of the cause. Pl

ai ntif f f urther contends that t he trial court had authority to deny

her moti on f or v ol un tary di sm i ss al onl y i f sh e w aspur sui

ng i t f or abus ivepur po ses, whi ch she cla im s s he wa s no t . As t o pla int iff's firs t ar gu men t , at t he t ime Walgre en's co mbin ed mo t io n t o di smis s w as he ar d, Wa lg r ee n w as t he o nly d efend ant in the case. Co ns eq ue nt ly, the dis

mi ssal resul ted in a fi nal dis positi on. As to plai

ntif f' s second argum

ent, she rel

ie s on Patsis v . Zion-Be

nton Townshi

p High School, No. 126 , 234 Il

l . Ap p. 3d 23 2 (199 2). In Pa t sis , t he app ellate co ur t re ver sed t he t rial co ur t 's de nial of t he pl ai nti f f 's moti on fo rvo lun t ar y dis miss al, whi ch was f il ed a ft e r the defendant fi

led a m ot ion to dismi

ss based on the stat ute o f l im itations, because the pla in tif f' s m ot ion was m

ade not t o avoid an

adverse decisi

on on t he m

erits but because t he de f en da n t h ad ea rl i er f i l ed a s ep arate

con tri b uti on ac ti on ag ai n st th e p l ai n ti f f ari si n g ou t o f t h eNo. 2-- 07--0858

-5-

sa me occurrence. Pa t sis , 234 Il l . Ap p. 3d a t 237. Al l owi

ng th e pl ai ntif f 's m otion f or vol unta ry dis mi ssal t hus a cco mplished t he sa lut ar y pur po se o f allowing t he plaint iff 's per so nal injury claim and t he de fendant 's co nt ribut ion claim t o p ro cee d in t he sa me case . R ega rd ing t he plaint iff 's moti on f

or vol unta ry dis mi ssal , the court said, "[The pl ai ntif f] n ot ed that another action was pe ndi ng wh ic h was a bet t er , if not re quir ed, for um for t he co nsider at ion o f hiscl ai m a nd t ha t t he co nsid er at io n o f his clai m i n that act ion would serve j udicial economy." Pa t sis , 234 Ill . App. 3d at 237. Here, pla int iff

ma in tains that t he pu r

po se o f he rmo t io n fo rvo lun t ar y dis miss al w as t o r efile t he ca se ag ai n st Ri chard, Patrici

a, and Walgreen i

n Cook County, where Ri chard ha d in itiated a c ha nge-of-custody

proceedin

g in whi ch h e "was l ike ly to rely on" a second disclosure of her pre scri ption pr ofile by Walg re en. Pla int iff

se ize s on the words " be

tter, i f not req ui red , f orum " f rom Pa t sis in urg ingt he necess ity of her ref il in g in Cook Co unty. However, pursuan t t o section 2--102(a) of the Code, Wal

green can be sued i n an y c ounty i n wh ic h it does busi

ness (735 ILCS 5/2--102(a) (West 20 06 ) ) an d, ac co r din g t o t he we ll-p le ad ed alle gations i n pl ai ntif f' s compl ai nt, Wal green r eg ula r ly co nd uc t s b us ine ss in D u P ag e C o un t y. Al so acco rding to plain tiff 's wel l-pleaded allegations, Richard and Patrici

a are residents of Du Page C ounty . T heref ore, venue i s proper in Du Page Co un t y, and Cook County i s not a "required" f orum. Nor do es plai

ntif f co nvi nce ustha

t Cook Cou n ty is a "better" forum i

n terms of j udic ia

l ec onom y , b ec au se

i ts on l y con ne cti on to two of

t he parties(p l ai

n ti f f an d R i ch ard) wa s th

e ch an ge -of -c us to dy di sp ute . Ce

rtai nl y , pl ai nti f f coul d n ot pursue in that cus t od y li

t igat ion her cau se o f act ion ag ainst Walgre en fo r vio latio n of t he Act . T he o nly co nceivable a dvant age t o p laintiff in taking a vo lunt ar y dismi ssal and re fil ingi n Coo k C oun

ty is t o av o id an ad ve r se de cis io n o n t he mer it s in Du P ag e C o un t y. Accordin gly , we cann ot say the trial court ab use d i ts di scre tion wh en i t deni ed pl

ai ntif f 's m otion f or vol unta ry di sm i ssa l .No. 2-- 07--0858

-6-

We n ex t tur n to pl ai n ti f f ' s c on ten ti on th at th e tr i al cou rt erre d i n f i n di n g th at sh e f ai l ed to sta te a clai m und er the Act. P laint iff a rgues that the Act endows her wi th a priv il ege not to have her me ntal heal th records discl

osed and that Wal

green vi olated the priv

il ege by di sc l osi ng the rec ords of her pre scri ptions f or Z ol of t an d c l on azepam, which are drugs used i n the treatment of m

ental di sorders , al

though those d rugsal so ha

ve other us es. It is usef ul to recap the sequenc e of eve nts alle ge d by

pl ai ntif f . Pl ai ntif f and Ri chard we re locked in a custody

ba ttl e a t the ti me R i ch ard obta i ne d pl ai nti f f 's "C onf i de nti al Pati en t In f orm ati on Pre scri ption Pr o file" fr o m Walgre en's We b sit e (h ow R i ch ard ac ce ss ed thi s i nf orm ati on i s n ot dis cl osedi

n the rec ord ). T his p r es cr ipt io n p r o file is a tw o-pa gedoc um en t con tai ni ng the pre scri ption num bers, the me dic ations prescri bed, t he initials of t he pha rmacist s who fil led t he pr esc ript ions, t he nam es of t he physicians w ho p re scr ibed t he medica t ions, t he insur ance plan, t he da t es o f service , a nd t he quan titi es a nd pri ces of the m

edi cations. Th

e parties agr ee t hat Walgre en ge ner at ed t he prescr i ption pro fi le f rom the o rigi

nal prescription forms suppl ied to plain

tiff by her psych

iatrist . Richard t he n int en de d t o us e t he Wa lgr ee n info rmat io n t o influ en ce t he o ut co me o f t he custody l i ti ga ti on and s en t th e pr esc ript ion p ro fil

e t o t he at t or ney who was act ing as t he childr en's repre sen tativ e i n the l i tig ati on. For purposes o f t he co mbine d mo t io n t o dis miss , Wa lgr ee n d id not dispute that it dis cl osed th e i n f orm ati on . In i ts brief, Walgre en ar gue s t hat plaint iff 's claim arises ou t of Richa rd 's "unl awful acq uisitio n" of plai

ntif f' s prescri ption profi

le ; however, plai

nt iff p leaded that "Walgreens [ sic ] dis cl osedto [Ric

hard] [p]lai

ntif f' s conf ide ntial me ntal h eal th prescription records." When re viewing a trial court 's disposition of a m ot ion to dismi

ss unde r either se ction 2--615 of the Code ( 735 ILCS 5/2--615 (West 2006)) or section 2--619 of the Code (735 ILCS 2–619 (Wes t 200 6) ), t he r eviewing courtac ce pt s a ll

we ll-p lea de d fa ct s a s t rue an d ma ke s a ll reas onab l e i

nf eren ces there f rom. Zahl v.No. 2-- 07--0858

-7-

Krupa , 365 Ill . App. 3d 653, 658 (2006). Accordingl y, we take as true the al

le gation that Wal

green ma de t he dis cl osure. A dis

mi ssal under ei ther section 2--615 or section 2--619 i s revi ewed de novo . Zahl , 365 Il

l . Ap p. 3d a t 658. At this jun cture we must digress to discuss pla in tif f' s co unsel 's ci

tat ion of, and al

most exclus iverel

i ance up on, In

re Ma rr iag e o f Pe t er s- Fa rr ell , 345 Ill . App. 3d 603 (2003), a First Di strict opi ni on t hat was vaca t ed by o ur sup re me co ur t in In re M arr i ag e of Pe t er s- Fa rr ell , 21 6 I ll. 2d 287 (2005 ), pr ior t o c ou nsel's r eliance u po n it. Co unse l arg ues t hat t he ap pellat e co ur t in Pe t er s- Fa rr ell he ld th at a ph ar macy' s rec ord s of

pr es cri pti on s iss ue d to m en tal h ea l th re ci pi en ts areprot ected under t he A ct a n d th at Pe t er s- Fa rr ell is dispo sitive of the i ssue i n ourcas e. Co un se l cit ed t he ca se mult iple t imes i n the open

i ng a nd r epl y bri ef s, an d at oral argum en t, c lea r ly w i

th kn owl edge of i ts va catur. A n appe l l ate court opi ni on vaca ted by our suprem

e court carri es n o prece den

tia l wei ght. Moh an ty v. St . Jo hn H ea r t Clinic , 225 Ill . 2d 52, 66 (2006) ; Provena Heal th v. Ill in ois Heal th Faci li ties Planning Board , 382 Ill . App. 3d 34, 42 (2008) (appellate court deci si on vacated as m oot by our su pr eme court ha s n

o prece den

tia l va l ue). Altho ugh c ou nsel ar gue d t hat a vac at ed o pinion w ith no precedenti al

val ue i s "h i ghl y persuas i ve " au thori ty, we ch o o se simp ly

to ign ore t he argum

ent based on Pe t er s- Fa rr ell , as

the i ss uepre sente d i s on

e n ot pr ev io us ly ad dr es se d b y t his co ur t , a nd co unse l's argum en t is margi na l l y ba sed on other authority. Sec ti on 3( a) of t he Act provides that "[a]ll

records *** shal

l n ot be di sclosed except as provided in this Act." 740 ILCS 110/3(a) (West 2006). The Act defi nes a "re co rd ," in par t , a s "any record kept by a t he r ap ist o rby an ag en cy inthe course of providi ng m ental heal th or developm

ental disabilities se rvice[ s] t o a re cipient co ncer ningthe re ci pi en t and the s ervi ces

provi ded." 740 ILCS 110/2 (We st 2006 ). "Me

ntal he al th or dev elopmen tal di sab i l i tie s se rvi ces ," or "servi ces," i

ncl ude but arenot li mi ted to exam

in ation, diagnosis, eval

uation, t reatment, t raini

ng, pharmaceutical s, aftercare,No. 2-- 07--0858

-8-

habilitat ion, an

d re ha bi l i tation . 740 I LCS 110 /2 (Wes t 200 6) . Wa lgre en, t he De par t ment, and NACDS posit that a pharm aci st is n ot "a t herapist" or "a

n a ge nc y " u nd er th e A ct a nd thu s is n ot subj ect t o liability unde r t he A ct; th e p h ar mac i st i n ste ad i s s ub j ec t to the

con f i de nti al i ty prov i si on of t he Pharm

acy Practice Act of 1987 (Pharma cy Act) (225 ILCS 85/1 et seq. (West 20 06 )) . P laint iff coun ters that t he Act prohibi

ts any di sc l osu re of a " rec ord, " n

ot j us t a di sc l osu

re b y "a the rap i st" or "an ag en cy. " P laint iff as se r t s t ha t he rpr es cr ipt io n p r o file is a " r ec o r d" be ca us e t he info rmat io n it co nt ains i s " ke

pt b y a th erap i st [ i.e. , her psy

chi atri st] i

n the cours e of

pro vi di ng

men tal he al th or devel opmen taldi sab i l i tie s se rvi ce[s ] [ i.e. , pha

rm ace uti cals]." 740 ILCS 110 /2 (West 2006). Thus, pl aint iff con cl udes , re ga

rdl es s w h eth er W al gr een i tse l f i s " a th erap i st" or " an

ag en cy ," th e Ac t prohib ited i

ts discl osure of the prescri

ption profi

le . "Th e p ri mary rul e of sta tutor y con str uc ti on i s to gi ve ef f ect to the i

nten t of the l egi slature." Ultsch v. I lli nois M unicipal Re t irement Fund , 226 Ill . 2d 169, 181 (200 7). T he best evidenc e o f the legislat ur e's intent is

the statut ory language, wh ic h m ust be gi ven its pl ai n an d ordinary

me ani ng. Ultsch, 226 Ill . 2d at 181. T he proper construction of a statute is a questi on of law, whi ch we revi ew de novo . Murray v . Chicago Yout h Cen ter , 224 Il l . 2d 213 , 228 (2 007). We agree with W

algreen an

d the am ic i that plai ntif f' s i nterpretat ion of

the Act--subj ec ti n g anyone to li

ab i l i ty th ereun der--is ove

rl y broad . Be ca us e t he Ac t 's g o al is to ensu re t he con f i den ti al i ty o f t he r ap eu t ic re l ati

on sh i ps , i t i n cl udes onl y "th ose pers on s e

n ter i n g i n to a t he r ap eu t ic r ela t io nsh ip with cl ien ts." Martin

o v. Fam il y Serv ic e Agen cy o f Ad ams Cou

n ty , 112 Ill . App. 3d 593, 599-600 (1982 ). Mar t ino was follow ed by t he T hird D istr ict in Suare z v . Pi erard , 278 Il l . Ap p. 3d 76 7 (199 6).No. 2-- 07--0858

-9-

Wal green and the am

ic i urge th at Suarez , whi

ch di scussed

t he r elat ionship be t wee n t he Act and t he Phar macy A ct, sho uld co nt ro l the ou t co me in our cas e. In Suarez , an i ndi vi dual pharm aci st and K
mart C orporati

on were sued f orvi ol ati ng the A ct w he n th e p ha rm ac i st d i scus se d i n th e p res en ceof several peopl e the plai ntif f 's conf i den tia l i nf orma tion conc ern i ng m en tal he al th treatm en t. Suarez , 278 Il l . Ap p. 3d a t 768-69. T

he plai ntif f wen t to t he pha rm acy at a K mart store to ha

ve a p res cri ption fi ll ed for cer t ain dr ugs use d in t he t re at ment of m en tal he al th disorders . Suarez , 278 Ill . App. 3d at 768-69. Piera

rd, the pharm ac i st on du t y, q ue st io ned t he p laint iff abo ut her t re at ment a nd co ndit ion, and t he pla int iff dis clo sed co nfident i al i nf orma tion to hi m . Suarez , 2 78 I ll. App. 3d a t 769 . T he pla int iff l ate r had a ch an ce meeti n g w i th Pi erard at a public

tavern, where Pi

erard all egedl y di scussed her conf i den tia l i nf orma tion wi th se veral other pe opl e. Suarez , 278 Ill . App. 3d at 76 9. Th e p laint iff ma in taine d t ha t a p ha rmac is t is i

nc l uded wi thi n the Act's

def i ni tion of a thera pi st. Suarez , 27 8 I ll. App. 3d a t 770 . Alt hou gh t he pr ecise iss ue p re sent ed in Suarez is no t pr es en t ed in o ur ca se , in co ncluding that ph

arm acists ar e not therapi

sts un der the Act, Suarez en ga ge s in a us efu l an alys is dist inguishing a p ha

rm ac i st' s rel ati ons hi p w i th a rec i pi en t of m en tal he al th s erv i ce s f rom a t her apist 's re l ati on sh i p w i th a rec i pi en t. Suarez bega n by sta t ing, in ac co rd wit h Ma rti no , th at the A

ct w as i n ten de d to a pp l y to pers ons e nteri ng i nto ther apeu tic relati onsh

i ps. Suarez , 278 Il

l . Ap p. 3d a t 770. Suarez concl

uded that a rout in

e t ransac tion with a pharm acist does not constitut e a therapeut ic relationshi p because que st ions a ske d by

a pha rmacist , a nd t he ad

vi cea p ha rm ac i st g i ve s a bou t the us e of dru gs , are n ot t her apy and do not esta

bl i sh a the rapeu tic relati onsh

i p. Suarez , 278 Il

l . Ap p. 3d a t 770-71. Suarez add ed t hat whet her t o p re scr ibe a ce rt ain dr ug d epe nds u po n t he pa t ient's need s and th at, al though dec idingwhi

ch dr ug t o p re scr ibe is a means o f pro vidingmenta l health s er vices u nder t he Act , t heNo. 2-- 07--0858

-10-

ph ar mac i st' s a ct of de l i v eri n g th e d ru g to th e cus tom er i s n ot a prov i si on of men tal heal th services. Suarez , 278 Ill . App. 3d at 771. Ac co r di ng ly, t he Act subjec t s t o liability only a t her apist or an ag ency t hat enga ges in a t he r ap eu t ic relationshi

p with a recipi

ent of mental

heal th or developm

ental di sabi

li ties services. Furth er, a pharm aci st performi

ng a routine transa

ction does n ot en

gage i n su ch a rel ati on sh i p w i th a customer. To be sure, the Suarez court cautioned that i t was leav in g open "whether

a pharmacist co uld ever

be consi dered a therap i st w i th i

n the m ean i ng of the * ** Act." (Em

phasi s i n ori gi na l .) Suarez , 278 Ill . App. 3d at 772. Plai ntif f s eizes on thi s l anguage as a basi s f or reversal h

er e, bu t pla int iff do es no t as se r t t ha t she an d W alg r ee n in fa ct en ga ge d in a therapeutic rel ationsh ip. Ins tead, pla int iff as se r t s t ha t Wa lgr ee n is s ub jec t t o liabili t y altho ugh they did not enga ge in su ch a relationshi

p. Becau se Wal

gr ee n a ct ed pu r ely a s a ph ar mac ist , it wa s no t en ga ge d in a t he r ap eu t ic
r ela t io nsh ip wi

th pl ai n ti f f . Th us , i t i s n ot s ub j ec t to li ab i l i

ty un der the A ct, an d t he t r ial c o ur t pr o pe r ly dismissed t he co mplaint fo r failure t o s t at e a c aus e o f act ion. Because we hold that plain tiff cannot st ate a cause of action aga in st Wal green un der the A ct, we do no t reac h the iss

ues raised concernin

g the applicab le statut e of li mi tat ions. CONCLUSION For the forego in

g reasons, the

j udg men t of the ci rcuit court o f Du Page C ounty i s af fi rmed. Af fi rmed. HUTC HINSO

N an d BUR KE, J J., con cur.