Opinion ID: 3134232
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 11

Heading: Ill 2d 279 (1979)). Greenberg, 83 Ill. 2d at 291-93.

Text: Also, Darling arose from a consideration of the breadth of a modern day hospital's operational realities. The court's discussion in Darling and Greenberg illustrates this breadth: Present-day hospitals, as their manner of operation plainly demonstrates, do far more than furnish facilities for treatment. They regularly employ on a salary basis a large staff of physicians, nurses and interns, as well as administrative and manual workers, and they charge patients for medical care and treatment, collecting for such services, if necessary, by legal action. Darling, 33 Ill. 2d at 332. Greenberg expanded on this theme, stating that a modern hospital  is an amalgam of many individuals not all of whom are licensed medical practitioners  [and] it is clear that at times a hospital functions far beyond the narrow sphere of medical practice. Greenberg, 83 Ill. 2d at 293; see also Pedroza, 101 Wash. at 231, 677 P.2d at 169 (Darling's newly recognized doctrine of corporate negligence reflects public's perception of modern hospital as multifaceted health care facility responsible for quality of medical care and treatment rendered); A. Southwick, The Hospital as an Institution--Expanding Responsibilities Change its Relationship with the Staff Physician, 9 Cal. W. L. Rev. 429, 429 (1973) (community hospital has evolved into corporate institution, assuming the role of a comprehensive health center ultimately responsible for arranging and co-ordinating total health care). Notably, it is the inherent diversity in hospital administration which permits a broad range of evidence, including expert witness testimony, administrative rules and regulations, to establish the reasonableness standard of care, but does not call necessarily for such proofs. This relationship contrasts with that between professional conduct and proofs relevant to establish the appropriate professional standard of care; such proofs in the form of expert witness testimony or other evidence of professional standards are generally required because they are generally necessary to evaluate conduct which is likely arcane to lay jurors. Cf. IPI Civil 3d Nos. 105.01, 105.03.01; Ellig v. Delnor Community Hospital, 237 Ill. App. 3d 396, 414 (1992) (discussing probable jury confusion resulting from use of IPI Civil 3d Nos. 105.01 and 105.03.01 together). Unlike hospitals, blood service providers, within the purview of the Act, engage in a rather finite range of medically focused services (procuring, furnishing, donating, processing, distributing human blood, bones, organs and tissues for injecting, transfusing or transplanting within the human body).