Court Opinion

ID: 9861761
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-25 00:28:08.042819+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:28:56.193864
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE O’HARA FROSSARD, specially concurring: I write separately to make the point that where, as in this case, an accurate medical diagnosis is alleged to have been made, followed by a prescribed course of treatment, there is no exoneration from liability under subsection (d) of section 6 — 106(d) of the Tort Immunity Act for injury proximately caused by a negligent or wrongful act or omission in administering any treatment prescribed. The fact that an accurate medical diagnosis together with a prescribed course of treatment as the result of that diagnosis was alleged in this case distinguishes it from Mabry, where failure to diagnose was the gravamen of the alleged medical malpractice and immunity was thereby afforded under subsection (a) of section 6 — 106(a) of the Tort Immunity Act.