2021 IL App (2d) 210763
Ill. App. Ct.2021Background
- Sebastian and Maria Abbinanti were critically ill with COVID‑19 in the ICU; their health‑care agents sought a temporary restraining order (TRO) compelling Amita Health Saint Joseph Hospital to administer ivermectin.
- Hospital had a September 2021 policy prohibiting ivermectin for COVID‑19, consistent with FDA and major medical associations.
- Dr. Sergei Lipov (attending) requested to give ivermectin; hospital policy prevented prescription/administration.
- Plaintiffs submitted expert declarations and studies supporting ivermectin; defendant submitted critiques and safety concerns.
- Trial court denied the TRO, finding plaintiffs failed to show a protectible legal right, likelihood of success on the merits, and that granting relief would alter (not preserve) the status quo; appellate court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a TRO should compel the hospital to administer ivermectin | TRO necessary to allow physician to try ivermectin for desperate patients | Hospital policy forbids ivermectin; courts should not override lawful medical‑policy decisions | Denied — plaintiffs failed to show protectible right or likelihood of success |
| Whether the Hospital Licensing Act creates an enforceable patient right to override hospital policy | Act prevents hospitals from unreasonably interfering with physicians; thus patients can obtain relief when hospital blocks physician judgment | Act governs hospital‑physician relationship and does not create a private right for patients to sue | Act does not give patients enforceable rights here; only physicians might sue under the Act |
| Whether the hospital’s “patient rights and responsibilities” statement is an enforceable contract requiring the hospital to provide ivermectin | The statement creates an express (and implied) contract entitling patients to requested treatments | The statement only promises information/participation, not availability of treatments contrary to policy | No enforceable contractual right to force treatment against hospital policy |
| Whether granting the TRO would preserve the status quo | Status quo was physician’s unfettered professional judgment | Status quo consists of physician practice constrained by hospital policy and supervision duties | TRO would change the status quo (allowing treatment contrary to policy); relief therefore inappropriate |
Key Cases Cited
- Mohanty v. St. John Heart Clinic, S.C., 225 Ill. 2d 52 (Ill. 2006) (elements and standards for TROs/preliminary injunctions)
- Delgado v. Bd. of Election Commissioners of the City of Chicago, 224 Ill. 2d 481 (Ill. 2007) (TRO purpose is to preserve the status quo pending further hearing)
- Gallagher v. Lenart, 226 Ill. 2d 208 (Ill. 2007) (contract interpretation relies on plain language)
- Yellow Cab Co. v. Production Workers Union of Chicago & Vicinity, Local 707, 92 Ill. App. 3d 355 (Ill. App. Ct. 1980) (failure to establish any injunction element justifies denial)
- Darling v. Charleston Cmty. Memorial Hosp., 33 Ill. 2d 326 (Ill. 1965) (hospitals bear independent responsibility for patient care and supervise in‑hospital treatment)
- Jones v. Chicago HMO Ltd. of Illinois, 191 Ill. 2d 278 (Ill. 2000) (further discussion of institutional responsibilities)
- People ex rel. Illinois Dep’t of Labor v. E.R.H. Enterprises, Inc., 2013 IL 115106 (Ill. 2013) (forfeiture rule where party fails to develop legal arguments)