Hernandez v. Lifeline Ambulance, LLC
125 N.E.3d 429
Ill. App. Ct.2019Background
- On March 11, 2016, Roberto Hernandez’s car was struck by a Lifeline Ambulance driven by employee Joshua Nicholas; no patient was in the ambulance at the time.
- Hernandez sued: Count I (negligence against Nicholas), Count II (willful and wanton conduct against Nicholas), Count III (respondeat superior against Lifeline).
- Defendants moved to dismiss under section 2-619, asserting immunity under the EMS Systems Act (210 ILCS 50/3.150(a)) for providers of emergency or non-emergency medical services, unless conduct is willful and wanton.
- Defendants submitted affidavits and dispatch logs showing the ambulance had been dispatched to pick up a patient for a non-emergency transport prior to the crash; plaintiff submitted a witness affidavit suggesting the ambulance driver said it was “not in service.”
- The circuit court granted dismissal of Counts I and III with prejudice; Hernandez appealed the dismissal of his counts (American Access Casualty Company, subrogee, did not appeal).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does section 3.150(a) of the EMS Act immunize ambulance operators while en route to pick up a patient for non-emergency transport (before patient is onboard)? | Hernandez: Immunity applies only when providing medical services to a patient (i.e., during patient transportation); driving to pick up a patient is not "non-emergency medical services" as statutorily defined. | Lifeline/Nicholas: Immunity applies from dispatch for non-emergency transports, so acts while en route are protected unless willful and wanton. | The court held immunity does not apply before the patient is being transported; dismissal was reversed and case remanded. |
Key Cases Cited
- Wilkins v. Williams, 2013 IL 114310 (supreme court decision applying EMS Act immunity to non-emergency transport where patient was being transported)
- Patrick Engineering, Inc. v. City of Naperville, 2012 IL 113148 (explaining nature of section 2-619 motions)
- Kedzie & 103rd Currency Exchange, Inc. v. Hodge, 156 Ill. 2d 112 (standard of review for section 2-619 dismissals)