Hepler Broom, LLC

Travel vs. Transport and Immunity Under Illinois’ EMS Act

March 18, 2021

Illinois’ Emergency Medical Services (EMS) Systems Act (EMS Act) provides immunity from civil liability—except in the case of willful and wanton misconduct—to all licensed or authorized EMS providers who provide “emergency or non-emergency medical services” in good faith in the normal course of their duties or in an emergency. 210 ILCS 50/3.150. Determining when the provision of medical services begins is essential to identifying when the immunity is triggered.

Preparatory Conduct

The provision of medical services includes preparatory conduct. For example, the Illinois Supreme Court applied immunity in a case involving allegations of negligence in locating a patient at the scene of the emergency: American National Bank & Trust Co. v. City of Chicago. In American National, the patient provided her address to the 911 operator and indicated that she lived on the third floor. The responding paramedics were allowed into the apartment building by a neighbor and knocked on the door of the only other apartment on the third floor. A firefighter knocked on the back door. There was no response. The paramedics left after confirming that they were at the correct address; the dispatcher did not reach the patient when returning the call; and the neighbor indicated that a young couple, with no apparent medical problems, lived at the apartment. The paramedics were called back to the scene later that day, and, after being let into the apartment, they found the patient dead on the floor. The plaintiff argued that the EMS Act only applies when paramedics have actually rendered treatment to the patient. The Court disagreed. Am. Nat., 192 Ill. 2d 274, 276 (2000).

Travel to Patients

In a recent case, Hernandez v. Lifeline Ambulance, LLC, the defendants argued that traveling to a patient qualified as preparatory conduct. There, the private ambulance driver ran a red light while driving on a nonemergency basis to pick up a patient from a dialysis center about twenty miles away. The Court held that such nonemergency travel to a patient does not qualify as a protected medical service under the EMS Act. In rejecting the defendants’ attempt to categorize such travel as preparatory conduct, the Court emphasized that preparatory conduct does not begin until the EMS providers arrive at the scene. Hernandez v. Lifeline Ambulance, LLC, 2020 IL 124610. As the American National Court previously explained: “Locating a person in need of emergency medical treatment is the first step in providing life support services.” Am. Nat., 192 Ill. 2d at 286 (emphasis added).

Patient Transport

Although travel to a patient may not be protected, patient transport is immunized pursuant to the EMS Act. In Wilkins v. Williams, the Illinois Supreme Court held that immunity under the EMS Act applied to negligent driving during nonemergency transportation of a patient. Such immunity even applies to injuries sustained by third parties, such as the plaintiff motorist in Wilkins. In its decision, the Court made clear that not all travel is alike; while patient transport is protected, merely driving to and from work would not be immunized—a distinction which the Hernandez Court took one step further. Wilkins v. Williams, 2013 IL 114310.

The Takeaway

Under Illinois case law, there is a distinction between mere travel and patient transport. EMS providers should be mindful of this distinction, particularly when driving en route to patients. As such, the Hernandez decision serves as a reminder for EMS providers to drive with due regard for the safety of all persons.

(This article does not constitute legal advice and is provided for informational purposes only. It does not provide a comprehensive analysis of all potentially applicable immunities. Additional immunities—such as the Local Governmental and Governmental Employees Tort Immunity Act—and statutory provisions made need to be considered. Please contact legal counsel for additional information.)

COVID-19 Updates

HeplerBroom LLC COVID-19 Response

HeplerBroom has been diligently working on its response and continuity plan to the COVID-19 pandemic in order to keep the health and safety of our employees, their families, and our clients as our top priority.

To help ensure everyone's continued health and well-being, effective March 17, 2020, all attorneys and staff began working remotely. We continue to assess the situation and will return to our physical offices when appropriate.

To ensure this, the firm has identified essential personnel in each office who will make certain that critical firm functions that cannot be done remotely continue to be handled. We have put in place protocol for those essential personnel to make sure they are keeping healthy per the CDC cleaning and sanitizing recommendations. All teams have back-up personnel and procedures that we will follow to make sure all deadlines are met and clients receive the same great service and work product that we have always been proud to provide.

HeplerBroom's IT department has been working hard to make sure all remote employees are set up with equipment and access from home to limit disruption to our clients. Maintaining security and confidentiality has remained, and will continue to remain, at the forefront of all processes and procedures, at all levels throughout the firm.

The firm has created emergency communication measures to communicate any changes to this plan to employees and are communicating on a regular basis with any and all new resources and helpful information during this uncertain time.

During these fluid and unpredictable times, HeplerBroom will continue its commitment to great service and results for our clients, all while keeping safe and healthy.

Wishing you and your families good health.

Read More >