Rivera v. Arana

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that a doctor who treated, at his office and without charge, a boy who had ulcerated and infected feet was protected by Illinois’ Good Samaritan law, because without treatment the boy’s infection could have become worse
• granting summary judgment for the defendant based upon immunity under the Good Samaritan Act where the defendant doctor treated the minor plaintiff for a foot infection at his own medical clinic
• Act applied to physician who rendered emergency care in a medical center because no bill was sent for the services
• physician’s intentions regarding future billing for emergency care he provided are irrelevant under the Act
• Act applied to physician who rendered emergency care in a medical center because no bill was sent for the services
• “[W]hatever [the doctor’s] intentions were with respect to possible billing in the future for his services, they are irrelevant. [The doctor] states that he was never paid and that fact . is controlling.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).