Muhammad v. Riverside Healthcare

Plaintiff appealed from the circuit court’s dismissal of his third amended complaint in which the court concluded that the defendants were immune from civil liability under the Hospital Licensing Act, that a portion of the controversy was moot, and that plaintiff failed to state a claim for relief. The appellate court affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded, finding that the applicable claim was not moot, that the circuit court erred by finding that the defendants were immune, that the plaintiff failed to state claims for tortious interference, intentional interference with employment contract, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. (PETERSON and BERTANI, concurring)