This note analyzes the current circuit split among Illinois courts over whether the same-license requirement for medical expert testimony applies to testimony about the standard of care for nurse-doctor communications. Part I traces the history of the problem by explaining the original same-license requirement, the Wingo exception for nurse-doctor communications, and the Illinois Supreme Court's decision in Sullivan, which cast doubt on Wingo's continued survival. Part II illustrates the nature of the circuit split by describing the lower courts' three distinct interpretations of Sullivan. Finally, Part III argues that courts should apply Sullivan strictly and abandon the Wingo exception because this is the only approach that promotes fairness for nurse defendants and rightfully recognizes nursing as a distinct medical profession. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] Copyright of Chicago Kent Law Review is the property of Chicago Kent Law Review and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Included in

Law Commons