{ "id": 2629029, "name": "THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BRIAN RANDLE, Defendant-Appellee", "name_abbreviation": "People v. Randle", "decision_date": "1989-05-04", "docket_number": "No. 5\u201487\u20140650", "first_page": "146", "last_page": "148", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "183 Ill. App. 3d 146" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.", "id": 8837, "name": "Illinois Appellate Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "417 N.E.2d 1322", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "84 Ill. 2d 186", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 3045513 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/84/0186-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 294, "char_count": 4040, "ocr_confidence": 0.769, "pagerank": { "raw": 7.513212501473712e-08, "percentile": 0.44684381212958746 }, "sha256": "2e8f4f2725658eab4d083da993e3be134cdd1e838819182c61bf91b1b78adf51", "simhash": "1:9efb96543ee9a5f0", "word_count": 653 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:15:47.196010+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BRIAN RANDLE, Defendant-Appellee." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "JUSTICE HOWERTON\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nThis is a driving while intoxicated case.\nA phlebotomist, a blood technician, took blood from the defendant, Brian Randle, upon the order of a physician.\nThe results of the analysis were suppressed because a physician was not present when the blood was taken and because the trial court believed the phlebotomist was not trained.\nI\nWe hold that a physician does not have to be present when a trained phlebotomist withdraws blood on a physician\u2019s order for the blood-alcohol test results to be admissible.\nIllinois statutory law authorizes blood withdrawal by a person who has been approved by the Department of Public Health. (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1985, ch. 951/2, par. 11 \u2014 501.2(aX2).) The Department of Public Health has approved \u201ca trained phlebotomist acting under the direction of a licensed physician\u201d to withdraw blood. 77 Ill. Adm. Code \u00a7510.110(aX2) (1985).\nWe are called on to decide what is meant by \u201cunder the direction of a licensed physician.\u201d\nRules of statutory construction require that words be given their ordinary meaning as derived from common usage, unless a different meaning is intended by the statutory scheme. \u201cDirection,\u201d according to common usage, means \u201cauthoritative instruction; order; command.\u201d Black\u2019s Law Dictionary 547 (4th ed. 1951).\nThe statutory regulatory scheme here in question reveals no intent that \u201cunder the direction\u201d mean anything other than what is meant in common usage. \u201cDirection,\u201d therefore, does not mean \u201cin the presence of.\u201d\nThe physician ordered withdrawal of a sample of defendant\u2019s blood. The phlebotomist received the order. She followed the command. She withdrew blood from the defendant. She withdrew the blood only because of the authoritative instruction, the order, the command of the physician. Therefore, we find she acted under the direction of a licensed physician.\nII\nThe finding of the trial court that the phlebotomist had not been trained is reversed, because it is against the manifest weight of the evidence.\nWhat is sufficient to show that the phlebotomist has been trained?\nThe phlebotomist testified that she had been trained \u2014 although she did not describe the training \u2014 and testified that she had worked in hospitals as a phlebotomist for 18 years.\nSimply because she did not fully describe the training should not cause us, after the fact, and by judicial fiat, to say she was untrained. The hospital employed her as a phlebotomist. Physicians ordered her to withdraw blood. They had sealed her training with their imprimatur.\nIllinois has no formal licensing requirements for becoming a phlebotomist. It does not seem pragmatic, then, for a court to impose a higher standard for phlebotomists than that standard imposed by the health care industry. If hospitals, physicians and other medical people, all who bear heavy responsibility for the lives and health of those in their care, see fit to trust her to follow correct medical procedures, it makes little sense for courts to find her untrained and unqualified. If the law is to have any meaning, any virtue, any utility, it must mirror real life as closely as possible. That is the true spirit of Wilson v. Clark (1981), 84 Ill. 2d 186, 417 N.E.2d 1322.\nLastly, we refuse the State\u2019s request to order this case assigned to a different trial judge. The record reveals no inclination on the part of the trial judge against the State. It reveals a judge doing his job according to his understanding of the law.\nThe circuit court is reversed and the cause remanded.\nReversed and remanded.\nWELCH, P.J., and HARRISON, J., concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "JUSTICE HOWERTON" } ], "attorneys": [ "John Baricevic, State\u2019s Attorney, of Belleville (Kenneth R. Boyle, Stephen E. Norris, and Raymond F. Buckley, Jr., all of State\u2019s Attorneys Appellate Prosecutor\u2019s Office, of counsel), for the People.", "Russell F. Watters, of Brown, James & Rabbitt, P.C., of Belleville, for appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BRIAN RANDLE, Defendant-Appellee.\nFifth District\nNo. 5\u201487\u20140650\nOpinion filed May 4, 1989.\nJohn Baricevic, State\u2019s Attorney, of Belleville (Kenneth R. Boyle, Stephen E. Norris, and Raymond F. Buckley, Jr., all of State\u2019s Attorneys Appellate Prosecutor\u2019s Office, of counsel), for the People.\nRussell F. Watters, of Brown, James & Rabbitt, P.C., of Belleville, for appellee." }, "file_name": "0146-01", "first_page_order": 168, "last_page_order": 170 }