210 ILCS 90/1

Hospitals which produce photographs of the human anatomy by the X-ray or roentgen process on the request of licensed physicians for use by them in the diagnosis or treatment of a patient's illness or condition shall retain such photographs or films as part of their regularly maintained records for a period of 5 years provided that retention of said photographs or film may be by microfilm or other recognized means of minification that does not adversely affect their use for diagnostic purposes

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section IL-ILGAilga.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(210 ILCS 90/1) (from Ch. 111 1/2, par. 157-11)

Sec. 1.

Hospitals which produce photographs of the human anatomy by the X-ray or
roentgen process on the request of licensed physicians for use by them in
the diagnosis or treatment of a patient's illness or condition shall retain
such photographs or films as part of their regularly maintained records for
a period of 5 years provided that
retention of said photographs or film
may be by microfilm
or other recognized means of minification that does not adversely affect
their use for diagnostic purposes.
However,
if the hospital has been notified in writing by an attorney at law before
the expiration of the 5 year period that there is a litigation pending in
court involving a particular X-ray or roentgen photograph in their records
as possible evidence, and that the subject person of such photograph is his
client, or is the person who has instituted such litigation against his
client, then the hospital shall keep such photograph or film
or minified copy thereof in its regular
records until notified in writing by the plaintiff's attorney with the
approval thereon of the defendant's attorney of record that the case in
court involving such photograph has been concluded, or for a period of 12
years from the date that the X-ray photograph film was produced, whichever
occurs first in time.

(Source: P.A. 79-410.)

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 9 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1995–2024 · leading case: JACKSON BY JACKSON v. Michael Reese Hosp. and Medical Center

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

JACKSON BY JACKSON v. Michael Reese Hosp. and Medical Center (1997) illappct · cites it 4× “I Plaintiffs first contend that the trial court erred in its order of October 23, 1995, dismissing with prejudice the claim under the X-Ray Retention Act (Act) (210 ILCS 90/1 (West 1994)) against defendant Michael Reese Hospital and Medical Center (Michael Reese Hospital).”

Miller v. Gupta (1996) ill · cites it 4× “" Gupta first argues that Miller cannot state a cause of action against him for the violation of the X-Ray Retention Act because he does not come under the terms of the Act.”

Miller v. Gupta (1995) illappct · cites it 3× “She also alleged a cause of action under the X-Ray Retention Act (210 ILCS 90/1 (West 1994)) against defendant St.”

Horlacher v. Cohen (2018) illappct “210 ILCS 90/1 (West 2014) (requiring hospitals, after being notified in writing that a particular X-ray is at issue, to retain that X-ray “for a period of 12 years from the date that the X-ray photograph film was produced”); 225 ILCS 25/50 (West 2014) (requiring dentists to make…”

Horlacher v. Cohen (2017) illappct “210 ILCS 90/1 (West 2014) (requiring hospitals, after being notified *446 in writing that a particular X-ray is at issue, to retain that X-ray "for a period of 12 years from the date that the X-ray photograph film was produced"); 225 ILCS 25/50 (West 2014) (requiring dentists to…”

Rice v. Marathon Petroleum Corp. (2024) ill “111½, ¶ 157-11 (now 210 ILCS 90/1)) did not provide for any remedy, and any administrative remedy for a violation of the act would not provide an adequate remedy.”

Rice v. Marathon Petroleum Corp. (2024) ill “111½, ¶ 157-11 (now 210 ILCS 90/1)) did not provide for any remedy and any administrative remedy for a violation of the act would not provide an adequate remedy.”

Jackson v. Michael Reese Hospital & Medical Center (1997) illappct · cites it 4× “I Plaintiffs first contend that the trial court erred in its order of October 23, 1995, dismissing with prejudice the claim under the X-Ray Retention Act (Act) (210 ILCS 90/1 (West 1994)) against defendant Michael Reese Hospital.”

Miller v. Gupta (1996) ill “" 210 ILCS 90/1 (West 1994). As Gupta is a physician, the Act does not apply to him.”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.