ILCS » Chapter 325 · Act 5
Illinois Compiled Statutes

325 ILCS 5/4.02 (2026)

Any physician who willfully fails to report suspected child abuse or neglect as required by this Act shall be referred to the Illinois State Medical Disciplinary Board for action in accordance with paragraph 22 of Section 22 of the Medical Practice Act of 1987

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section IL-ILGAilga.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(325 ILCS 5/4.02) (from Ch. 23, par. 2054.02)
    Sec. 4.02. Any physician who willfully fails to report suspected child abuse or neglect as required by this Act shall be referred to the Illinois State Medical Disciplinary Board for action in accordance with paragraph 22 of Section 22 of the Medical Practice Act of 1987. Any dentist or dental hygienist who willfully fails to report suspected child abuse or neglect as required by this Act shall be referred to the Department of Professional Regulation for action in accordance with paragraph 19 of Section 23 of the Illinois Dental Practice Act. Any other person required by this Act to report suspected child abuse and neglect who willfully fails to report such is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor for a first violation and a Class 4 felony for a second or subsequent violation.
(Source: P.A. 91-197, eff. 1-1-00; 92-801, eff. 8-16-02.)

    
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 10 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2001–2022 · leading case: People v. Santos, 813 N.E.2d 159 (Ill. 2004).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
People v. Santos, 813 N.E.2d 159 (Ill. 2004). · cites it 2× “" 325 ILCS 5/4.02 ( West 1998 ). In the matter at bar, the complainant was 16 years of age when she went to Rockford Memorial Hospital, alleging that she had been forced to participate in sexual acts by defendant.”
Doe v. North Cent. Behavioral Health Sys. Inc., 816 N.E.2d 4 (Ill. App. Ct. 2004). · cites it 2× “In summary, although the plaintiffs are members of the class of individuals who are to be protected by the Reporting Act, and even though the harm suffered by the children was of the type the statute was designed to prevent, the plaintiffs have not shown that a private cause of…”
Rivera v. Arana, 749 N.E.2d 434 (Ill. App. Ct. 2001). · cites it 2× “She also contends that the immunity provided by the Good Samaritan Act should not apply to a cause of action against a physician under the Abused and Neglected Child Reporting Act (Child Reporting Act) (325 ILCS 5/4.02 (West 1998)). For the reasons set forth below, we affirm.”
Varela v. St. Elizabeth's Hosp. of Chicago, Inc., 867 N.E.2d 1 (Ill. App. Ct. 2006). · cites it 2× “2d at 8 , citing 325 ILCS 5/4.02 (West 2002). 2 Accordingly, even though the Third District plaintiffs were “members of the class of individuals who are to be protected by the Reporting Act, and even though the harm suffered by the children was of the type the statute was…”
Magnus v. Dep't of Prof'l Reg., 835 N.E.2d 77 (Ill. App. Ct. 2005). “” 325 ILCS 5/4.02 (West 1998). Section 3 of the Reporting Act reads in pertinent part: “ ‘Child’ means any person under the age of 18 years, unless legally emancipated by reason of marriage or entry into a branch of the United States armed services.”
Rivera v. Arana (Ill. App. Ct. 2001). · cites it 2× “She also contends that the immunity provided by the Good Samaritan Act should not apply to a cause of action against a physician under the Abused and Neglected Child Reporting Act (Child Reporting Act) (325 ILCS 5/4.02 (West 1998)). For the reasons set forth below, we affirm.”
Varela v. St. Elizabeth's Hosp. of Chicago (Ill. App. Ct. 2006). · cites it 2× “2 Accordingly, even though the Third District plaintiffs were "members of the class of individuals who are to be protected by the Reporting Act, and even though the harm suffered by the children was of the type the statute was designed to prevent," the Third District found there…”
Small v. Bd. of Educ. of Streator Twp. High Sch. Dist. No. 40, 2022 IL App (3d) 210113 (Ill. App. Ct. 2022). “” 325 ILCS 5/4.02 (West 2014). ¶ 44 We have already held that Small’s conduct did not violate section 4 of the Act (325 ILCS 5/4 (West 2014)).”
People v. Santos (Ill. 2004). “” 325 ILCS 5/4.02 ( West 1998 ). In the matter at bar, the complainant was 16 years of age when she went to Rockford Memorial Hospital, alleging that she had been forced to participate in sexual acts by defendant.”
Doe v. North Cent. Behavioral Health Sys., Inc. (Ill. App. Ct. 2004). “In summary, although the plaintiffs are members of the class of individuals who are to be protected by the Reporting Act, and even though the harm suffered by the children was of the type the statute was designed to prevent, the plaintiffs have not shown that a private cause of…”
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.