pharmacist's act of delivering the drug to the customer is not a provision of mental health services.
Suarez, 278 Ill. App. 3d at 771.
Accordingly, the Act subjects to liability only a therapist or an agency that engages in a
therapeutic relationship with a recipient of mental health or developmental disabilities services.
Further, a pharmacist performing a routine transaction does not engage in such a relationship with
a customer. To be sure, the Suarez court cautioned that it was leaving open "whether a pharmacist
could ever be considered a therapist within the meaning of the *** Act." (Emphasis in original.)
Suarez, 278 Ill. App. 3d at 772. Plaintiff seizes on this language as a basis for reversal here, but
plaintiff does not assert that she and Walgreen in fact engaged in a therapeutic relationship. Instead,
plaintiff asserts that Walgreen is subject to liability although they did not engage in such a
relationship. Because Walgreen acted purely as a pharmacist, it was not engaged in a therapeutic
relationship with plaintiff. Thus, it is not subject to liability under the Act, and the trial court properly
dismissed the complaint for failure to state a cause of action.
Because we hold that plaintiff cannot state a cause of action against Walgreen under the Act,
we do not reach the issues raised concerning the applicable statute of limitations.
For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the circuit court of Du Page County is affirmed.
HUTCHINSON and BURKE, JJ., concur.
Click tabs to swap between content that is broken into logical sections.