2No. 09-3760for emergency services. The law shields from liabilityphysicians who render certain services “without fee.”Rodas was charged a fee for the services she received, buttwo of Rodas’s physicians were not paid from that fee.Instead, they received a salary from their medical prac-tice. The district court agreed with the defendants thatthe salary-versus-fee distinction cloaked the physicianswith statutory immunity. Rodas appeals.The United States, a party to the underlying action butnot to this appeal, has filed a brief as
urging that we lack jurisdiction. The argument is thatthe doctrine of derivative jurisdiction created a latent jurisdictional defect that persists on appeal. The doctrineprovides that a federal court acquires no jurisdictionupon removal where the state court lacked jurisdictionover the subject matter or the parties. That principle,the government maintains, robbed the district courtof subject matter jurisdiction and deprives us of appel-late jurisdiction.We disagree with both the government’s positionabout our jurisdiction and the defendants’ interpretationof the Illinois statute. As to jurisdiction, we join everyother circuit to have considered the question and holdthat the doctrine of derivative jurisdiction is cabined bythe principles announced in
Grubbs v. Gen. Elec. CreditCorp.
, 405 U.S. 699 (1972), and
Caterpillar Inc. v. Lewis,
519U.S. 61 (1996). As to the merits, we conclude that thedefendants’ interpretation of the Good Samaritan Act isinconsistent with the plain language of the statute andthe case law interpreting it. Therefore, we reverse the