conclusion is further supported by plaintiff counsel’s own statement to the circuit court. While presenting plaintiffs motion for summary judgment, counsel for plaintiff stated: “[F]irst of all, they [defendants] are not physicians. They are surgeons. They are not physicians. They are dentists. That is what they are licensed as.” We find it surprising that plaintiffs counsel would argue to the circuit court that defendants are surgeons, not physicians, and then argue to this court that the physician-patient privilege cannot apply to defendants when the statute specifically includes surgeons. While plaintiffs “agreement” that dentists are surgeons bears noting, our conclusion is well founded on the definitions of the operative words at issue in this case. See Baker, 154 Ill. 2d at 197 (<HOLDING>). A dentist, also called a dental surgeon, is
recognizing that the court must give meaning to all the words in the claims recognizing that we must give meaning to all the words in the claims holding that the clear and unambiguous words of an insurance contract should be given their plain and ordinary meaning holding that statutory words must be given their ordinary contemporary meaning holding that we must give the words in statutes their plain and ordinary meaning