for negligent infliction of emotional distress would require physical injury or illness resulting from District’s alleged negligence (Rickey v. Chicago Transit Authority, 98 Ill.2d 546, 555, 75 Ill.Dec. 211, 215, 457 N.E.2d 1, 5 (1983)). Count IV contains no such allegations. 27 . Section 2-622(a)(l) also provides that if the affidavit is filed as to the actions of a psychologist (as here with Petersen), the written report must come from a health professional licensed in the same profession, and with the same class of license, as the psychologist. 28 . This Court’s colleague Judge Ann Williams has dealt with that issue persuasively in Thompson by Thompson v. Kishwaukee Valley Medical Group, No. 86 C 1483, avail, on LEXIS (N.D.Ill. Oct. 6, 1986) [available on WESTLAW, 1986 WL 11381] (<HOLDING>). 29 . As to the individual defendants, their
holding that dismissal for failure to comply with discovery orders is on the merits holding dismissal for failure to comply with rule 8 was dismissal of entire action which was appealable final order holding that absent extraordinary circumstances a failure to comply with the statute requires a dismissal with prejudice holding that the plaintiffs failure to meet any one of the elements requires dismissal of claim holding plaintiffs failure to comply with section 2622 requires dismissal in federal court