McKim v. Southern Illinois Hospital Services , 2016 IL App (5th) 140405 ( 2016 )

Modified Rule 23 Order filed 2016 IL App (5th) 140405July 12, 2016.
Motion to publish granted NO. 5-14-0405
August 26, 2016.
IN THE
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS
FIFTH DISTRICT
________________________________________________________________________
EDWIN McKIM, ) Appeal from the
) Circuit Court of
Plaintiff-Appellee, ) Franklin County.
)
v. ) No. 14-MR-31
)
SOUTHERN ILLINOIS HOSPITAL SERVICES, )
d/b/a Herrin Hospital, and WILLIAMSON COUNTY )
AMBULANCE, )
)
Defendants )
) Honorable
(Southern Illinois Hospital Services, ) David K. Overstreet,
Defendant-Appellant). ) Judge, presiding.
_______________________________________________________________________
JUSTICE CHAPMAN delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion.
Justices Welch and Goldenhersh concurred in the judgment and opinion.
OPINION
¶1 Defendant Southern Illinois Hospital Services d/b/a Herrin Hospital (Herrin
Hospital) appeals from the trial court's July 25, 2014, order adjudicating liens and
distributing the settlement proceeds. Herrin Hospital contends that the trial court
improperly included Medicare, Medicare Part D, and Medicaid "liens" in the total amount
of liens subject to the 40% cap mandated by the Health Care Services Lien Act. Because
the court allowed 100% reimbursement of the Medicare and Medicaid bills, Herrin
1
Hospital's reimbursement was substantially decreased. In addition, Herrin Hospital
claims that the trial court improperly required the Health Care Services Lien Act
lienholders to pay plaintiff Edwin McKim's costs of suit pursuant to the common fund
doctrine. We find that the judgment order distributing the settlement is contrary to the
plain language of the Health Care Services Lien Act and is in conflict with Medicare's
secondary payer provison and the Illinois Public Aid Code. Additionally, the trial court's
assessment of court costs to Herrin Hospital and Williamson County Ambulance does not
comply with Illinois Supreme Court decisions. We modify the judgment pursuant to our
authority under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 366(a)(5) (eff. Feb. 1, 1994).
¶2 BACKGROUND
¶3 This appeal involves the adjudication of liens under the Health Care Services Lien
Act (770 ILCS 23/1 et seq. (West 2012)). The Health Care Services Lien Act limits the
total amount of medical liens to 40% of the settlement or verdict. At issue is whether
bills owed to Medicare, Medicare Part D, and Medicaid can be included in the 40% cap
under the Health Care Services Lien Act. Also at issue is whether the 40% amount of the
settlement is a "common fund" created for the benefit of the lienholders and whether the
plaintiff's attorney's costs should be paid by the lienholders from their pro rata shares of
the 40% of the settlement.
¶4 Edwin McKim was involved in a motor vehicle accident in which he sustained
bodily injuries and damages. He sought treatment for these injuries at Herrin Hospital.
He and his attorney reached a $16,000 settlement with the at-fault driver.
2
¶5 McKim filed a complaint to adjudicate liens on May 23, 2014. McKim's medical
bills, resulting from injuries sustained in the motor vehicle accident, totaled $10,172.32.
Herrin Hospital held a $5803 lien against McKim's settlement proceeds. McKim owed
Williamson County Ambulance $1530. McKim also identified Medicare, Medicare Part
D, and Medicaid as entities to which he owed money. The total amount owed to those
three entities was $2839.32. In his prayer for relief, McKim asked the court to limit all of
the medical liens (including the Medicare and Medicaid "liens") to no more than 40% of
the $16,000 settlement−$6400. Acknowledging that the Medicare and Medicaid liens
take priority, McKim asked the court to divide the balance of the $6400−$3560.68−pro
rata between Herrin Hospital and Williamson County Ambulance. He also asked the
court to apportion the costs of suit between the two Illinois Health Care Services Lien
Act lienholders. McKim's costs were $494.93.
¶6 In response to the complaint, Herrin Hospital argued that the 40% cap mandated
by the Health Care Services Lien Act can only be distributed between Herrin Hospital
and Williamson County Ambulance. Furthermore, Herrin Hospital claimed that medical
providers with perfected liens could not be responsible for a pro rata share of litigation
costs. Finally, Herrin Hospital asserted that the Medicare and Medicaid liens could not
be subject to the Health Care Services Lien Act but instead should be adjudicated
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1395y(b)(2)(A)(ii) (hereafter referred to as the Medicare
Secondary Payer Act) and the Illinois Public Aid Code (305 ILCS 5/11-22 (West 2012)).
Herrin Hospital argued that the priority of the liens was Medicare, followed by the
attorney's lien, Medicaid, Health Care Services Lien Act providers, and, finally, McKim.
3
¶7 The trial court held a hearing and entered the order proposed by McKim on July
25, 2014. In that order, the court combined the Medicare, Medicare Part D, and Medicaid
bills along with the bills from Herrin Hospital and Williamson County Ambulance. The
court held that all bills were subject to the 40% rule and that the total allocated for all of
these bills was $6400. The court's order directed full reimbursement of the Medicare,
Medicare Part D, and Medicaid bills. The remaining balance was to be shared pro rata
by Herrin Hospital and Williamson County Ambulance. Medicare, Medicare Part D, and
Medicaid were not assessed a share of the court costs. The court directed the costs to be
subtracted pro rata from the shares of Herrin Hospital and Williamson County
Ambulance. Finally, the court awarded McKim and his attorney each 30% of the
$16,000. From the $16,000, the parties received the following:
McKim $4800;
Attorney $4800 plus $494.93 in costs;
Herrin Hospital $2421.94 (gross bill of $5803; received
$2812.94 share less $391 in costs);
Williamson County Ambulance $643.81 (gross bill of $1530; received $747.74
share less $103.93 in costs);
Medicare $158.30;
Medicaid $221.41;
Medicare Part D $2459.61.
Herrin Hospital appeals from this order.
4
¶8 LAW AND ANALYSIS
¶9 Herrin Hospital raises three issues on appeal. First, Herrin Hospital argues that the
trial court erred in adding the Medicare and Medicaid liens to the liens perfected pursuant
to the Health Care Services Lien Act. Second, Herrin Hospital contends that case law
interpreting the Health Care Services Lien Act holds that perfected lienholders are not
responsible for plaintiff's costs of suit. Finally, Herrin Hospital claims that the trial
court's resulting settlement proceeds distribution was incorrect.
¶ 10 As the adjudication involves interpretation of federal and state law, we review the
trial court's order on a de novo basis. Blum v. Koster, 235 Ill. 2d 21, 29, 919 N.E.2d 333,
338 (2009). Statutory language must be given its plain and ordinary meaning. People ex
rel. Madigan v. Kinzer, 232 Ill. 2d 179, 184, 902 N.E.2d 667, 670-71 (2009). If the
language used in a statute is unambiguous, there is no need to use any other rules of
construction. Burrell v. Southern Truss, 176 Ill. 2d 171, 174, 679 N.E.2d 1230, 1232
(1997).
¶ 11 I. Statutory Provisons
¶ 12 A. Health Care Services Lien Act
¶ 13 We begin our analysis of the trial court's lien adjudication with the relevant
sections of the Health Care Services Lien Act. Section 10(a) of the Health Care Services
Lien Act states: "Every health care professional and health care provider that renders any
service in the treatment, care, or maintenance of an injured person *** shall have a lien
upon all claims and causes of action of the injured person for the amount of the health
care professional's or health care provider's reasonable charges up to the date of payment
5
of damages to the injured person." 770 ILCS 23/10(a) (West 2012). The total amount of
medical liens pursuant to this act cannot exceed 40% of the settlement. Id. Section 10(b)
provides that all perfected lienholders shall share proportionate amounts subject to the
40% limit. 770 ILCS 23/10(b) (West 2012). Finally, section 10(c) states that if the total
amount of the medical liens meets or exceeds the 40% limit, then the 40% limit is divided
in two halves: 20% of the settlement is to be distributed to health care professionals, and
20% is to be distributed to health care providers. 770 ILCS 23/10(c) (West 2012). A
health care professional is defined as "any individual in any of the following license
categories: licensed physician, licensed dentist, licensed optometrist, licensed naprapath,
licensed clinical psychologist, or licensed physical therapist." 770 ILCS 23/5 (West
2012). A health care provider is defined as "any entity in any of the following license
categories: licensed hospital, licensed home health agency, licensed ambulatory surgical
treatment center, licensed long-term care facilities, or licensed emergency medical
services personnel." Id. Additionally, when the medical liens meet or exceed 40% of the
settlement, the attorney's lien is limited to 30%. 770 ILCS 23/10(c) (West 2012).
¶ 14 B. Medicare
¶ 15 The Medicare Secondary Payer Act disallows payment for any item or service
when "payment has been made or can reasonably be expected to be made *** under an
automobile or liability insurance policy or plan (including a self-insured plan)." 42
U.S.C. § 1395y(b)(2)(A)(ii) (2012). Additionally under the Medicare Secondary Payer
Act, any primary plan that receives payment must reimburse Medicare if it can be shown
that the primary plan had a responsibility to make payment, demonstrated by a judgment
6
or a payment conditioned upon the recipient's compromise, waiver, or release. 42 U.S.C.
§ 1395y(b)(2)(B)(ii) (2012). Regulations promulgated by the agency state that the
agency "has a right of action to recover its payments from any entity, including a
beneficiary, provider, supplier, physician, attorney, State agency or private insurer that
has received a primary payment." 42 C.F.R. § 411.24(g) (2012).
¶ 16 C. Medicaid
¶ 17 The Illinois Public Aid Code provides that the Illinois Department of Healthcare
and Family Services has a charge upon all claims, demands, and causes of action for
injuries to someone who received or has applied for financial aid, including health care
benefits. 305 ILCS 5/11-22 (West 2012). Additionally, this right of reimbursement
"take[s] priority over all other liens and charges existing under the laws of the State of
Illinois with the exception of the attorney's lien." Id. Distribution of settlement proceeds
is within the trial court's powers. Id.¶ 18 II. Inclusion of Medicare, Medicare Part D, and Medicaid in 40% Cap
¶ 19 Herrin Hospital argues that the language used in the Health Care Services Lien
Act definitions is unambiguous. Herrin Hospital contends that Herrin Hospital and
Williamson County Ambulance are the only two providers in this case eligible to share
proportionately in the 40% amount of the settlement. We agree.
¶ 20 The Health Care Services Lien Act creates a statutory lien for providers in two
defined categories. A "health care professional" is defined as "any individual in any of
the following license categories: licensed physician, licensed dentist, licensed
optometrist, licensed naprapath, licensed clinical psychologist, or licensed physical
7
therapist." 770 ILCS 23/5 (West 2012). A "health care provider" is defined as "any
entity in any of the following license categories: licensed hospital, licensed home health
agency, licensed ambulatory surgical treatment center, licensed long-term care facilities,
or licensed emergency medical services personnel." Id. In this case, it is clear that
Herrin Hospital and Williamson County Ambulance are both "health care providers" as
defined by the Health Care Services Lien Act. By including Medicare, Medicare Part D,
and Medicaid in the 40% limit established by the Health Care Services Lien Act for
health care professionals and providers, the trial court implicitly found that these entities
were either health care professionals or health care providers. We disagree with this
conclusion. Medicare and Medicaid are public agencies and do not directly provide
medical care to the patient. Instead, these agencies reimburse health care professionals
and providers. We find that the statutory definitions of a "health care professional" and a
"health care provider" are unambiguous. A court may not ignore the plain language of a
statute. Kinzer, 232 Ill. 2d at 184, 902 N.E.2d at 670-71. Therefore, we conclude that
Medicare, Medicare Part D, and Medicaid are not subject to the Health Care Services
Lien Act.
¶ 21 We find additional support for this conclusion in the Medicare Secondary Payer
Act and the Public Aid Code.
¶ 22 Under the Medicare Secondary Payer Act, Medicare does not pay for medical
services in cases where an injury or illness was caused by another party or in situations
where payment can be made by liability insurance. 42 U.S.C. § 1395y(b)(2)(A)(ii)
(2012). If Medicare pays for medical care under such circumstances, the payment is
8
construed as a "conditional payment." 42 U.S.C. § 1395y(b)(2)(B)(i) (2012); 42 C.F.R.
§ 411.52 (2012). Medicare has a direct right to recover the entire amount of the bills
paid from the entity responsible to make the primary payment, or alternatively from the
individual or entity that received payment from the responsible party. 42 U.S.C.
§ 1395y(b)(2)(B)(iii) (2012).
¶ 23 Consequently, federal preemption is implicated. Federal statutes and regulations
may preempt state law in three ways:
"(1) the language of the statute or regulation expressly preempts state law; (2)
Congress implemented a comprehensive regulatory scheme in a given area,
removing the entire field from state law; or (3) state law as applied conflicts
with federal law." Moskowitz v. Washington Mutual Bank, F.A., 329 Ill. App. 3d
144, 146-47, 768 N.E.2d 262, 264 (2002).
See Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc., 505 U.S. 504, 516 (1992).
¶ 24 Interpreting the Health Care Services Lien Act to include Medicare and Medicare
Part D bills within the statutory 40% limit creates a conflict between that act and the
Medicare Secondary Payer Act. Therefore, the federal statute preempts the state statute.
¶ 25 We also find support for our conclusion in section 11-22 of the Public Aid Code,
which prioritizes the Illinois Department of Healthcare and Family Services' right to
reimbursement over any other liens existing under Illinois law except for attorney's liens.
305 ILCS 5/11-22 (West 2012). The wording of this section is unambiguous and is
without limitation. Id. "It is a fundamental rule of statutory construction that where there
exists a general statutory provision and a specific statutory provision, either in the same
9
or another act, which both relate to the same subject, the specific provision controls and
should be applied." People v. Villarreal, 152 Ill. 2d 368, 379, 604 N.E.2d 923, 928
(1992). Accordingly, we find that the Public Aid Code controls as it is more specific than
the applicable provision of the Health Care Services Lien Act.
¶ 26 McKim, however, argues that the Health Care Services Lien Act was amended in
2013 to include subrogation and that the Medicare, Medicare Part D, and Medicaid
claims would fall under this statute. Section 50 of the Health Care Services Lien Act
allows a subrogation claim to be reduced in proportion to the plaintiff's "(1) ***
comparative fault; or (2) by reason of the uncollectibility of the full value of the claim for
personal injury or death resulting from limited liability insurance." 770 ILCS 23/50
(West 2012). Even if we assumed that Medicare and Medicaid held subrogation
interests, this section is preempted by the Medicare Secondary Payer Act and conflicts
with the Public Aid Code, and it therefore does not apply in this case.
¶ 27 We find that the trial court erred by including Medicare, Medicare Part D, and
Medicaid in the 40% limit of the Health Care Services Lien Act.
¶ 28 III. Court Costs
¶ 29 Herrin Hospital next argues that the trial court's adjudication was wrong because
court costs were assessed against the lienholders pursuant to the common fund doctrine.
The common fund doctrine authorizes the reimbursement of litigation expenses and
attorney fees out of settlement funds. Morris B. Chapman & Associates, Ltd. v. Kitzman,
193 Ill. 2d 560, 572, 739 N.E.2d 1263, 1271 (2000). A plaintiff can collect attorney fees
and costs from any lienholder that is subject to the common fund doctrine. McGee v.
10
Oldham, 267 Ill. App. 3d 396, 399, 642 N.E.2d 196, 198-99 (1994). Herrin Hospital
argues that medical providers with perfected Health Care Services Lien Act liens are not
subject to the common fund doctrine. Maynard v. Parker, 75 Ill. 2d 73, 75, 387 N.E.2d
298, 300 (1979); Wendling v. Southern Illinois Hospital Services, 242 Ill. 2d 261, 265-68,
950 N.E.2d 646, 648-50 (2011).
¶ 30 At the time that the trial court entered this order, an opinion from this court,
Stanton v. Rea, supported certain aspects of this adjudication. Stanton v. Rea, 2012 IL
App (5th) 110187, 978 N.E.2d 1146. Stanton v. Rea held that the injured plaintiff and his
attorney were each entitled to receive 30% of the settlement before any medical bills
were paid. Id. ¶ 18. Additionally, the court held that the plaintiff is not responsible to
pay his own costs. Id. The Stanton court held that the attorney's costs must be subtracted
from the settlement before computation of the 40% allocated by the Health Care Services
Lien Act to health care professionals and health care providers holding liens, stating:
"In order to ensure that plaintiff receives 30% of the judgment as
intended by the Act, it is necessary that computation of the 40% does not begin
until costs associated with bringing the case to trial and securing payment of the
judgment have been deducted from the amount of the original verdict." Id.
¶ 31 After the trial court's adjudication order was entered in July of 2014, the Illinois
Supreme Court overruled Stanton v. Rea, in McVey v. M.L.K. Enterprises, LLC, 2015 IL
118143, 32 N.E.3d 1112.
¶ 32 In McVey v. M.L.K. Enterprises, LLC, McVey settled a personal injury lawsuit for
$7500. Id. ¶ 3. Memorial Hospital of Carbondale was a lienholder in the amount of
11
$2891.64. Id. ¶ 4. McVey incurred attorney fees and $846.66 in litigation costs. Id.
Citing Stanton v. Rea, the McVey trial court awarded 30% of the $7500 ($2250) to the
attorney, $2500 to the hospital, and the balance of $2750 to McVey. Id. ¶¶ 5-6. The trial
court concluded that Stanton conflicted with the supreme court's opinion in Wendling v.
Southern Illinois Hospital Services and refused to deduct attorney fees and costs before
calculating the amount available to the hospital. Id. ¶ 6. The appellate court reversed
based on Stanton v. Rea, holding that the court cannot calculate the health care liens until
after the court reduces the settlement by attorney fees and costs. McVey v. M.L.K.
Enterprises, L.L.C., 2014 IL App (5th) 130350-U, ¶ 11.
¶ 33 The supreme court granted the hospital's petition for leave to appeal. McVey, 2015
IL 118143, ¶ 8, 32 N.E.3d 1112. The court reiterated that the Health Care Services Lien
Act limited the total amount of liens to no more than 40% of the settlement. Id. ¶ 13
(citing 770 ILCS 23/10(a) (West 2012)). However, because the hospital was the only
lienholder, section 10(c) limited the amount that the hospital could recover to one-third of
the settlement. Id. (citing 770 ILCS 23/10(c) (West 2012)). The supreme court stated
that the Health Care Services Lien Act contains no language allowing the deduction of
attorney fees and costs from the settlement before the lienholder's percentage of the
settlement is calculated. Id. ¶ 14. The supreme court refused to interpret the Health Care
Services Lien Act to add limiting language not included by the legislature. Id.
¶ 34 The supreme court noted that a recent appellate court case, Wolf v. Toolie, was
consistent with this holding. Id. ¶ 15 (citing Wolf v. Toolie, 2014 IL App (1st) 132243,
19 N.E.3d 1154). The Wolf court analyzed the language of the Health Care Services Lien
12
Act and the Attorneys Lien Act. Both acts used identical language regarding percentage
limitations for healthcare and attorney's liens:
"If the total amount of the liens under the Act exceeds 40% of the ' "verdict,
judgment, award, settlement, or compromise," ' then attorney liens ' "shall not
exceed" ' 30% of the ' "verdict, judgment, award, settlement, or compromise." ' "
Id. ¶ 17 (quoting Wolf, 2014 IL App (1st) 132243, ¶ 22, 19 N.E.3d 1154 (quoting
770 ILCS 5/1 (West 2012), and 770 ILCS 23/10(c) (West 2012))).
¶ 35 From this, the Wolf court concluded, and the McVey court concurred, that " 'the
consistent use of terminology shows that the legislature intended health care liens and
attorney liens to be calculated from the same total [award].' " Id. (quoting Wolf, 2014 IL
App (1st) 132243, ¶ 22, 19 N.E.3d 1154).
¶ 36 In addition, the McVey court found that its earlier opinion in Wendling was
instructive. Id. ¶ 18. In Wendling, two hospitals filed liens pursuant to the Health Care
Services Lien Act. Id. (citing Wendling, 242 Ill. 2d at 264, 950 N.E.2d at 647-48). After
the claims settled, the plaintiffs asked the court to adjudicate the liens and to award their
attorneys additional fees equal to one-third of the amount of the hospitals' liens. Id.(citing Wendling, 242 Ill. 2d at 264, 950 N.E.2d at 648). The trial and appellate courts
agreed. However, the supreme court reversed, holding "that the hospitals were not
unjustly enriched by the attorneys' services and therefore were not required to contribute
to the costs of litigation." Id. The Wendling court found that plaintiffs' attorney did not
reach the underlying settlements to benefit the hospitals. Id.13
¶ 37 In conclusion, the McVey court held that section 10 of the Health Care Services
Lien Act was unambiguous and did not permit any deduction of attorney fees and/or costs
before calculating the percentage to be paid to any health care lienholder. Id. ¶ 19.
¶ 38 In this case, the trial court held that the attorney's costs were to be apportioned
between the two lienholders pro rata. This decision is in contradiction to the holdings in
both Wendling and McVey. McKim and his attorney did not obtain the settlement to
benefit Herrin Hospital and Williamson County Ambulance. Therefore, the court's order
directing the two lienholders to pay the attorney's costs from the Health Care Services
Lien Act 40% limit was improper.
¶ 39 IV. Distribution of Settlement Proceeds
¶ 40 Based upon the statutory analysis in this opinion, we conclude that the trial court's
adjudication was incorrect and must be vacated. We acknowledge the difficulty that
proper construction of liens may pose to plaintiffs and their attorneys under
circumstances when recovery is compromised by inadequate insurance or other attendant
problems. In those circumstances, the settlement process can be adversely affected.
While it is true, as plaintiff argues, that as a public policy the courts encourage
settlements, we must construe the statute as written and cannot depart from the plain
meaning to reach a desired result in any particular case. Kugler v. Southmark Realty
Partners III, 309 Ill. App. 3d 790, 797, 723 N.E.2d 710, 716 (1999) (quoting Buckellew
v. Board of Education, 215 Ill. App. 3d 506, 511, 575 N.E.2d 556, 559 (1991)); Henrich
v. Libertyville High School, 186 Ill. 2d 381, 394-95, 712 N.E.2d 298, 305-06 (1998).
14
¶ 41 Before we determine the distribution of the settlement, we note that the percentage
that Health Care Services Lien Act lienholders can recover is further limited in certain
situations. Pursuant to section 10(c) of the Health Care Services Lien Act, "[n]o
individual licensed category of health care professional (such as physicians) or health
care provider (such as hospitals) *** may receive more than one-third of the ***
settlement *** secured by or on behalf of the injured person on his or her claim or right
of action." 770 ILCS 23/10(c) (West 2012). Herrin Hospital and Williamson County
Ambulance are health care providers. The total combined amount of their liens is $7133,
which represents 44.6% of the $16,000 settlement. Therefore, the liens of Herrin
Hospital and Williamson County Ambulance exceed the one-third limitation, and thus
they are only entitled to pro rata shares of one-third of the settlement, $5333.33.
¶ 42 In accordance with the analysis of this opinion, we find that the $16,000
settlement distribution is as follows:
Medicare $158.30;
Medicare Part D 1 $2459.61;
1
On appeal, Herrin Hospital argues for the first time that HealthSprings Life &
Health Insurance Company is not a Medicare Part D provider. We note that the federal
government does not self-administer Medicare Part D but contracts with select private
companies to sell coverage. Center for Medicare Advocacy,
www.medicareadvocacy.org/medicare-info/medicare-part-d (last visited Feb. 5, 2016).
However, we do not reach the precise question regarding HealthSprings, because Herrin
15
McKim's Attorney $4800;
Medicaid $221.41;
Health Care Services Lien Act Lienholders $5333.33:
Herrin Hospital $4218.66 and
Williamson County Ambulance $1114.67;
McKim $3027.35.
¶ 43 CONCLUSION
¶ 44 Pursuant to Illinois Supreme Court Rule 366(a)(5) (eff. Feb. 1, 1994), we modify
the judgment of the circuit court of Franklin County according to the detail contained
within ¶ 42 of this opinion.
¶ 45 Judgment modified.
Hospital failed to raise the issue in the trial court or in its notice of appeal and has thus
forfeited its right to do so on appeal. Lazenby v. Mark's Construction, Inc., 236 Ill. 2d 83,
92, 923 N.E.2d 735, 741 (2010).
16
2016 IL App (5th) 140405NO. 5-14-0405
IN THE
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS
FIFTH DISTRICT
EDWIN McKIM, ) Appeal from the
) Circuit Court of
Plaintiff-Appellee, ) Franklin County.
)
v. ) No. 14-MR-31
)
SOUTHERN ILLINOIS HOSPITAL SERVICES, )
d/b/a Herrin Hospital, and WILLIAMSON )
COUNTY AMBULANCE, )
)
Defendants )
) Honorable
(Southern Illinois Hospital Services, ) David K. Overstreet,
Defendant-Appellant). ) Judge, presiding.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Modified Rule 23 Filed: July 12, 2016
Motion to Publish Granted: August 26, 2016
Opinion Filed: August 26, 2016
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Justices: Honorable Melissa A. Chapman, J.
Honorable Thomas M. Welch, J., and
Honorable Richard P. Goldenhersh, J.,
Concur
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Attorneys Kara L. Jones, Feirich/Mager/Green/Ryan, 2001 West Main Street, P.O. Box
for 1570, Carbondale, IL 62903; John R. Daly, Attorney at Law, 1239 East Main
Appellant Street, P.O. Box 3988, Carbondale, IL 62902-3988
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Attorneys William A. Alexander, Matthew H. Caraway, Sam C. Mitchell & Associates,
for 115 East Main Street, P.O. Box 280, West Frankfort, IL 62896
Appellee
_____________________________________________________________________________________________