 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Arthur v. Catour7/21/2005
care services rendered.
Defendants filed a motion for partial summary judgment, seeking to limit plaintiff's claim for medical expenses to the amount paid rather than the amount billed. Granting defendants' motion, the circuit court's order stated in part:
"The court does not find that the collateral source rule applies to the present set of facts, and to allow the plaintiff to seek and recover $19,355.25 worth of medical damages when she was only charged for and became liable for $13,577.97 would only serve to punish the defendants punitively and provide a windfall for the plaintiff."
The court ruled that "plaintiff will be limited to seeking compensatory damages not exceeding those actually paid to her medical providers."
The circuit court certified the above-quoted legal question for immediate appeal. The appellate court allowed plaintiff's application for leave to appeal pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 308 (155 Ill. 2d R. 308).
The appellate court, with one justice dissenting, reversed the circuit court's entry of partial summary judgment for defendants. 345 Ill. App. 3d 804. The appellate court majority held that "plaintiff's damages are not limited to the amount paid by her insurer, but may extend to the entire amount billed, provided those charges are reasonable expenses of necessary medical care." 345 Ill. App. 3d at 808.
Presiding Justice Holdridge dissented, reasoning as follows: "Here, the amount received from the plaintiff's insurance company in full payment of plaintiff's past medical expenses-$13,577.97-will be fully protected by the collateral source rule. The additional $5,777.28 needs no such protection, as the plaintiff never incurred or became obligated for that expense." (Emphasis in original.) 345 Ill. App. 3d at 809 (Holdridge, P.J., dissenting). He concluded: "I see no legal reason to allow the plaintiff to recover for expenses she never paid nor ever became obligated to pay as a result of the negligence of the defendant." 345 Ill. App. 3d at 810 (Holdridge, P.J., dissenting).
Each defendant petitioned for leave to appeal. 177 Ill. 2d R. 315(a). We allowed each petition and consolidated the appeals. We granted the Illinois Trial Lawyers Association leave to submit an amicus curiae brief in support of plaintiff. We also granted the Illinois Association of Defense Trial Counsel leave to submit an amicus curiae brief in support of defendants. See 155 Ill. 2d R. 345. We now affirm the judgment of the appellate court and reverse the circuit court's entry of partial summary judgment in favor of defendants.
ANALYSIS
We note at the outset our standard of review. In this case, we review the propriety of the appellate court's answer to the certified question. The pertinent facts being undisputed, the certified question essentially asked whether the trial court's grant of partial summary judgment in favor of defendants was legally correct. "If the facts are uncontroverted and the issue is the trial court's application of the law to the facts, a court of review may determine the correctness of the ruling independently of the trial court's judgment." Norskog v. Pfiel, 197 Ill. 2d 60, 70-71 (2001); see Woods v. Cole, 181 Ill. 2d 512, 516 (1998) (stating rule that questions of law are reviewed de novo); Adams v. Northern Illinois Gas Co., 211 Ill. 2d 32, 43 (2004) (stating rule that summary judgment rulings are reviewed de novo). Accordingly, our review is de novo.
"Under the collateral source rule, benefits received by the injured party from a source wholly independent of, and collateral to, the tortfeasor will not diminish damages otherwise recoverable from the tortfeasor."
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Illinois Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|