2016 IL App (4th) 150728
Ill. App. Ct.2016Background
- Harold Miller won a medical-malpractice jury verdict totaling $638,347.91, with $133,347.91 itemized for medical expenses.
- Defendants (Dr. Curtis Green and Sarah Bush Lincoln Health Center) moved under 735 ILCS 5/2-1205 to reduce the judgment by $91,724.03, representing the portion of medical bills "written off" (i.e., not paid by any payor).
- Defendants relied on Perkey v. Portes-Jarol and §2-1205 to seek a reduction; the trial court granted the reduction.
- Miller appealed, arguing §2-1205 permits reductions only for benefits actually paid to providers or payable to the plaintiff, not unpaid write-offs.
- The appellate court reviewed statutory interpretation de novo and considered competing amicus arguments from trial lawyers and defense groups.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §2-1205 permits reducing a judgment by amounts medical providers wrote off (never paid) | §2-1205 allows reduction only for benefits "paid" or "become payable to the injured person"; write-offs were never paid or payable, so no reduction | §2-1205 should permit reduction for write-offs because they reflect collateral-source benefits and prevent duplicative recovery (Perkey) | Court: No — statute only permits reduction for amounts paid to providers or payable to plaintiff; write-offs are not covered |
| Whether reductions extend to payments made directly to providers (vs. paid to plaintiff) | Miller argued language meant paid or payable to plaintiff only | Defendants argued payments to providers qualify as "paid" benefits under §2-1205 | Court: Payments to providers qualify, but here those paid amounts were subject to recoupment and thus not deductible |
| Whether a payor's right of recoupment bars reduction | Miller: If insurer/Medicare can recoup, reduction is barred under §2-1205(2) | Defendants (Perkey): Section's "to the extent" language allows reductions despite some recoupment rights | Court: If benefits are subject to recoupment, §2-1205(2) prevents reduction for those amounts |
| Whether Perkey controls | Miller: Perkey is distinguishable; it did not address write-offs vs. paid amounts | Defendants: Perkey supports deducting write-offs | Court: Declined to follow Perkey on write-offs; Perkey addressed recoupment, not whether unpaid write-offs qualify as "paid" or "payable" benefits |
Key Cases Cited
- Perkey v. Portes-Jarol, 1 N.E.3d 5 (Ill. App. Ct. 2013) (held certain write-off reduction allowed where issue was insurer reimbursement rights)
- Mashal v. City of Chicago, 981 N.E.2d 951 (Ill. 2012) (standard: de novo review for questions of statutory interpretation)
- In re E.B., 899 N.E.2d 218 (Ill. 2008) (plain-language rule of statutory interpretation)
- In re Estate of Ellis, 923 N.E.2d 237 (Ill. 2009) (apply statute as written; no resort to other tools when language is clear)
- Rosewood Care Ctr., Inc. v. Caterpillar, Inc., 877 N.E.2d 1091 (Ill. 2007) (courts must not read statutes other than written)
- Bonaguro v. County Officers Electoral Bd., 634 N.E.2d 712 (Ill. 1994) (avoid statutory interpretations that render language surplusage)