Wendling v. Southern Illinois Hospital Services, 242 Ill. 2d 261

Plaintiffs injured in auto accidents had liens filed by hospitals under the Health Care Services Lien Act against their tort settlements or judgments.
Total liens under the Act are capped at 40% of the recovery; attorneys’ liens under the Attorneys Lien Act are limited to 30% when liens reach the 40% cap.
Circuit court held that plaintiffs’ attorneys could recover 30% of the settlement plus one-third of the Hospitals’ liens under the common fund doctrine.
Appellate court affirmed, holding Hospitals benefited from the plaintiffs’ attorney work and thus should contribute to fees.
Supreme Court reverses, holding the common fund doctrine does not apply to health care liens under the Act, citing Maynard v. Parker.
Key reasoning includes that Hospitals’ claims exist independently of the outcome of the personal injury action and Hospitals are not creditors sharing a fund created by the lawsuit.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does the common fund doctrine apply to health care liens under the Health Care Services Lien Act?	Wendling/Howell: doctrine should apply to apportion attorney fees.	Hospitals: doctrine does not apply; lien recovery is statutory and independent of fund creation.	No; common fund doctrine does not apply.

Maynard v. Parker, 75 Ill.2d 73 (1979) (hospital lien not subject to common fund contributions)
Bishop v. Burgard, 198 Ill.2d 495 (2002) (ERISA subrogation and fund creation; common fund applies where fund created by attorney actions)
Scholtens v. Schneider, 173 Ill.2d 375 (1996) (common fund doctrine origin and scope)
Boeing Co. v. Van Gemert, 444 U.S. 472 (1980) (support for common fund rationale)
Morris B. Chapman & Associates, Ltd. v. Kitzman, 193 Ill.2d 560 (2000) (principles limiting attorney-fee apportionment)
Baier v. State Farm Insurance Co., 66 Ill.2d 119 (1977) (equitable basis for sharing litigation costs)