*1
"рublic policy”
position,
since
an extracurricular
teacher
to
removing
inferior teachers
Code
the School
concerned
behind
Central,
App.
only);
teaching positions
Midwest
10(b)
arbitrator
(finding
section
where
a clear violation of
school board was
nontenured teacher but
ordered reinstatement
decisions);
authority
District
given
make such
specific
(arbitrator
power
had
no
STEIGMANN concur. BERLIN, JR., v. Plaintiff-Appellee, RICHARD B. SARAH BUSH LINCOLN CENTER, Defendant-Appellant.
HEALTH Fourth District 4 — 95—0569 No.
Argued February Opinion April filed 1996. 1996 . *2 J., GREEN, concurring. specially
McCULLOUGH,J., dissenting. Duffy (argued), Waller, Mpi, Michael M. of Adele and Afoma all Gard- ner, Douglas, Chicago, Henry & Carton of E. Kramer and William A. Sunderman, Brainard, Kramer, Charleston, appellant. both of Bower & of for Dobbins, Fraker, Tennant, (argued), Joy D. of & Cameron Dobbins Perlstein, Champaign, appellee. of for Butz, Clousson, of & Jerry of Clousson Joseph P. both T. Butz Association, County Peoria Chicago, Area Medical for curiae McLean amici Physi- Alliance, Heartland Physician Illinois Society, Downstate Medical Network, Association, Independent Physicians Inc. cians Deaton, Hospital & of Illinois Mark D. both Thaddeus Nodzenski and J. Callahan, Association, of Flat- HealthSystems Naperville, and Michael R. of Hospital Zavis, & Health- ten, Chicago, Illinois Muchin of for amici curiae & Chicago Council. Systems Metropolitan Healthcare Association and Kane, Soci- both Illinois State Medical and Robert John Saul J. Morse Association, lie, Medical ety, Springfield, and of American Michael Society State Page County and Illinois Chicago, Du Medical for amici curiae Chicago Society, Soci- Champaign County Medical Society, Medical Medical Association, ety, County Society, Medical Winne- Lake Medical American County Society, Livingston County Society. bago Medical Medical opinion JUSTICE delivered court: STEIGMANN Berlin, Jr., M.D., filed а January plaintiff, In Richard B. complaint declaratory judgment summary judg- and a for for motion sought ment which he to have restrictive covenant contained defendant, general employment agreement Sarah surgery (Health Center), Bush Lincoln Health Center declared unenforceable. summary judgment. Health filed a cross-motion for summary granted Dr. motion June the trial Berlin’s judgment, finding that was unenforceable the restrictive covenant *3 Center, through its-general surgery employment the because Health agreement Berlin, practicing Dr. medicine in of with was violation statutory prohibition corporate practice the of medicine. appeals, arguing trial Health Center that the court erred (1) basis, granting summary judgment Dr. Berlin’s for on that motion (2) denying summary judgment, Health the Center’s cross-motion for (3) ambigu- finding and that the covenant is unclear and restrictive disagree argument the and affirm. ous. We with Health Center’s first
I. BACKGROUND 1992, into In the Center and Dr. Berlin entered December Health agreement, whereby Health general surgery employment a the years. employed Center Dr. Berlin to render medical services for five employment agreement 2.3 mandated that Dr. Berlin Section working the of his and attention to "devote full time employment agreement of hospital.” medicine for Section 9.1 the covenant, providing included as follows: restrictive аny period Agreement, "During the term of this renewal thereafter, years Physician agrees thereof, period and for of two in, own, indirectly, not, directly Physician shall or invest in, control, be employed by, participate or manage, operate, any management, opera- with ownership, connected manner tion, firm, any person, or of corporation engaged control competition Hospital providing health services or facilities Hospital.” of 50[-]mile within radius 1994, February In resigned Dr. Berlin from the Health Center employee and became an facility ap- of Carle Clinic located proximately one mile from the Health Center. The Health Center injunctive Berlin, filed a motion for relief Dr. and Dr. Berlin subsequently enjoined working was any from for competing health- provider care within a 50-mile radius of the Health Center. appealed preliminary injunction, Dr. Berlin court this re case, holding versed and remanded the the trial court had improperly denied Dr. Berlin’s motion for ofjudge. substitution Sarah Berlin, Bush 189-90, Lincoln Health Center v. 280-81 January Dr. complaint declaratory Berlin filed a judgment summary judgment and a sought motion for in which he have the restrictive covenant declared unenforceable. The Health summary Center judgment. filed cross-motion for Both motions incorporated by prior reference prelimi- record entered in the nary injunction proceeding. In June reviewing after the evi- dence oral hearing arguments, trial granted Dr. summary judgment. Berlin’s motion for
II. THE SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF DR. BERLIN argues'that
The Health by granting the trial court erred summary Dr. judgment, specifically Berlin’s motion for contending that the prohibiting doctrine of medicine does (1) not apply nonprofit hospitals recognizing because the cases such a not hospitals; doctrine did involve no enact (1923 Act) (Ill. subsequent ments to the Medical Practice Act par. seq.), including Rev. Stat. 1 et ch. the Medical Practice (1987 Act) (225 (West 1994)), Act of seq. specifically et nonprofit hospitals prohibit employing physicians; pub policy underlying corpоrate lic concerns doctrine apply of medicine do not involving to situations a licensed nonprofit hospital. alternatively The Health Center contends that if prohibits corporate (West (225 are exempt under section 4 ILCS 60/4 1994)) because Hospital are licensed under the Illinois *4 Act) (210 (West 1994)). (Licensing seq. ILCS et
Summary judgment pleadings, deposi appropriate is when the tions, affidavits, any, genuine if no issue of material and show that moving party judgment fact is a matter exists entitled as Bank, Netsch, 166 Ill. 2d Rockford, of law. First America N.A. v.
451
1005(c) (West
(1995);
1105, 1110
165, 176, 651 N.E.2d
5/2 —
grant
propriety of
1994).
novo the
review,
considers de
this court
On
(Golla
Corp.,
Motors
v.
summary judgment
General
ing the motion for
(1994)),
193,196
and we therefore
143,147, 633 N.E.2d
261 Ill.
summary judgment
entitled to
Dr. Berlin was
whether
determine
715,
(see
78,
76,
Cates,
v.
156 Ill.
Cates
a matter of law
(1993)).
of Medicine
Practice
Prohibiting
Corporate
A. Doctrine
Allison, Dentist, Inc. v.
in Dr.
Illinois
Supreme Court of
The
(1935),
corporation
that a
held
Allison,
"The subject to regulation police power and not licensing under the *** qualifica exploitation. [Citation.] commercialization or characteristics, personal profession] include [to tions and a sense of honesty, guided upright conscience such as sacrificing loyalty patients, to the extent of to clients or even *** qualify.” Al necessary. corporation can pecuniary profit, if No lison, 641-42,196 at 800. 360 Ill. at N.E. United later, People of Illinois in v. year
One
Court
(1936),
Service, Inc.,
442, 454-55,
200 N.E.
Medical
(which read,
person shall
part, "[n]o
interpreted the 1923 Act
(Ill.
valid, existing
to do”
license so
practice medicine
without
2),
corporation practices
par.
and held that
Rev. Stat.
ch.
employs physicians to
of the 1923 Act when it
violation
licensed. The
corporation
cannot be so
practice medicine because
it was
rejected
corporation’s
contentions
whereby
medicine,
arrangement,
practicing
its fee
not
interfere with
corporation, did not
paid
directly
fees
to the
patients
licensed
patients
and the
professional relationship
between
United Medical
treated them in its clinic.
who
wrote the [the of the entire law manifest from view "The intent thereun- only may obtain a license is that individuals Act] ***. requirements corporation der. No cаn meet the *5 452
***
said,
practice
'To
profession,’
'requires
the [Allison] something
ability
competent
more than the financial
to hire
persons
only by duly quali
to do the
work. It can
done
actual
being,
qualify something
human
and to
than
more
mere
fied
”
added.)
knowledge
(Emphasis
or skill is essential.’
United Medi
Service,
454-56,
163,
Allison,
cal
362
quoting
Ill. at
fied—its the decision corporate doctrine practice of medicine.
B. Stare Decisis The Health Center first contends that because Allison and United recognized Medical Service—the decisions which the corporate general of medicine —involved business corporations, prevent rule of not stare decisis does Health Center, nonprofit corporation, hospital employing physi- from disagree. cians. We
Although correctly points the Health Center out that United general corporations, Medical Service and Allison involved business the supreme that, court in clearly United Medical Service stated Act, only under the 1923 may individuals obtain a license to Thus, medicine and that no can corporation qualify. holding in
court’s proscription United Medical Service constitutes a against any type corporate entity practicing employ- ing рhysicians, including hospitals. licensed nonprofit We further note repeatedly emphasized that while the Center Health its non- profit court, in its this status briefs to its counsel at conceded oral argument commendable candor —that a permitting decision it —with employ apply just Dr. Berlin to a for-profit would as well physician which employee. hired medicine as its argues The Health also that because the United Medical old, years Service and Allison decisions are 60 this court some- should how weight. disagree. accord them less policy by precedent
Stare decisis is a of the to stand courts points of Seigfried, leave settled law undisturbed. Charles v. (1995). 482, 154, 651 N.E.2d The Unitеd States Court, context, recently in a different addressed the doctrine stare statutory following: area of decisis construction wrote the meaning, "Once we have determined statute’s we adhere our ruling [Citations.] under the doctrine of stare decisis ***. precedents part
Our reluctance to overturn derives in judiciary relationship about institutional concerns decisis in weight to stare give great that we Congress. One reason free to 'Congress is that statutory construction area of Brick legislation.’ Illinois interpretation its change this Court’s 707, 719, 736[, 97 S. Ct. Illinois, 52 L. Ed. 431 U.S. Co. v. (1977). logic True, may to defend be little there 2070] Court, so, Congress,not this statutory provision]***. Even [the revising we to alter its statutes. Were responsibility has case, Congress would statutory interpretations from case to our statutes responsibility to correct to exercise its have less reason States, v. United unfair.” Neal thought to be unwise or that are 719-20, Ct. 284, 295-96, 116 S. Ed. 2d 133 L. 516 U.S. 768-69 111.2d Corp., Celotex in Froud v. Supreme Court of Illinois (1983), stare decisis 324, 336, also addressed following: and wrote realm of construction *6 heavily in the area of weigh more of stare decisis "Considerations precedent] departure [from a statutory construction because such ***.” an amendment of the statute itself amounts to weight the greater accords to light In of the case law which construction, we ad in the realm of doctrine of stare decisis Service and the holdings in Allison and United Medical here to the holding United Medical which premise implicit embodying prohibition a Act as judicially interpreted the 1923 medicine. corporate practice of Legislative Response
C. exempt The Health Center next contends that the the of medicine because prohibition the on United Medi- legislature expand has chosen not to the limitations of employ- prohibiting hospitals’ specifically cal Service and Allison analysis. disagree the Health Center’s physicians. ment of with earlier, in United Medical As we discussed embodying interpreted Service the 1923 Act as Further, years, legislature medicine. over the corporate practice of exceptions prohibi- to that specific and limited has chosen to create only types corporations by expressly recognizing tion that certain physicians practice medicine. may directly employ to Voluntary Health Services legislature In enacted the (Plans organized to estab- Act), corporation Plans Act under which plan may enter into voluntary health services operate lish and to employment agreements physicians licensed 1994)). (215 (West specifically The Plans Act ILCS medicine 165/2 judgment of prohibits professional corporate interference with (West рlan subscribers. 215 ILCS who treat 165/7 1994). Additionally, employ- "specimen” Plans Act mandates that agreements ment Depart- must be submitted to the of the Director (Director) ment of corporate ap- Insurance before a charter can be (215 (West 1994)). proved ILCS 165/8 (805 (West Corporation 1994)),
Under the Medical Act ILCS 15/3 first persons enacted in one more or licensed to may corporation under Corporation form the Business (805 (West 1994)) own, Act of operate, ILCS et seq. to 5/1.01 maintain an study, diagnosis, establishment for the and treatment of illnesses, human but Corporation the Medical Act mandates that treatment, "medical or surgical may given consultation or advice by employees only corporation they pursuant of the if are licensed (805 (West 1994))].” (West [1987 Act 805 ILCS 15/2 1994). legislature Corpora- enacted Professional Service (Professional Act) (805 (West tion Act Corporation et seq. ILCS 10/1 1994)), group under may organize corpora- which of individuals as a service, tion provide category professional one such as (section provide professional or "related” services 3.6 Corporation of the specifically provides Professional Act medicine, podiatry, may and dentistry be combined and offered as services). (West 1994). 10/3.4, "related” See 805 ILCS 3.6 Section 3.4 Corporation Professional all corporate mandates directors, shareholders, officers, agents employees (except ancil- lary personnel) provide must be particular profes- licensed sional service or services intend render. See 805 ILCS 10/3.4 (West 1994). (HMO Act),
The Health Organization Maintenance enacted specifically granted authority to health maintenance (HMOs) organizations employ provid- contract with health care *7 (215 3(c) (West 1994)). ers provides ILCS The HMO Act for a 125/2— comprehensive regulatory scheme, including requirement that an applicant HMO a copy submit to the Director of the contract to be (215 providers entered into the HMO and health care ILCS between 1994)). 1(c)(5) (Wеst Organization The Limited Health Service 125/2 — (215 (West 1994)), 1989, provides Act seq. ILCS et enacted regulatory of the HMO comprehensive for scheme similar to that Act. legislature recently specific exception
The most to the created of it amended corporate practice on the medicine when prohibition (Pub. 201, 1, January Liability Company eff. Limited 89— (1995 (West)) 2512, (amending Legis. 1996 805 ILCS Ill. Serv. 2516-17 (West 1994))), company may 25, that such provide 5—1 to 180/1 —
455 members, managers, only if all medicine be formed pursuant to the 1987 organizers are licensed to medicine Act. Act, incorporated legislature
In the these 1987 corporate practice on the of exceptions to the 1923 Act’s by hоspitals, prohibition. not otherwise alter that but it did Further, 1987, Ill, par. seq. et this See Ill. Rev. Stat. ch. 4400—1 legislature, legislating in the presume court should when care, knowledge judicial interpreta area full of of health acts with enactments, prior especially interpretations tions of its those that are long-standing. May County Jury, 152 Ill. 2d re 1991 Will Grand (1992). 381, 388, 929, 933 although legislature also note that has addressed
We directly hospitals employers, hospitals it has never addressed as instance, Physician employers physicians. For section 7 of the As provides hospitals may employ physi sistant Practice Act of 1987 though functioning cian assistants even under those assistants 1994) (West supervision physicians. of licensed 225 ILCS 95/7 ("Nothing in prohibit employ this Act shall be construed as to physician ment of physician assistants where such supervision supervising physi assistants function under the of a cian”). However, amending Act— section 10.4 outlining procedures granting, renewing, denying, limiting for privileges legislature opportunity medical staff an declined —the (as hospitals authorize employ physicians opposed granting medical privileges privileges) excep or clinical so as to create an staff corporate practice tion for to the doctrine medicine. January (amending See Pub. Act eff. 88— (West 1994)). recently legislature also set forth the 85/10.4 medical, requirements hospital, healing for claims for or other art malpractice upon apparent agency, again op based an declined portunity specifically employ physicians. authorize See (1995 Legis. Pub. Act (West)) eff. March Serv. 89— (West 1994)). (adding 735 ILCS 5/2 —624 Reviewing action since United Medical legislature acquiesced conclude that has court’s and, thereafter, interpretation provide of the 1923 Act chosen to has only very specific prohibition exceptions, and limited to the provides exception none of which hospitals. recently regarding reaffirm wrote what this court pass addressing legislative our role in enactments: "We need not legislaturе’s the wisdom of such a rule —our role is to determine the intent, Service second-guess not to its decisions.” Denton v. Civil Comm’n,
D. The Supreme Court Decision in Darling
The Health Center next
contends that the
Court of Il
in Darling
linois
v.
Community
Charleston
Hospital,
Memorial
(1965),
The issue in Darling was whether the hospital could be held li
able for either its failure to have a sufficient number of trained nurses
require
or its failure to
consultation between members
indepen
of its
dent medical staff in complicated
supreme
cases. The
court held that
hospital may
duty,
owe a
independent
any
relationship be
physician
tween a
patient,
supervise
to review and
the medical
care
tо a patient.
administered
Darling,
the nurses, through does not undertake to act its doctors and simply procure
but undertakes instead them to act upon responsibility, longer their own no reflects the fact. Present- day hospitals, demonstrates, operation plainly as their manner of do far more than They regularly furnish facilities for treatment. employ salary large on a physicians, basis a staff of nurses and internes, workers, as well as administrative and manual charge patients treatment, for medical care сollecting services, necessary, by legal such if Certainly, action. person "hospital who avails himself of expects facilities” that the him, attempt will employes cure not that its nurses other responsibility.’ (Fuld, J., will act [szc] on their own Bing v. (1957) 8.)” Thunig, 2 N.Y.2d Darling, 33 Ill. 2d at at N.E.2d 257.
Although quoted court in Darling language from a regarding New York case the fact that regularly employ do physicians, addressed, considered, the court never upon or ruled legality hospitals’ employing physicians of Illinois under the Medical Further, Practice Act. Darling, 33 Ill. 2d at at 257. Darling court never even mentioned its decision in United Medi very cal Service—the case which established the doctrine corporate рractice Accordingly, language medicine. view addressing case, Darling dicta issues in that tort be ing far from definitive reassessment of what stated United Medical Service.
E. Public Policy Considerations parties policy argu- Both and amici curiae also make several argues lay ments. The Health Center that the concern about control professionals underlying over medical case a licensed apply of medicine does not physician Further, asserts divided hospital. the Health Center hospital and the loyalty of both the loyalty not arise because the does Last, its Health Center contends that physician patient. is to the costs сommunity and containment of health-care to the rural service ability retain likely would suffer if its to attract and *9 through employment is limited. physi- argues hospitals employ if are allowed to
Dr. Berlin cians, patients lay employer total control over which would have services, treat, where charged could the fees medications, sup- and patients hospitalized, equipment, are and the used, thereby unduly limiting treatment plies physicians physicians’ options. earlier, great weight the doc-
As we discussed
we must accord
construction;
trine of
to do
stare decisis
the area of
otherwise would amount to an amendment of the statute itself. See
Froud,
quеstion
98 111.2d at
"The
of Illinois
and social
legislature.
especially
should emanate from the
This is
true
regarding
present
recognize
issues like the
one
[whether
cause
minors],
of action
social hosts who serve alcohol to
where
disagreement
there is
whether new rule is warranted.
nature,
Assembly, by
very
superior
The General
its
has a
ability
gather
synthesize
pertinent
and
It
data
to the issue.
many public
free to solicit information
from the
and advice
Moreover,
private organizations
may
impacted.
it is the
only entity
power weigh
properly
balance the
societal, economic,
many competing
policy
considerations
Charles,
involved.”
F. The 1987 Act Last, argues the Health if prohibits that even the 1987 Act apply it does not to the Health employment exempt Center’s of Dr. Berlin because (225 (West 1994)), under section 4 of the 1987 Act ILCS because 60/4 Hospital Licensing (Licensing are licensed under the Illinois (210 Act) (West 1994)). disagree. seq. et primary interpreting A court’s function in a statute is to give legislature’s enacting determine and effect to the intent in statute, language intent is best determined 86, 90, the statute. Rogers, App. Walker v. 272 Ill. 650 N.E.2d (1995). construing A statute should read it as a whole and give statutory language plain meaning. its Central Illinois Public Comm’n, 471, 484, Service Co. v. Illinois Commerce provides, part, Section of the 1987 Act in relevant that "[t]his apply persons lawfully carrying particular Act shall not on their profession any existing regulatory or business under valid Act of this 1994). (West State.” 225 ILCS 60/4 "hospital” following defines manner: " institution, 'Hospital’ any place, building, agency, means *10 not,
public private, organized profit pri- or whether for or devoted marily diag- operation to the maintenance and for the of faсilities persons nosis and 2 ***.” treatment or care of or more unrelated added.) 85/3(A) (West 1994). (Emphasis 210 ILCS Licensing provides permit operate hospital Act further that a to following should be issued under the circumstances: (1) "if applicant [the Health] Director of Public finds that the fit, willing, provide proper hospital and able to standard of ser- ***, community vice for that financial resources avail- construct, applicant ability able to the demonstrate an to maintain, ***, hospital safeguards operate that are provided hospital operation and maintenance consis- which assure safe, public having particular regard ade- tent with the intеrest to quate, hospital (Emphasis and efficient facilities and services.” 1994). added.) 85/6(a) (West 210 ILCS Licensing Additionally, although provides that licensed limit, renew, membership hospitals may grant, deny "medical staff privileges,” grant hospitals right clinic staff it does not (West 1994). employ physicians. 85/10.4 give ef Reading Licensing Act as a whole to determine and (Walker, legislature’s 272 Ill. 3d at fect to the intent 275; Co., App. 3d at N.E.2d at Central Illinois Public Service 826), nothing in that act at conclude that any man- expressly hospitals to render medical services authorizes ner, hospitals. employ physicians or to medicine for the Center, Weiss, Regional See in contrast St. Francis Medical Inc. v. (1994) (where 728, 744, mandated 254 Kan. 869 P.2d statute service”). "[ejvery hospital that shall furnish medical or other Licensing Act, entity operating facility Under the is an diagnosis by physicians enjoy for the and treatment of illnesses who membership privileges. medical staff or clinic The mere fact staff hospitals regulated grant hospitals must be licensed and does not right to practice employ physicians medicine or to statutory prohibition medicine in their stead in circumvention on the in the 1987 Act. medicine embodied Therefore, hospitals exempt we conclude that are not under section they 1987 Act because are licensed under the Act.
Accordingly, grant we hold that the trial court did not err in ing summary judgment Dr. Berlin’s motion finding for based on its Center, through general surgery the Health employment its agreement Berlin, with Dr. violated the corporate practice of medicine. (because holding,
In so we do not decide the issue is not before us case) under the circumstances of this whether the—to statutorily extent required provide emergency treatment for life-threatening injuries by Emergency Medical Treatment (see (West 1994)) 210 ILCS exempt under section 4 of —are the 1987 Act for providing emergency such medical treatment. We recognize the claim statutory grant authority that a may implicit Emergency Medical Treat- Act, ment but we decline to decidе this issue.
III. CONCLUSION closing, thoughtful we commend the trial court its trial memorandum, helpful. which we found stated, For the judgment. reasons we affirm the trial court’s Affirmed. *11 GREEN,
JUSTICE specially concurring: I concur in the summary judgment decision to affirm the in favor of plaintiff on the basis that the restrictive was covenant against unenforceable because it prohibitions type violated of practice of agree medicine which I was involved. that none of the legislation ameliorating holdings of United Medical Service and agree I that af- applicable Allison is to the situation here. also even years, ter 60 Court of Illinois has not set aside the hold- duty ings compelling aspect of cаses. have a under the most those of the rule of stare decisis to follow those decisions because higher decisions of a court which we cannot overrule. Steigmann holding appreciate
I that Justice has limited the deciding Emergency opinion his to avoid whether the Medical Treat- physicians surgeons ment authorizes to hire state, would, emergency furnish nevertheless, medical services. For I will I reasons Indeed, holding narrow our even further. I would limit My understanding agreement it as much as we can. is that under the parties, employee Dr. Berlin acted as an of defendant even treating advising patients hospitalized when he was or who were not with defendant. That me seems to to be the clearest violation of the precedent remains of of United Medical Service and Allison. I day question would leave for another of the status of surgeons hospital patients regardless hired to treat of whether the emergency treatment involved occurs on basis.
My many hospitals, concern arises because evidence act- faith, ing good radiologists, pathologists, have hired anesthesiolo- gists general practitioners hospital patients treat even emergency other than room situations. The statement in Darling hospitals "regularly employ salary large on a a basis staff of physicians” supreme would indicate this is so. Other actions give similar indications. Inc., County & Edgar Hospital, Bank Trust Co. v. Paris 57 Ill. (1974), 2d brought suit on behalf of minor was injuries a hospital alleged to have resulted nurse, negligence emergency of an room doctor and both whom hospital employees. Edgar County were See Bank & Trust Co. v. Inc., 465, 466-67, Hospital, Paris plaintiff had settled with the doctor and the employer court held the release did not release the of the doctor’s right. negligence expressly when the release reserved that That court applicable to that case. The court ipsa loquitur also held that res was relationship any illegality made no mention of between thе re hospital say employer-employee doctor and the nor did it that the working justified the doctor was in an emer lationship was because employ gency room. If the court was concerned with by hospital would it not have so stated? ment of doctor Sycamore Municipal Hospital, 156 Ill. In Gilbert v. (1993), vicariously liable for the was also held
N.E.2d 788
actually
emergency
physician. This doctor was
negligence of an
room
*12
independent
patients separately
contractor
billed the
from
who
billing by
hospital.
liability
imposed
theory
The
the
was
agent
an apparent
hospital.
doctor was
The rationale of the de
(1) hospitals
cision was thаt
are
modern
advertise
"full-care
facilities”;
conditions,
public
health
under modern
is un
hospital personnel. Gilbert,
aware of the status of
I feel that confusion relationships exists as to the that can properly exist between doctors and and that clarification in respect by by legislature Court of Illinois or meantime, duty case, desirable. In the we have a to decide this which hereby doing. special I make this conсurrence I because deem present public by interest is best served a narrow decision. McCULLOUGH, JUSTICE dissenting: agree I with the Health Center’s contention that there is not now viable doctrine corporate practice of medicine. The Health practicing was not medicine and there is no against the employing Health Center physicians. holding court’s in United Medical Service found the prohibited
1923 Act corporate entity practice of medicine. The ra- Allison, tionale of adopted by United finding Medical a profession subject not incorporation, longer is no fol- majority lowed. The refers to enactments which do allow corporations to be involved in Act, health services. The Plans Medi- Act, cal Corporation Professional Corporation Act and HMO Act al- incorporation. low
The contract entered parties into between the permit did not Health Center to medicine. Nor did the compromise contract Dr. Berlin’s of medicine.
The Health Center does not patients. treat The Darling court ac cepts premise that hospitals "regularly employ salary on a basis large physicians.” staff of Darling, 33 at at 257. The Act should prohibit not be construed to or entities such as the Health Center entering into contracts licensed long so as there is no violation of the physician’s Hippocratic oath.
I grant would not either respective parties motion summary judgment.