*1
913
242;
Western
v. Mahin
Corp.
(1980), 81 Ill. 2d
German
(1901),
94;
Alliance Insurance Co. v. VanCleave
191
61 N.E.
Service,
Martin Oil
Inc. v. Department
Revenue
30 Ill. App.
3d
however,
Accordingly, judgment of circuit court Cook is af- County firmed.
Judgment affirmed. WHITE, JJ.,
RIZZI and concur. STALLINGS, IAN through PAUL a Minor his Father and Next Friend, al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, Felix et v. FAJARDO et LITO al., Maintenance, (Anchor Defendants-Appellees Organization for Health
Appellant). (5th Division) 86—0294, First District Nos. 0 650 cons. 86— 19, 1987.
Opinion filed June *2 SULLIVAN, P.J., specially concurring. Stouffer, Chartered, Chicago (Neil Quinn,
Pretzel & of Joseph K. B. Le- derleitner, Chemers, Pietrick, counsel), Marc and Steven G. Robert of for appellant. McKenzie, Chicago (Francis Morrissey, Thomas R. Nel-
Baker & of D. son, DeGrand, counsel), Hospital appellees and Karen Kies of for St. James Services, and Sisters of St. Francis Health Inc.
Lord, Brook, Chicago (Harold Bissell & of Hugh L. Jacobson and C. Griffin, counsel), appellees Fajardo for Lito Chicago Heights and Anes- Associates, thesia S.C. Demetrio, P.C.,
Corboy Chicago (Philip Corboy, & H. Bruce Robert Pfaff, counsel), appellees. Novolselsky, and David A. other opinion LORENZ of the court:
JUSTICE delivered action malpractice The instant arises out a medical medical associations. On December against physicians several and and order of dis- the circuit court entered an order of dismissal agreement of the settlement tribution in accordance with the terms of the order of dis- parties. entry reached Subsequent for Health distribution, missal and order of Anchor Organization action, to the filed a motion to va- (Anchor), nonparty Maintenance de- cate certain of the order of The circuit court portions distribution. instanter and a briefing established hearing nied Anchor’s motion for to vacate hearing schedule. Anchor before a on motion appealed filed motions to dismiss the ap- held. Plaintiffs and defendants was the case. This court took these motions with peal. order of an (1)
On Anchor contends: distribution was its and legal rights pecu- which was adverse to express adjudication interests as a and is void or at least invalid and void- niary nonparty jurisdiction; (2) nonparty able since was made without whose im- interest and directly, substantially and have been standing to mediately adjudications affected adverse has express seek of the or- vacation; (3) it is entitled to have those portions reach these vacated, reversed, ders stricken or do not expunged. We not directly issues we determine that Anchor’s were because affected the order of distribution and therefore immediately we dismiss this action because of mootness. 5, 1983,
On a lawsuit was filed in the circuit court of Cook May Felix and Hattie and on County by Stallings, individually behalf child, their defendants, minor Ian several including Lito Associates, Anesthesia Fajardo, Chicago Heights St. James Hos- pital, and the Sisters of St. Francis Health Services. In their fourth amended complaint, plaintiffs alleged that as a result of defendants’ negligence the minor plaintiff damage. suffered brain extreme
Anchor, a health maintenance was not a organization, this coverage action. Its involvement in this action stems from its care. Stallings including the minor for medical family, plaintiff, *3 certificate, Under the terms of the Anchor which subscription governs subscribers, the and of to its obligations respect Anchor with Anchor is the of a contractual lien. This Anchor the possessor gives right to recover the value of medical services rendered to a benefi- if the ciary beneficiary receives a trial award or settlement for in- juries alleged to have been caused a third person.
The parties agreement this lawsuit reached a settlement after at participating pretrial in least two conferences at which counsel for Anchor the present. Anchor, along was Counsel for with counsel for 21, 1985, parties, Judge before S. Stark on November appeared Harry 25, 1985, and discuss this action. The case November settlement of 24, was for a of million and on December ultimately settled total $6.2 1985, the circuit order dismissal and an order of court entered an In the or- distribution accordance with the terms of the settlement. the distribution, der of the circuit court found that settle- expressly “fair, have good fully ment was and made in faith.” Defendants just agreement. the settlement obligations satisfied their under in- vacate, 22, a motion to 1986, presented On January stanter, that An- the circuit court’s orders and specified portions chor asserted adversely rights. affected its Judge Bosco denied An- chor’s hearing motion for instanter and set a briefing schedule. An- chor never obtained a ruling on motion to vacate. 23, 1986,
On January Anchor filed its notice of from cer- tain portions of the order dismissal and distribution entered on De- 24, cember 1985. The circuit court 30, entered its order on January 1986, which order approved settlement of the minor plaintiff’s action. 28, 1986, On February Anchor filed a second notice of appeal. This notice of appeal related to the 30 order also January incor- porated by reference all matters contained the first notice of ap- court, This peal. on April consolidated the two appeals. Opinion rule is that general before a not a to a person pro can
ceeding
subject
he must have a direct interest in the
mat
ter of the litigation,
prejudiced
aggrieved
which interest is
or
judgment sought to
(American Surety
be reviewed.
Co. v. Jones
words,
122.)
direct,
other
immedi
ate and substantial
theoretical,
interest rather than a speculative,
in
consequential or remote interest
test as to whether
person
company may have a
right
review.
Surety
American
Co. v. Jones
384 Ill.
Anchor does not dispute the order with validity regard to the release of their lien. contend pending They their future liens may be affected. Specifically, Anchor contends that the mere that it possibility precluded be from seeking reimburse- ment due to the order of language dismissal in itself warrants action by this court. four
Paragraph of the order of provides: dismissal “4. The aforementioned to Anchor payment Organization Health Maintenance and Rush Presbyterian St. Luke’s Medical Center, Inc. RELEASES AND DISCHARGES ALL CLAIMED LIENS AND SUBROGATION RIGHTS OF AN- CHOR ORGANIZATIONFOR HEALTH MAINTENANCE and Rush Presbyterian St. Luke’s Medical Center Ian Stall- ings, minor, through friend, his father and next Felix Felix Stallings, FAJARDO, Hattie Stallings, LITO ASSOCIATES, S.C., CHICAGO HEIGHTS ANESTHESIA A *4 CORPORATION, HOSPITAL, CORPORATION, ST. JAMES A AND SISTERS OF ST. SERVICES, FRANCIS HEALTH INC., A CORPORATION.” order, contends,
The not only discharges releases and all of
917 also may preclude but rights,” and subrogation their “claimed liens to which its lien and to reimbursements Anchor as recovery by made. to as continue to be payments subrogation rights ought apply appellate Anchor. An posed by address the issues We cannot po guide a to merely judgment court not a case to render will review Chicago Bank v. litigation. (La City tential future National Salle a the real 375, 486.) 3 Ill. 121 Because existence (1954), 2d N.E.2d where to a controversy jurisdiction, essential requisite appellate is an controversy that no actual or reviewing court has notice of facts show involved, (LaSalle it the National appeal. is will dismiss dispute 486.) Ill. 121 N.E.2d City Chicago (1954), Bank v. 3 2d in adversary pro to controverted issues function of courts is decide that issues will not ceedings, present ordinarily thus cases fail to live Ill. (1952), ex v. Labrenz 411 entertained. rel. Wallace (People be is here. 769.) 104 N.E.2d Such the case
A is to determine an abstract moot case one which seeks not facts or or which question upon existing which does rest in there seeks a on a when is judgment pretended controversy, reality none, in it right decision advance about before has been actu asserted contested. v. Airline Ser ally (City Chicago Canteen vice, Here, Inc. 64 Ill. the 1106.) 3d App. as be question interpreted to how order of dismissal will pure speculation. event that Anchor seeks is reimbursement and is then virtue event Anchor seeks claim barred order, The in adversely then and then has Anchor been affected. terpretation may in Anchor’s favor. The fact controversy be give ques never arise. It not our to moot opinions upon is function Quern tions or abstract 90 propositions. App. Johnson v. 3d 1082. N.E.2d were taken with the
Accordingly, motions to dismiss which case are granted and Anchor’s dismissed.
Dismissed.
MURRAY, J., concurs. SULLIVAN, concurring: specially
PRESIDING JUSTICE and did Anchor, underlying in the lawsuit which was not a court, con- not to entered trial agree the order distribution from that order be- standing bring tends that this appeal has cause of an therein which was adverse its adjudication interests. *5 The subscription certificate which required Anchor to pay medical benefits by reason of the injuries to the minor plaintiff here also gave it a lien for the amount of those payments against any recovery from a third for those injuries. order of distribution in question provided for payment to Anchor of the amount of the medical benefits it had paid toup the date of the order and it was then stated in para- graph four of the order that this payment “releases and discharges all claimed liens and subrogation rights” of Anchor par- all the ties in the lawsuit. argues Anchor that its to standing appeal lies in the fact that the quoted language was an adjudication adverse which precluded its lien rights to for recover benefits it would be required to after pay the date of the order and the sole issue presented is whether the language did preclude any rights such of Anchor because standing is if lacking it did not.
In regard this it is noted that none of the appellees contend that the language preclusive of Anchor’s rights. fact, all of the defendants-appellees posit that “Anchor lacks standing be- cause the appealed from, order by terms, its express affects only the lien claimed Anchor as the date of distribution and does not al- ter or affect rights Anchor’s to future Likewise, reimbursements.” plaintiffs-appellees argue only that Anchor’s certificate subscription does not provide for future lien rights event, if that such any rights provided for, were they were waived Anchor. While these arguments of plaintiffs-appellees could be raised as defenses to any action to recover future benefits paid, they do not reach the question as to whether the distribution order precluded any right under the certificate to do so.
Thus, (a) that the considering quoted language in four paragraph of the order releases and discharges “claimed liens” with no ref- liens, erence to future (b) all claimed liens Anchor for reim- bursement as of the date order were provided in the order and (c) that none of the appellees contend that the quoted language in paragraph four was preclusive any future lien that Anchor have, I would it find that did not so preclude and follows from such finding that Anchor did not standing have because there was no adjudication the order of distribution adverse to any thereof, interests of it. In view I would dis- miss the appeal for lack of standing.