*1 602
and the sentence imposed thereon is reversed and this case is re- manded to the circuit court for a new trial.
Reversed and remanded.
WOMBACHER, P.J., BARRY, J., concur. TSAI, VIC T. Plaintiff-Appellant, KANIOK, v. MICHAEL L. Defendant-Ap-
pellee.
BARRY, J., specially concurring.
Douglas Ziech, L. appellant. for Archambeault, Dinah Timm, Lennon, Lennon Murphy, Spesia & Ayers, (Charles Bretz, of Joliet counsel), L. appellee. for HEIPLE delivered the the court:
The plaintiff brought suit in the circuit court of Will to re- cover the balance due oh a bill he submitted defendant for med- ical services he Following trial, rendered. a bench the court entered judgment defendant, favor of the plaintiff had received a fair and reasonable fee. The this We af- pursued firm. Kaniok, herein,
Twelve-year-old the defendant received in an injuries involving facial accident a three-wheel motorized vehi- cle, Tsai, and the Dr. contacted to plaintiff, perform surgery. was surgeon Tsai is a whose is located in plastic board-certified Joliet, Illinois. Dr. Tsai made no with either Michael or his agreement parents regarding charge performing the fees he would the neces- sary procedures. evening Michael, the first Dr. Tsai treated he closed the gap-
ing wound to the nose and ordered X The next rays. day surgery, perform grafts Dr. Tsai removed bone from Michael’s skull to to and to He eye. Michael’s nose the bone under his left also sutured vis- follow-up returned to Dr. Tsai for lacerations. Michael remaining Dr. Tsai its, Dr. Tsai said his was unremarkable. recovery but he evening the first saw performed during for the services he $800 he rendered the next Michael, $6,100 a for the services total $2,445, an amount it con- father’s insurer Dr. Tsai day. paid Michael’s fee in the for the services community sidered the usual and $4,455. the remaining Dr. Tsai filed suit recover provided. sole on usual expert At Dr. Tsai testified and served as his the court there is one other plastic fees. told on Dr. Tsai stated that his fees were based that which he received from knowledge, including experience “nose to insurance jobs” companies second colleagues. communications with from information from few out specific that he does not make effort find Tsai testified for a stated he has surgeon charges procedure, how much another surgeons. general idea of the usual and custom- told the court that in his his own $6,900 was original bill ary fee. submitted as evidence of the testified for plastic surgeon, Dr. Richard Corley, testified defense. in the Joliet area charged by plastic surgeons was familiar with fees *3 much of the nation he had worked as a con- throughout and because and the Peoria Medical Soci- Caterpillar Company sultant for Tractor phy- is a Study,” He referred to a “Relative Value which ety. values, he utilized and their associated and indicated sicians’ services stated he Corley the information to reach his Fi- opinion. X-rayed also examined and before Dr. Tsai in this testified that the fees nally, Corley in the area. charged case the usual and customary exceeded Hertenstein, serving as the Robert also testified group Caterpillar, medical director for insurance which were exten- the defense. He testified as to his in numerous in the sive, projects and indicated he had been involved fees. Dr. Hertenstein told establishing reviewing physician area of fees, the reviewing including process physician the court that in the charged the familiar with surgeons, fees of he had become He testified that Dr. Tsai in the plastic surgeons County by actually than he more complicated procedures billed the defendant for proce- fee for each individual charged separate performed, College American of Sur- the surgery, practice dure he performed he believed Dr. explained what inappropriate. considers geons Tsai’s services were worth and the reasons for his decision. In Dr. excessive, Hertenstein’s the fee Dr. Tsai was grossly area, for the Will for the entire as only nation well. evidence, the considering the trial court stated the issue was not one of but one of the credibility, given be The court testimony. found the of the defendant’s witnesses on the issue of usual and fees to more customary persuasive be ruled in the favor of defendant. appeal, admitting contends court erred in of the experts defendant’s because were not they qual
ified to He contends neither testify. of the was familiar with the usual and fee charged in Will County. disagree. We The party offering expert has the of establishing burden the ex pert’s special knowledge, but the determination of the sufficiency qualifications rests largely sound discretion of the trial court. (People v. Free (1983), 94 Ill. 2d The trial court’s decision is subject reversal if it gross constitutes a abuse of discretion. The record establishes that the defendant’s were familiar with the usual and customary fees in discloses manner in which each gained The familiarity. plaintiff’s assertion is there fore meritless.
The argues that the court applied an stand improper ard in determining his fees were excessive. He contends that court should not have relied on the testimony of the defendant’s ex perts because they based their global nationwide or stand ards rather than standards within the as is locality, required. (Weinlander v. Volkman (1910), 153 Ill. App. 137.) defendant does that dispute rule set out in locality Weinlander is the proper contends, standard to applied however, be this case. He that his ex and the court perts applied that standard in this case. agree We with the defendant.
Drs. and Hertenstein each testified that fees were excessive for the area and offered opin ions of usual customary, charges services. The fact that Dr. Hertenstein was also familiar with and usual fees for many areas the United States and testify was able to that he expect “wouldn’t to see that kind of fee the highest priced at place *4 country procedure” does not in any way establish that the wrong standard for determining customary fees was Accord applied. ingly, the court’s that the defendant’s were more per suasive does claim that the court did not support apply locality standard. argues, vaguely, rather that the court in giving weight
erred the defendant’s ex perts, and appears suggest experts’ was irrelevant because it referred to practices and standards outside Will discussed, As County. previously and did qualified testify about customary practices fees Will Further more, it is well established that the weight to be afforded a witness’ testimony is a matter for the trier of fact on the based assessments made at and this assessment is to be disturbed on appeal ab sent an (In abuse discretion. re Marriage Ligas (1982), 110 Ill. App. 3d The trial court’s decision regarding of the ex perts’ testimony amply is supported by record and we will not dis it turb on above,
For the reasons set out the judgment of the circuit court of is affirmed. Affirmed.
WOMBACHER,P.J., concurs. BARRY, specially concurring:
For the reason that Dr. Tsai’s evidence was extraordi- supporting narily weak and did not overcome the defendant’s expert testimony “unbundling” the unfair (see Honeywell Sys- Information tems, 171, v. I Maricopa County (1977), 801), Inc. 118 Ariz. 575 P.2d the majority opinion concur in BRENKACZ,
In re Petitioner-Appellee, MARRIAGE OF MARY ELLEN BRENKACZ, Respondent-Appellant. and THEODORE