News and Events

Third-Party Tortfeasor or Patient Insurance: Recovery Options for Healthcare Providers in Illinois and How their Participating Provider Agreements Affect the Analysis

August 9, 2017Insurance CoverageRyan ArmourRelated Practice Areas: Insurance and Medical Liability

There is a precarious balancing act between healthcare providers, insurance companies, legislative bodies, and the Court system in Illinois. On July 6, 2017, the Fourth District Appellate Court of Illinois issued its decision in Turner v. Orthopedic and Shoulder Center, S.C.[1], and weighed in on that balancing act, further defining the parameters for interpretation and application of healthcare insurance contracts and the rights of physicians to recover against their patients.  Specifically, the question before the Court in Turner was whether a physician who treats a patient that was injured by a third party can attempt to collect 100% of their bills from the patient’s settlement with that third party, or whether the physician is limited to the reduced amount paid by the patient’s healthcare insurance?  The answer in this case, as in most cases, is that it depends.

Cassandra Turner was involved in a car accident with a third party tortfeasor in July of 2014.  By December of 2014, Orthopedic and Shoulder Center, S.C. (“Defendant”) had billed her $30,027.40 for their services, and had submitted a lien to the third party tortfeasor’s insurance company in this amount.  However, Defendant had also submitted bills to the Plaintiff’s personal health insurance for the same treatment.

Defendant was a “participating provider” through Blue Cross (“BCBS”), and had agreed in its contract with Blue Cross to accept “as full payment” the reduced rates they paid for Defendant’s services. Moreover, as a participating provider, Defendant had agreed to forego collections against any patient for amounts above the reduced rate paid by Blue Cross.  On this basis, instead of paying the entire amount of $30,027.40, BCBS issued a check to Defendant in the amount of $6,495.63.  Pursuant to the contract between Defendant and BCBS, this was to be accepted as payment in full.  Defendant cashed the check from BCBS.  However, after realizing that the patient, Cassandra Turner, had made a recovery against the third party tortfeasor that had forced her to incur the bills, the Defendant paid back BCBS their $6,495.63, and began attempting to collect the full amount of its bills from the patient.

In response to Orthopedic and Shoulder Center, S.C.’s collection attempts, Ms. Turner filed suit and asserted several claims, one of which was a consumer fraud action, and one of which sought to reduce the asserted lien of the Defendant to zero.  The trial Court granted the defendant summary judgment and Ms. Turner appealed.

In reaching its decision, the Turner court analyzed and distinguished its decision in Rogalla v. Christie Clinic.  In Rogalla[2], another Fourth District Decision, the Court allowed a healthcare provider to assert a lien in excess of the copayments paid by the plaintiff because the contract between the provider and the insurance company contained a qualifying clause to the general exemption against trying to collect from the patient.  The contract in Rogalla required the provider to accept copayments as full payment from the patient.  However, it did not restrict the provider from claiming additional compensation from individuals or entities that were not the actual patient.  This clause set forth that the provider “shall have the right to seek to recover charges incurred as a result of providing Medical/Hospital Services which are the liability of a third party.”  As such, the Rogalla Court held two things: (1) that the general exemption was modified by this “subrogation clause,” and (2) that because the lien was asserted against the third party tortfeasor rather than the patient, it was permissible under the contractual language between the insurance company and the provider.

In applying Rogalla to the case at hand, the Fourth District Court found that the BCBS contract contained no modification to the clause barring the provider from attempting to collect from its patients in excess of insurance payments.  Thus, the Rogalla analysis did not apply, and the Defendant in the Turner case was not contractually permitted to refuse the BCBS payment in an attempt to recover more money directly from the patient.  While Defendant asserted that Ms. Turner did not have the right to raise breach of contract issues as the two parties to the contract at issue were BCBS (a non-party) and Defendant, the Court looked to the contractual language to find that Ms. Turner was a third-party beneficiary to the contract. In Illinois, third party beneficiaries to a contract can sue for breach despite not being party to the contract.

Further, and perhaps most interestingly, the Court found that the contract language setting forth that “the contracting provider agrees to accept the Plan’s Usual and Customary Fee allowance as full payment for each service covered” meant that the Defendant healthcare provider could not have a lien at all, and was entitled to nothing. In essence, a lien is a legal right held by a creditor.  However, the Defendant in this case had previously agreed to accept the BCBS amount as “full payment,” and it had in fact been paid.  As such, it was not a creditor, and thus could not hold a lien.  In fact, the Turner court reiterated the fact that the Fourth District Court had already held that once a bill has been paid by the patient’s insurance company, there can be no valid lien for that bill by the healthcare provider.[3]

In response, Defendant argued that by sending the BCBS money back, it had put itself back in the shoes of a provider that had foregone submitting the bills to the insurance company in favor of filing a lien against recovery from the third party tortfeasor. While the Court agreed that if a healthcare provider foregoes insurance and instead seeks payment from the third party, the lien is allowable, it made two points in response to this contention.  First, a party to a contract cannot prevent performance of the contract and then seek to benefit by the prevention.  In this case, Defendant was contractually obligated to accept the BCBS payment as full payment, and sending the money back operated as a prevention of BCBS fulfilling their contractual duties.  Second, the specific contract at issue in this case defined the patient as a third party beneficiary, and did not allow the Defendant to seek recovery from third-party torfeasors, unlike the contracts in Rogalla and Barry.

Ultimately, healthcare providers and their counsel must read and understand their rights under their provider agreements with insurance companies in order to assess and analyze their options for recovery against third party tortfeasors and their patients alike. One thing is for certain, the Healthcare Services Lien Act (770 ILCS 23/1, et. seq.) has been the subject of litigation since its inception in 2003, and that is a trend that is likely to continue.

[1] 2017 IL App (4th) 160552

[2] 341 Ill.App.3d 410 (4th Dist. 2003).

[3] Barry v. St. Mary’s Hospital, 2016 IL App (4th) 150961

About Us

Cassiday Schade is a litigation law firm headquartered in Chicago, with a presence throughout the Midwest. We focus on providing our clients with exceptional and efficient representation and act as national or regional counsel for clients facing nationwide exposures.

With experience in virtually all areas of civil litigation, we have a diverse client base and our attorneys provide companies of various sizes with extensive trial experience and case preparation acumen. Throughout our history, we have represented individuals and companies in a variety of industries, including long-term care, insurance, financial services, manufacturing, construction, professional services and transportation. In addition to trial and appellate work, we provide both organizations and individuals with the tools to analyze and prevent risk before litigation arises.

We take pride in working with our clients and not just for them. Every case is different, and determining the best possible outcome is what our attorneys deliver. Sometimes this means aggressive preparation for trial, other times it may involve seeking an early resolution through alternative means, such as mediation or arbitration. Ultimately, our clients receive the benefit of having their matters handled with maximum efficiency and skill.

Attorneys

Practices

Cassiday Schade’s Admiralty & Maritime practice group represents clients in a wide range of maritime matters and understands the legal complexities that are an integral part of the marine industry.

At Cassiday Schade, we recognize the important distinction between trial and appellate work and the need for appellate specialists. Our attorneys have outstanding research, writing and oral advocacy skills and bring an original perspective and tailored strategy to each appeal. A significant portion of our strategy includes analyzing whether or not an appeal is the best course of action for our clients. Our practice group provides an appellate perspective when issues arise at trial, including the introduction of prejudicial evidence by an opponent, an opponent's efforts to limit the introduction of evidence favorable to the defense and jury instructions. We also become involved after litigation concludes, and offer guidance on post-trial motions and responses.

Cassiday Schade’s Civil Rights & Correctional Healthcare practice is dedicated to providing expert, cost-effective legal defense to correctional healthcare employers, as well as the doctors, nurses and other healthcare providers they employ. Our attorneys aren’t just excellent litigators, we are also industry experts and are intimately acquainted with trends, changes and legal developments that may impact our clients.

Cassiday Schade’s Commercial attorneys serve as advocates and business advisors to clients from a wide range of industries including banking, real estate financing and investment, health care, automobile sales and finance, financial services, insurance, manufacturing, and construction.

The representation of contractors, developers and design professionals has been a focus of Cassiday Schade since the inception of the firm. The depth of our experience covers the broad spectrum of all points where construction and the law intersect. Our list of clients includes the largest general contractors in Illinois as well as owners, architects, engineers and specialty subcontractors. We routinely represent these companies in their biggest and most problematic cases. While we have the ability to staff large accounts, we keep our client teams small so that our attorneys remain familiar with the client’s background and needs. This ensures efficiency and consistency in our representation of our clients.

Cassiday Schade’s Employment practice group represents organizations in a wide range of employment related disputes. As part of our litigation strategy, our attorneys provide an early assessment of each case to determine the best avenue toward resolution, considering both the nature and potential exposure of the claim and the needs of the client.

Cassiday Schade’s Environmental and Toxic Injury practice group serves clients who are, or may be, exposed to claims arising from the manufacture, sale or use of potentially toxic and hazardous substances, and to the threat of litigation arising from environmental claims attendant to land, air and water pollution. Our firm is often retained to handle not only the litigation of active lawsuits, but to monitor litigation for nationwide corporations, advise corporations on risk reduction and coordinate the nationwide defense strategy for corporations facing toxic tort, product liability and other commercial issues. Our success is determined by a skilled team of attorneys with industry acumen and access to a large network of experts and consultants. No matter the issue, our overarching goal is the same: to bring our clients the best possible result through proactive and individualized service.

Cassiday Schade’s Hospitality and Retail practice represents a wide-range of clients in complex litigation matters, including hotels and hotel chains, hotel management companies, hotel property owners, franchisees, restaurants, bars, shopping malls, and event production companies. In addition, our skilled team of attorneys is committed to providing our clients with guidance and risk-management strategies to avoid future litigation. This includes but is not limited to, legal counseling, alternative dispute resolution and pre suit negotiations.

Cassiday Schade’s Insurance practice group provides full-service litigation, transactional and alternative dispute resolution capabilities to insurance carriers and other commercial entities. Our expert team of attorneys is focused on providing clients with prompt, direct advice regarding the risks presented in any given situation, both preventively and when litigation arises. Our team also frequently utilizes litigation alternatives such as contractual resolutions, standstill agreements and mediation, all of which can be of great assistance in complex insurance matters.

We represent some of the nation’s top hospitals and other healthcare providers in the successful defense of malpractice litigation. The actions we defend are approached with the highest level of professional consideration and we have tried hundreds of cases to verdict in over 50 counties nationally. Our industry expertise and innovative use of technology to create demonstrative evidence during trial provides clients with the most successful defense possible. We also have access to a network of the most qualified consultants and experts who provide guidance and work closely with our team of attorneys on these lawsuits.

Cassiday Schade’s Nursing Home & Long-Term Care practice group represents nursing homes, assisted living facilities, hospices, home health care agencies and rehabilitation centers. At the core of our practice is an understanding of the difficulty inherent in effectively addressing the quality of care provided to individuals whose health is compromised. Our attorneys are a dedicated group of litigators with extensive industry knowledge of OBRA Regulations, the Illinois Administrative Code and the Nursing Home Care Act. We are committed to partnering with our clients in the investigation, planning, direction and defense of a case to determine the most efficient and practical resolution.

Cassiday Schade’s Products Liability practice group has extensive knowledge of state and federal product liability laws and the applicable standards governing the design, manufacture and distribution of products. Our attorneys’ first step is product identification, specifically to examine our clients’ involvement in the design, manufacture, and/or distribution. This includes following paper trails and pursuing investigation to locate and preserve evidence. We also immediately analyze whether any legal defenses, such as statutes of limitations or repose, can be asserted. Our experience in the industry provides us with access to the most sophisticated experts. We act quickly to retain the best consultants, provide them with all applicable materials and obtain their input in order to present the best legal and technical defense.

Professional liability cases are often complex, both factually and procedurally. Cassiday Schade’s Professional Liability practice group services a wide range of clients including accountants, architects and engineers, attorneys, nursing homes, officers and directors, paramedics and psychologists. Our attorneys realize the importance of understanding burdens of proof, standards of care and the need to promptly identify the right consultants and experts. We stay abreast of case law and developments in the profession so that we can bring the highest level of knowledge and understanding to a given case. Our practice team involves our clients in all aspects of litigation, keeping them informed and seeking their input.

Cassiday Schade’s Transportation practice group represents motor carriers, owners, operators, trucking companies and insurance carriers in what are often catastrophic accidents involving trucks, trains, buses, vans, automobiles and other modes of transportation. Our rapid response team of attorneys, accident reconstructionists and transportation investigators is on-call 24 hours a day and can be immediately dispatched to preserve and document physical evidence, inspect vehicles and perform a download of the electronic control module. We also frequently defend cases where the first notice is the lawsuit. Our attorneys perform early assessments of both the liability and damage aspects of each case. This analysis often leads to an early resolution by way of alternative dispute methods including mediation.

Cassiday Schade's Veterinary Medicine practice group represents Doctors of Veterinary Medicine (D.V.M.) Registered Veterinary Technicians (R.V.T.) and veterinary assistants and their practices in malpractice claims, state licensing and disciplinary board actions, and appeals.

Headlines

Blog

Illinois Analysis of General Personal Jurisdiction Following Mallory v. Norfolk Southern

On June 27, 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court rendered its decision in Mallory. [i] This decision reaffirmed the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Pennsylvania Fire from 1917.[ii] In Pennsylvania Fire, the U.S. Supreme Court held that a Missouri statute did not violate the Due Process Clause. ... [ read more ]

view all