Browse cases by category
- Attorneys & Legal Services
- Bankruptcy
- Civil Procedure & Administrative Law
- Civil Rights
- Consumer
- Criminal
- Disability
- Economic Development
- Education
- Elections
- Employment
- Environmental Justice
- Evidence
- Family Law
- Food Programs
- Government and Governmental Services
- Guardianship & Conservatorship
- Health
- Housing
- Immigration
- Juveniles
- License (Auto & Others)
- Mental Health
- Migrants
- Native Americans
- Other
- Prisons
- Public Utilities & Energy
- Rural Issues
- Senior Citizens
- Social Security & SSI
- Taxation
- Torts
- Unemployment Compensation & Unemployment Insurance
- Veterans & Military
- Welfare
- Wills & Estates
- Workforce Development
Servedio v. Our Lady of the Resurrection Medical Center
No. 04 L 3381 (Ill. Cir. Ct. Cook County January 6, 2005) ; Clearinghouse Number: 55819
Description
Suit Alleging that Hospital Charges Uninsured Patients Higher Fees May Proceed
Abstract
The court sustained uninsured emergency room patients’
complaint against defendant medical center; the complaint alleged
excessive medical charges in violation of the Illinois Consumer
Fraud Act. Plaintiffs alleged that defendants charged uninsured
patients significantly higher prices than those paid by insured
patients. They alleged that defendants used draconian collection
procedures and lawsuits to collect unpaid amounts, thereby
deterring plaintiffs from seeking future medical treatment. Moving
to dismiss, defendants argued that Medicare regulations prevented
hospitals from systematically giving discounts to uninsured
patients; that billing for medical services did not fall within the
Illinois Consumer Fraud Act’s definition of trade or
commerce; and that defendants’ alleged conduct was not
unfair. The court cited a U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services letter which specifically states that hospitals may give
blanket discounts to uninsured patients without risk of losing
Medicare funding. In light of the General Assembly’s and the
Illinois Supreme Court’s explicitly stated desire that the
Consumer Fraud Act be read broadly to favor consumers (both the
legislature and the Supreme Court explicitly command that the term
“trade or commerce” be read inclusively), the Act
applies to billing practices for medical services, the court
concluded. The court found that the alleged practice of requiring
emergency room patients to pay fees two and three times the de
facto normal rate was against public policy, oppressive, and
unethical. The court also found that this practice was injurious to
consumers in that uninsured patients were not likely to seek
medical attention when they most needed it.
