Constantinou v. Global Fin. Credit, LLC
| Decision Date | 26 February 2021 |
| Docket Number | 1-19-2325 |
| Citation | 2021 IL App (1st) 192325,190 N.E.3d 859,454 Ill.Dec. 877 |
| Parties | Polyxeni CONSTANTINOU, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. GLOBAL FINANCIAL CREDIT, LLC, a Delaware Corporation d/b/a MedChex, and Athletico, Ltd., an Illinois Corporation, Defendants-Appellees. |
| Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
Larry D. Drury and Thomas M. Rebholz, of Larry D. Drury Ltd., of Chicago, and John H. Alexander of John H. Alexander & Associates, LLC, of Chicago, for appellant.
E. King Poor and John A. Aramanda, of Quarles & Brady LLP, of Chicago, for appellee Global Financial Credit, LLC.
Christine E. Skoczylas, of Barnes & Thornburg, LLP, of Chicago, for other appellee.
¶ 1 In Wilson v. F.B. McAfoos & Co. , 344 Ill. App. 3d 452, 457, 279 Ill.Dec. 335, 800 N.E.2d 177 (2003), this court held that "where the legislature does not provide for the assignability of a statutory lien, it does not intend for that lien to be assignable." The plaintiff in this case has alleged that, notwithstanding our holding in Wilson , one of the defendants in this case—a healthcare provider from whom the plaintiff received medical treatment following a personal injury—attempted to assign its statutory lien against the plaintiff's personal injury settlement to the other defendant—a billing company and non-healthcare provider. The circuit court dismissed plaintiff's claims with prejudice, finding that no injury to her or to the proposed class of similarly situated individuals could have stemmed from this improper assignment. Because we find that plaintiff has adequately alleged that defendants’ improper use of the lien procedure deprived her of a right she would otherwise have enjoyed—the right to presently possess her settlement proceeds—we reverse and remand for further proceedings.
¶ 3 A. Ms. Constantinou's Complaint
¶ 4 In her July 24, 2018, class action complaint in this matter, plaintiff Polyxeni Constantinou alleged that she suffered personal injuries in a vehicular accident on December 2, 2016, and sought treatment from defendant Athletico, Inc. (Athletico), a provider of physical therapy services. On June 14, 2017, Athletico sent a document titled "Notice of Health Professional Lien" to Ms. Constantinou's personal injury attorney. In it, Athletico claimed a lien in the amount of $11,943.00—its charges for health care services rendered to Ms. Constantinou—against any recovery she might obtain from the unnamed party or parties responsible for her injuries. A little over two months later, on August 25, 2017, Ms. Constantinou's attorney received another letter from Athletico, stating in part, "we have partnered with [MedChex] to manage the medical receivable(s) listed" and "from this day forward we ask that you correspond with them as it relates to obtaining lien satisfaction payoff amounts." On the same day, Ms. Constantinou's attorney received correspondence from defendant MedChex, titled "Notice of MedChex Medical Lien," which stated "MedChex is now the billing company for the above and has taken assignment for a medical lien in the amount of $11,943.00 for services rendered to [Ms. Constantinou]."
¶ 5 Ms. Constantinou alleged that both lien notices were defective in several technical respects, including that they did not name the individual who had injured Ms. Constantinou and they were served on Ms. Constantinou's attorney rather than on her directly. Ms. Constantinou's core allegation, however, was that Athletico lacked authority to assign its lien and, in attempting to do so, had violated section 10(e) of the Health Care Services Lien Act (Lien Act), which provides that "[p]ayments under [health care services] liens shall be made directly to the health care professionals and health care providers" ( 770 ILCS 23/10(e) (West 2016)), and which lacks any provision expressly allowing for the assignment of such liens. Seeking to represent a nationwide class of similarly situated individuals who, in or after 2013, had been served with notices of liens purportedly assigned to MedChex, Ms. Constantinou asserted claims against Athletico and MedChex for (1) violation of the Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act (Consumer Fraud Act) ( 815 ILCS 505/1 et seq. (West 2016)), (2) unjust enrichment, (3) injunctive relief, (4) negligence, (5) negligent misrepresentation, and (6) declaratory relief.
¶ 6 Ms. Constantinou alleged that by serving unauthorized notices of MedChex liens, defendants had misrepresented or concealed from her and the proposed class that (1) Athletico had no authority to assign its liens to MedChex and (2) MedChex, as a non-health care provider, had no authority to serve or present notice of a lien under the Lien Act to Ms. Constantinou for payment. She alleged that, as a proximate result of these misrepresentations or omissions, she and other members of the proposed class had suffered "damages including but not limited to any loss from settlement funds claimed by Defendants, with interest." Ms. Constantinou sought to enjoin defendants from making similar misrepresentations or omissions in the future and, in her prayer for relief, asked the court to enter an order "[r]equiring that Defendants release and extinguish any and all liens assigned by ATHLETICO."
¶ 7 Ms. Constantinou also sought "a judgment declaring Defendants committed deceptive, unfair and illegal acts, were negligent and engaged in negligent misrepresentation, and violated 770 ILCS 23/1, 23/10(b) [notice requirements], and 23/10(e) [direct payment requirement], et seq. , all to Plaintiff's and the Class’ detriment and damage." Ms. Constantinou asserted that she was entitled to this declaratory relief because she had "a continuing, ongoing, actual and legal tangible interest in the monies owed to [her] and the Class" and defendants had an "ongoing opposing interest in the purported validity of the subject liens and the assignment thereof."
¶ 9 Defendants moved to dismiss Ms. Constantinou's complaint pursuant to section 2-615 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Code) ( 735 ILCS 5/2-615 (West 2018) ). The court held a hearing on February 15, 2019, and allowed extended argument by the parties. At the conclusion of that hearing, the court granted the motions and dismissed Ms. Constantinou's claims with prejudice.
¶ 10 With respect to her consumer fraud claim, the court concluded, among other things, that any omission on defendants’ part regarding the legality of the lien assignment was immaterial because, lien or no lien, Ms. Constantinou still owed money for the services she had received. The court also concluded that, absent any attempt to enforce the lien, defendants had not been unjustly enriched at Ms. Constantinou's expense. And the court agreed with defendants that Ms. Constantinou's claims for negligence and negligent misrepresentation were barred by the economic loss doctrine.
¶ 11 The court likewise dismissed Ms. Constantinou's equitable claims, noting that an injunction is "not a [separate] cause of action" and explaining that Ms. Constantinou's request for a declaration "asking this court to declare liability *** on Counts I through V, which [were] already freestanding counts," was "superfluous." Plaintiff's request for declaratory relief was also improper, the court concluded, because she was asking the court "to determine [that] what ha[d] already occurred was wrong, not to *** set the stage for going forward." The court believed that "[t]he most straightforward way to address this" was for Ms. Constantinou to avail herself of the lien adjudication procedure provided for in the Lien Act.
¶ 12 The circuit court denied plaintiff's counsel's request for leave to file an amended complaint. In the court's view, Ms. Constantinou would not be able to adequately allege damages stemming from defendants’ conduct. The court rejected the notion that Ms. Constantinou had lost the time value of the funds her lawyer was holding in escrow because of the lien, stating:
¶ 13 The court therefore dismissed Ms. Constantinou's initial complaint in its entirety and did so with prejudice.
¶ 14 C. Ms. Constantinou's Motion to Vacate or Reconsider and Motion to Amend
¶ 15 On March 18, 2019, Ms. Constantinou simultaneously moved the court to vacate or reconsider its dismissal order and for leave to file an amended complaint. She argued that the court had ignored the illegality of the lien assignment and improperly focused on a request made in her prayer for relief that Athletico release the accompanying debt, which she argued was not part of her claims and should not have been construed together with them. Ms. Constantinou also argued that dismissal with prejudice had not been warranted because additional facts included in her proposed amended complaint would bolster her damages allegations. Ms. Constantinou specified, for example, the rules of professional conduct, under which her attorneys were holding funds in the amount of the lien in escrow.
¶ 16 Ms. Constantinou's proposed amended complaint altered only her claims for injunctive and declaratory relief. Her other claims were incorporated by reference to preserve them for appeal. Her amended claim for injunctive relief focused not on enjoining defendants from misrepresenting that Athletico liens could be validly assigned to MedChex, as her initial complaint had, but on preventing defendants from engaging in such transactions in the future. Her amended claim for declaratory relief asserted, as her...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Stewart v. JP Morgan Chase Bank
... ... previous motion.” Caisse Nationale de Credit ... Agricole v. CBI Indus., Inc., 90 F.3d 1264, 1270 (7th ... See 815 Ill. Comp. Stat ... 505/10a; Constantinou v. Glob. Fin. Credit, LLC, 190 ... N.E.3d 859, 870 (Ill.App.Ct ... ...