Wendling v. Southern Ill. Hosp. Serv.

Citation950 N.E.2d 646,242 Ill.2d 261,351 Ill.Dec. 150
Decision Date23 May 2011
Docket Number110200.,Nos. 110199,s. 110199
PartiesSherry D. WENDLING, Appellee,v.SOUTHERN ILLINOIS HOSPITAL SERVICES, d/b/a St. Joseph Memorial Hospital and Memorial Hospital of Carbondale, Appellant.Nancy J. Howell, Appellee,v.Southern Illinois Hospital Services, d/b/a Herrin Hospital, Appellant.
CourtIllinois Supreme Court

242 Ill.2d 261
950 N.E.2d 646
351 Ill.Dec.
150

Sherry D. WENDLING, Appellee,
v.
SOUTHERN ILLINOIS HOSPITAL SERVICES, d/b/a St. Joseph Memorial Hospital and Memorial Hospital of Carbondale, Appellant.Nancy J. Howell, Appellee,
v.
Southern Illinois Hospital Services, d/b/a Herrin Hospital, Appellant.

Nos. 110199

110200.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

March 24, 2011.Rehearing Denied May 23, 2011.


[950 N.E.2d 647]

Michael F. Dahlen and Kara L. Jones, of Feirich/Mager/ Green/Ryan, and William F. Sherwood and John R. Daly, all of Carbondale, for appellant.John D. Foley, of Anna, for appellee Sherry Wendling.John Womick, of Herrin, for appellee Nancy Howell.Anita Alvarez, State‘s Attorney, of Chicago (Patrick T. Driscoll, Jr., Donna M. Lach, Sanja Musikic and Lauren Klein, Assistant State's Attorneys, of counsel), for amicus curiae County of Cook.Clifford Law Offices, P.C., of Chicago (Colin H. Dunn, of Springfield, of counsel), for amicus curiae Illinois Trial Lawyers' Association.

[242 Ill.2d 263] OPINION
Justice BURKE delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion.

[351 Ill.Dec. 151] The plaintiffs in these consolidated cases were injured in automobile accidents and subsequently filed personal injury lawsuits against the drivers responsible for their injuries. The hospitals who treated the plaintiffs asserted liens against the proceeds of the lawsuits, pursuant to the Health Care Services Lien Act (770 ILCS 23/1 et seq. (West 2008)). The circuit court of Williamson County held, based on the “common fund doctrine,” that the lien-holding hospitals were responsible for their proportionate share of the plaintiffs' attorney fees. The appellate court affirmed. 398 Ill.App.3d 1078, 338 Ill.Dec. 664, 924 N.E.2d 1190. We reverse and hold that the common fund doctrine is not applicable to health care liens under the Act.

Background

The Health Care Services Lien Act provides that a health care professional or provider who renders treatment to an injured plaintiff “shall have a lien upon all claims and causes of action of the injured person for the amount of the health care professional's or health care provider's reasonable charges.” 770 ILCS 23/10(a) (West 2008). The total amount of all health care liens filed with respect to an individual plaintiff is limited to 40% of the judgment or settlement. 770 ILCS 23/10(a) (West 2008). Health care professionals and providers have the right to seek payment of the amount of their reasonable charges that remain not paid after the satisfaction of their liens under the Act. 770 ILCS 23/45 (West 2008). Where the [242 Ill.2d 264] total liens filed under the Act amount to 40% of the judgment or settlement, the total amount of attorneys' liens under the Attorneys Lien Act (770 ILCS 5/0.01 et seq. (West 2008)) is limited to 30% of the judgment or settlement. 770 ILCS 23/ 10(c)(2) (West 2008). The statute is silent as to whether a health care professional or provider holding a lien under the Act is responsible for attorney fees pursuant to the common fund doctrine.

Plaintiffs Sherry D. Wendling and Nancy J. Howell were injured in separate automobile

[351 Ill.Dec. 152 , 950 N.E.2d 648]

accidents and treated at hospitals owned by Southern Illinois Hospital Services (Hospitals). The Hospitals filed statutory liens pursuant to the Health Care Services Lien Act (770 ILCS 23/1 et seq. (West 2008)) against the proceeds of the plaintiffs' lawsuits against their tortfeasors.

Both plaintiffs reached settlement agreements with the individual defendants and filed petitions to adjudicate the Hospitals' liens. The petitions alleged that, under the common fund doctrine, plaintiffs' counsel were entitled to additional attorney fees equal to one-third of the amount of the Hospitals' liens.

The circuit court granted the petitions, finding that plaintiffs' attorneys were entitled to 30% of the total settlement proceeds, plus one-third of the amount of the Hospitals' liens. Accordingly, the court ordered that the Hospitals have their share of the settlement proceeds reduced by one-third, to reflect their share of the legal fees incurred by plaintiffs. The Hospitals appealed.

The appellate court affirmed. 398 Ill.App.3d 1078, 338 Ill.Dec. 664, 924 N.E.2d 1190. The court held that the Hospitals directly benefitted from the work done by plaintiffs' attorneys in creating the fund and, thus, were responsible for their prorated share of the plaintiffs' legal expenses. Id. at 1085, 338 Ill.Dec. 664, 924 N.E.2d 1190. We allowed the Hospitals' petition for leave to appeal (Ill.S.Ct. R. 315(a) (eff.Feb.26, 2010)). We granted leave to the County of Cook and the Illinois Trial Lawyers Association[242 Ill.2d 265] to submit amicus curiae briefs in support of the Hospitals and the plaintiffs, respectively.

Analysis

The common fund doctrine is an exception to the general American rule that, absent a statutory provision or an agreement between the parties, each party to litigation bears its own attorney fees and may not recover those fees from an adversary. Morris B. Chapman & Associates, Ltd. v. Kitzman, 193 Ill.2d 560, 572, 251 Ill.Dec. 141, 739 N.E.2d 1263 (2000). The doctrine provides that “ ‘a litigant or a lawyer who recovers a common fund for the benefit of persons other than himself or his client is entitled to a reasonable attorney's fee from the fund as a whole.’ ” Scholtens v. Schneider, 173 Ill.2d 375, 385, 219 Ill.Dec. 490, 671 N.E.2d 657 (1996) (quoting Boeing Co. v. Van Gemert, 444 U.S. 472, 478, 100 S.Ct. 745, 62 L.Ed.2d 676 (1980)). Underlying the doctrine is the equitable concept that the beneficiaries of a fund will be unjustly enriched by the attorney's services unless they contribute to the costs of the litigation. Baier v. State Farm Insurance Co., 66 Ill.2d 119, 124, 5 Ill.Dec. 572, 361 N.E.2d 1100 (1977); Scholtens, 173 Ill.2d at 385, 219 Ill.Dec. 490, 671 N.E.2d 657. Courts have applied the common fund doctrine in numerous types of civil litigation, including insurance subrogation claims, class actions, and wrongful-death cases involving an intervenor. Kitzman, 193 Ill.2d at 573, 251 Ill.Dec. 141, 739 N.E.2d 1263; Scholtens, 173 Ill.2d at 388, 219 Ill.Dec. 490, 671 N.E.2d 657.

Illinois courts have never applied the common fund doctrine to a creditor-debtor relationship, such as the one between the Hospitals and the plaintiffs in the instant case. In fact, in Maynard v. Parker, 75 Ill.2d 73, 25 Ill.Dec. 642, 387 N.E.2d 298 (1979) this court expressly held that the doctrine was inapplicable to a hospital holding a statutory lien. The relevant facts in Maynard are identical to those presented here. The treating hospital filed a lien pursuant to the Hospital Liens Act (Ill.Rev.Stat.1975, ch. 82, par. 97 et seq.) for the amount of the plaintiff's hospital bills.

[351 Ill.Dec. 153 , 950 N.E.2d 649]

Maynard, 75 Ill.2d at 74, 25 Ill.Dec. 642, 387 N.E.2d 298. After settling his lawsuit against the tortfeasor, the plaintiff filed a petition to adjudicate [242 Ill.2d 266] the rights of the parties. The circuit court ordered the hospital to pay plaintiff's attorney one-third of the amount claimed in its lien. The appellate court reversed, holding that the hospital was not responsible for paying a portion of the plaintiff's attorney fees. This court affirmed the appellate court. Id. at 75–76, 25 Ill.Dec. 642, 387 N.E.2d 298. In contrast to other “common fund” cases, where the beneficiaries of the fund would not be paid absent the creation of the fund, the hospital's recovery of its charges did not depend on the creation of the fund. “[P]laintiff was a debtor obligated to pay for the services rendered by the hospital out of any resources which might become available to him.” Id. at 75, 25 Ill.Dec. 642, 387 N.E.2d 298. Stated another way by the appellate court in Maynard:

“[T]he benefit to the hospital resulting from [the attorney's] services was merely incidental to the primary purpose of obtaining compensation for plaintiff's injuries * * * We cannot justify extending the common fund doctrine to require a mortgagee or a furniture store or any other creditor of a plaintiff to contribute to the fees of the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
33 cases
  • Ries v. the City of Chicago, 109541.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Illinois
    • May 23, 2011
    ...are simply ‘providing [or failing to provide] police services,’ but section 2–202 immunity requires more particular circumstances [351 Ill.Dec. 150 , 950 N.E.2d 646] for its application, i.e., an act or a course of conduct ‘in the execution or enforcement’ of law.” Id. at 282, 164 Ill.Dec. ......
  • Manago v. Cnty. of Cook, 1–12–1365.
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • June 30, 2016
    ...injury lawsuit, and cannot bring independent causes of action against the tortfeasors. Wendling v. Southern Illinois Hospital Services, 242 Ill.2d 261, 270, 351 Ill.Dec. 150, 950 N.E.2d 646 (2011). Insofar as a hospital lienholder has no standing to participate in a plaintiff's personal inj......
  • Moruzzi v. CCC Servs., Inc.
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • June 10, 2020
    ...than him or herself or a client is entitled to reasonable attorney fees from the fund. Wendling v. Southern Illinois Hospital Services , 242 Ill. 2d 261, 265, 351 Ill.Dec. 150, 950 N.E.2d 646 (2011). The doctrine is an exception to the general rule that, absent a statutory provision or an a......
  • Stefanski v. City of Chi.
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • February 27, 2015
    ...claims, class actions, and wrongful-death cases involving an intervenor. [Citations.]” Wendling v. Southern Illinois Hospital Services, 242 Ill.2d 261, 265, 351 Ill.Dec. 150, 950 N.E.2d 646 (2011).Plaintiff contends this doctrine supports her claims, as it was only through her efforts that ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 books & journal articles
  • Healthcare Liens and the Common Fund Doctrine: The Need for Legislative Action to Prevent Fee Shifting at the Expense of Healthcare Providers
    • United States
    • Iowa Law Review No. 98-4, May 2013
    • May 1, 2013
    ...2000); Kenneth F. White, Chtd. v. St. Alphonsus Reg’l Med. Ctr., 31 P.3d 926 (Idaho Ct. App. 2001); Wendling v. S. Ill. Hosp. Servs., 950 N.E.2d 646 (Ill. 2011); Nat’l Ins. Ass’n v. Parkview Mem’l Hosp., 590 N.E.2d 1141 (Ind. Ct. App. 1992); Harlow v. Lloyd, 809 P.2d 1228 (Kan. Ct. App. 199......
  • The factual investigation
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books How Insurance Companies Settle Cases
    • May 1, 2021
    ...Stat. §2910-A. However, the common fund doctrine does not apply in all states. See e.g., Wendling v. Southern Illinois Hospital Services, 950 N.E.2d 646 (Ill. 2011) (common fund doctrine not applicable to health care liens under Illinois Health Care Services Lien Act, 770 ILCS 23/1 et seq.)......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT