For those with time of their hands .... :), the full text of this recent (Sep 05) courts opinion on the appeal in this case is
here. The case and appeal centers around a suit against Blue Cross for non-payment of fees and the definition of a practicsing cetificate for a professional corporation in the state if Iliinois.
Quote:
|
In sum, viewing, as we must, the provisions of the Act as a whole (Michigan Avenue National Bank, 191 Ill. 2d at 504), we hold that the term "certificate of registration" as used in the Act is not functionally equivalent to a license to practice a profession, and that there is nothing in the Act to indicate that the requirement of a professional service corporation to maintain a current certificate of registration was enacted to protect the public safety. We believe that if the General Assembly had intended for the provisions of the Act to protect the public welfare, the legislature would have said so, just as it has explicitly stated in the Podiatric Medical Practice Act that the licensing requirements for podiatrists are meant to ensure the public health, safety and welfare. In the instant matter, there is no dispute that the podiatrists were duly licensed to practice podiatry in accordance with the Podiatric Medical Practice Act. Therefore, it was error for the lower courts to hold that plaintiff's June 2000 contract with Blue Cross requiring Blue Cross to reimburse plaintiff for fees charged for podiatric services to Blue Cross' insureds was unenforceable as against public policy. The goal of protecting the public was not implicated by the facts in the instant cause.
|
The above is the summary in the longer document, but like a lot of court decisions and decisions by professional bodies (eg this
one in Australia), it does give insight into issues.
Chatham Foot Specialists vs Blue Cross
Linear Mode
