Class action chiropractor turns down settlement offer as lawyers would not get fee
Published: 2010-02-22 07:23:36
Author: Steve Korris | Madison St. Clair Record | February 4, 2010
Local chiropractor Frank Bemis turned down $48 to settle a class action billing dispute, because his lawyers at LakinChapman wouldn't collect a fee.
Andrew Kuhlmann of LakinChapman wrote on Jan. 20 that the offer didn't account for the relief Bemis requested from Employers Mutual Casualty.
Bemis alleges that Employers Mutual took discounts from bills of members of preferred provider organizations but broke a promise to steer patients to them.
"In addition to reimbursement of all PPO reductions, plaintiff requests an award of attorney's fees under the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act," Kuhlmann wrote.
"At a minimum, then, attorneys' fees remain outstanding, and plaintiff's claims are not moot," he wrote.
"Because plaintiff seeks relief beyond the alleged tender, there is no need to even analyze whether the tender could prevent class certification," he wrote.
His brief buttressed an earlier motion to certify a class of health care providers who received less than they billed for workers compensation cases.
Bemis sued in 2005, days before the national class action fairness act took effect.
Full story
Published: 2010-02-22 07:23:36
Author: Steve Korris | Madison St. Clair Record | February 4, 2010
Local chiropractor Frank Bemis turned down $48 to settle a class action billing dispute, because his lawyers at LakinChapman wouldn't collect a fee.
Andrew Kuhlmann of LakinChapman wrote on Jan. 20 that the offer didn't account for the relief Bemis requested from Employers Mutual Casualty.
Bemis alleges that Employers Mutual took discounts from bills of members of preferred provider organizations but broke a promise to steer patients to them.
"In addition to reimbursement of all PPO reductions, plaintiff requests an award of attorney's fees under the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act," Kuhlmann wrote.
"At a minimum, then, attorneys' fees remain outstanding, and plaintiff's claims are not moot," he wrote.
"Because plaintiff seeks relief beyond the alleged tender, there is no need to even analyze whether the tender could prevent class certification," he wrote.
His brief buttressed an earlier motion to certify a class of health care providers who received less than they billed for workers compensation cases.
Bemis sued in 2005, days before the national class action fairness act took effect.
Full story