Legal Opinion

Montes v. MAI

Appellate Court of Illinois

Decided February 25, 2010No. 1-08-2774PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtJustice Gallagher

The primary issue to be decided in this appeal is whether a chiropractor is a “physician” under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 204(c) (166 Ill. 2d R. 204(c)) and is therefore entitled to be paid “a reasonable fee” for time spent testifying in a discovery deposition in a case in which he is not a party. For the reasons set forth below, we conclude that the term “physician” as used in Rule 204(c) includes chiropractors, and we affirm the hourly fee set by the trial court for the chiropractor’s deposition. In addition, we vacate the trial court’s order of contempt against the chiropractor in this…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Foutch v. O'BRYANTIllinois Supreme Court · 1984
  2. Vuagniaux v. Department of Professional RegulationIllinois Supreme Court · 2003
  3. Biehler v. White Metal Rolling & Stamping Corp.Appellate Court of Illinois · 1975
  4. Compton v. Country Mutual InsuranceAppellate Court of Illinois · 2008
  5. Longstreet v. Cottrell, Inc.Appellate Court of Illinois · 2007

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Burdess v. Cottrell, Inc.Appellate Court of Illinois · 2020
  2. Burdess v. Cottrell, Inc.Appellate Court of Illinois · 2020

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API