Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Vine Street Clinic v. Healthlink, Inc.

Appellate Court of Illinois

Decided November 24, 2004No. 4-03-0876Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in part

JUSTICE STEIGMANN,

specially concurring in part and dissenting in part:

In my opinion, the majority has misconstrued section 22(A)(14) of the Act, leading to its erroneous conclusion that HealthLink may impose neither a percentage-based fee nor a flat fee on the physicians who elect to participate in its network. Accordingly, I dissent.

I. ADDITIONAL BACKGROUND

Throughout these proceedings, HealthLink has asserted that it

charges providers an administrative fee to cover services it performs on their behalf. Those services include the following: (1) administering and implementing HealthLink’s…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. In Re County Treasurer and Ex-Officio Coll.Appellate Court of Illinois · 2001
  2. American Federation of State, County, & Municipal Employees, Council 31 v. RyanAppellate Court of Illinois · 2002
  3. AMERICAN FED. OF STATE, COUNTY v. RyanAppellate Court of Illinois · 2002

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

Powered by the Exa API