{ "id": 3550006, "name": "SHERMAN HOSPITAL, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JEROME G. WINGREN et al., Defendants-Appellants", "name_abbreviation": "Sherman Hospital v. Wingren", "decision_date": "1988-05-06", "docket_number": "No. 2-87-0912", "first_page": "161", "last_page": "165", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "169 Ill. App. 3d 161" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.", "id": 8837, "name": "Illinois Appellate Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "484 N.E.2d 1154", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "137 Ill. App. 3d 992", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 3639509 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "995-98" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/137/0992-01" ] }, { "cite": "512 N.E.2d 127", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1985, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "158 Ill. App. 3d 838", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 3578477 ], "year": 1985, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "842" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/158/0838-01" ] }, { "cite": "359 N.E.2d 109", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1987, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "65 Ill. 2d 382", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 5436677 ], "year": 1987, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "387" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/65/0382-01" ] }, { "cite": "491 N.E.2d 432", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "140 Ill. App. 3d 1079", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 3530970 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "1086" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/140/1079-01" ] }, { "cite": "129 N.E.2d 706", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1985, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "6 Ill. 2d 572", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2709187 ], "year": 1985, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "574" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/6/0572-01" ] }, { "cite": "493 N.E.2d 117", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "weight": 2, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "120" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "143 Ill. App. 3d 621", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 5665546 ], "weight": 2, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "625" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/143/0621-01" ] }, { "cite": "81 N.E. 857", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.", "weight": 2, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "860" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "228 Ill. 233", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 5628522 ], "weight": 2, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "241" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/228/0233-01" ] }, { "cite": "501 N.E.2d 1280", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "149 Ill. App. 3d 53", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 3460336 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "58" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/149/0053-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 564, "char_count": 10350, "ocr_confidence": 0.757, "pagerank": { "raw": 1.665432065067075e-07, "percentile": 0.6950920690742974 }, "sha256": "0ae5903334e741e9dee239d2fd59306454dbc4deb5c6c4e3e3aa4c931ca21892", "simhash": "1:07be538d7d0870d6", "word_count": 1685 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:11:49.091625+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "SHERMAN HOSPITAL, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JEROME G. WINGREN et al., Defendants-Appellants." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "JUSTICE REINHARD\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\n. Plaintiff, Sherman Hospital, filed suit in the circuit court of Kane County seeking an amount allegedly due and owing from defendants, Jerome and Marguerite Wingren, for hospital services plus prejudgment interest pursuant to section 2 of \u201cAn Act in relation to the rate of interest and other charges in connection with sales on credit and the lending of money\u201d (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1985, ch. 17, par. 6402). Plaintiff also sought, in a separate post-trial motion, sanctions pursuant to section 2 \u2014 611 of the Civil Practice Law (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1985, ch. 110, par. 2 \u2014 611). Following a bench trial, the trial court found for plaintiff and ordered defendants to pay $2,737.93 plus costs. After a post-trial hearing, the trial court ordered Gordon & Gordon, Ltd., defendants\u2019 attorneys, to pay to plaintiff $911.73 for plaintiff\u2019s attorney fees plus $90 in costs, as a sanction under section 2 \u2014 611. Defendants appeal both the order assessing damages and costs against them as well as the sanction against their attorneys. On appeal, defendants contend that the trial court erred in awarding plaintiff the full amount sought in its complaint because plaintiff failed to establish that its bill was both reasonable and necessary. Defendants also contend that the trial court erred in invoking sanctions against their attorneys.\nDefendant, Jerome Wingren, was hospitalized in Sherman Hospital for four days to undergo knee surgery. The bill for Wingren\u2019s hospital stay was $2,737.93. Wingren also filed a worker\u2019s compensation claim based on a work-related injury to his knee. On July 10, 1986, the claim was settled for an amount in excess of $35,000. As part of the settlement, Jerome Wingren agreed to pay the hospital bill. Additionally, his attorneys retained $4,000 of the settlement amount for the purpose of paying his medical expenses. No part of the hospital bill has ever been paid.\nOn November 17, 1986, the hospital filed suit against defendants, who never filed an answer or a motion to dismiss. Following plaintiff\u2019s pretrial motion for discovery-related sanctions, the matter came to trial on August 26, 1987.\nPlaintiff offered the testimony of Ms. Barbara Tindall, an assistant patient accounts manager. Ms. Tindall testified that her department keeps records for hospital bills for all patients and collects the patient accounts. She stated that Jerome Wingren\u2019s hospital bill reflected all of the charges and services rendered to him. She further testified that the prices listed on the bill were reasonable prices in the community in which the hospital is located for the services rendered.\nTindall also testified that the computer equipment used to generate the bill in question was standard computer equipment and that the entries on the bill were made in the regular course of business at or near the time of the event recorded. She stated that each day an error report is submitted to the hospital\u2019s data control clerk and then resubmitted to each department in order to ensure that billing errors will be corrected. On cross-examination, Tindall stated that she was not a physician but had a better idea than a physician would concerning the reasonableness of the charges in question. She admitted that she had not reviewed all of Jerome Wingren\u2019s medical records but stated that, based upon the services provided, the charges were reasonable. On redirect examination, Tindall testified that she was familiar with charges for similar services at other hospitals in the community and that the amounts charged here were reasonable for similar services in the community.\nThe trial court found for plaintiff and awarded it $2,737.93, the full amount of Wingren\u2019s bill. Additionally, following the trial court\u2019s finding, defendants moved for leave to file an answer and also to allow Jerome Wingren to verify defendants\u2019 answers to interrogatories and request to admit. Both motions were denied.\nOn September 9, 1987, a post-trial hearing was held at which arguments were heard on defendants\u2019 motion for a new trial and to vacate the August 26, 1987, order, and plaintiff\u2019s motion for section 2\u2014 611 sanctions. We need not relate the grounds alleged in the motion for sanctions in view of our disposition of this issue on a procedural basis rather than on the merits. The trial court denied defendants\u2019 motion and ordered defendants\u2019 attorney to pay plaintiff, as sanctions, $911.73 for its attorney fees plus $90 in costs and prejudgment interest.\nBefore addressing the merits of defendants\u2019 appellate contentions, we briefly note that their statement of facts contains both argument and comment in violation of Supreme Court Rule 341(e)(6) (107 Ill. 2d R. 341(e)(6)). Although appellate courts have been reluctant to impose sanctions for this type of violation, sanctions may become necessary to enforce respect for the rule. Midland Hotel Corp. v. Reuben H. Donnelly Corp. (1986), 149 Ill. App. 3d 53, 58, 501 N.E.2d 1280.) We will consider this warning t\u00f3 be sufficient sanction in this case and address the merits of the appeal.\nDefendants initially contend that plaintiff failed to prove at trial that its charges were reasonable and that the medical services provided were necessary. No issue is raised that the services were not performed. Although defendants maintain that plaintiff must prove, as part of its prima facie case, that the bills were both reasonable and necessary, there are no Illinois cases that have required a hospital to prove as part of its case the necessity of its services. Defendants did not raise the necessity of the services as a defense as they did not file an answer, nor did they present any evidence on this contention during trial. Defendants\u2019 reliance on Donk Brothers Coal & Coke Co. v. Thil (1907), 228 Ill. 233, 81 N.E. 857, is misplaced. In Donk Brothers, the supreme court addressed the requirement that a jury, in a personal injury lawsuit, consider evidence of money necessarily expended by a plaintiff for doctor\u2019s bills as an element of plaintiff\u2019s damages. (Donk Brothers, 228 Ill. at 241, 81 N.E. at 860.) That case did not address the issue presented by the facts of this contract case, and, as such, we find it unpersuasive.\nThis court, in Victory Memorial Hospital v. Rice (1986), 143 Ill. App. 3d 621, 493 N.E.2d 117, established what a plaintiff hospital must prove for damages in order to recover payment for its bills under an implied contract theory. A hospital must establish that its charges are reasonable in that they are the usual and customary charges of that particular hospital and are comparable to the charges of other area hospitals. (Victory Memorial, 143 Ill. App. 3d at 625, 493 N.E.2d at 120.) The hospital met that burden in this case.\nMs. Tindall, the assistant patient accounts manager, testified that the bill in this case reflected charges which were reasonable both in terms of what Sherman Hospital ordinarily would charge for the services rendered to Jerome Wingren and in regard to what other hospitals in the community would charge. Defendants did not offer any evidence to rebut plaintiff\u2019s witness and conducted only a cursory cross-examination.\nFurthermore, we find no merit in defendants\u2019 contention that plaintiff failed to establish a proper foundation for Ms. Tindall\u2019s testimony as to what other hospitals in the community would charge for like services. Plaintiff\u2019s counsel asked Ms. Tindall, during redirect examination, if she was familiar with what other hospitals in the community would charge. She responded that she was. She then proceeded to testify that the charges of Sherman Hospital were reasonable and similar for the same or like services in the community. Under these circumstances, we find that plaintiff did establish the reasonableness of its bill and, therefore, affirm that part of the trial court order awarding plaintiff $2,737.93 plus costs.\nDefendants\u2019 next contention is that the trial court erred in invoking sanctions against their attorneys pursuant to section 2 \u2014 611 of the Civil Practice Law (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1985, ch. 110, par. 2 \u2014 611). We do not find it necessary to reach the merits of this contention, however, since defendants are not entitled to raise this issue of a sanction entered against their attorneys only.\nAn appellant can assign as error only those rulings which are prejudicial to him. (Gordon v. Gordon (1955), 6 Ill. 2d 572, 574, 129 N.E.2d 706; Louis Marsch, Inc. v. Pekin Insurance Co. (1985), 140 Ill. App. 3d 1079, 1086, 491 N.E.2d 432.) Although, under section 2\u2014 611 both a party and his attorney are subject to sanctions (see Ill. Rev. Stat. 1985, ch. 110, par. 2 \u2014 611), the trial court here imposed sanctions on defendants\u2019 attorneys only, expressly finding that the attorneys\u2019 conduct caused the violation of section 2 \u2014 611. Such a ruling did not prejudice any right of defendants nor would a reversal of that ruling benefit defendants in any fashion. We find, therefore, that defendants cannot raise on appeal the entry of section 2 \u2014 611 sanctions against their attorneys and, accordingly, are not entitled to question that ruling on appeal.\nThe attorneys themselves could have appealed the order imposing sanctions, even though not a party to the underlying suit, because they had a direct, immediate, and substantial interest which was prejudiced by the order. See In re Estate of Tomlinson (1976), 65 Ill. 2d 382, 387, 359 N.E.2d 109; Nicholson v. St. Anne Lanes, Inc. (1987), 158 Ill. App. 3d 838, 842, 512 N.E.2d 127; In re M.B. (1985), 137 Ill. App. 3d 992, 995-98, 484 N.E.2d 1154.\nAlthough plaintiff has requested attorney fees on appeal for deficiencies in defendants\u2019 appellate brief, no authority or reasoned argument is advanced for this contention, and it is waived for our consideration. See 107 Ill. 2d Rules 341(e)(7), (f).\nFor the foregoing reasons, we affirm the judgment of the circuit court of Kane County.\nAffirmed.\nLINDBERG, P.J., and UNVERZAGT, J., concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "JUSTICE REINHARD" } ], "attorneys": [ "Robert E. Gordon and Lawrence G. Gordon, both of Gordon & Gordon, Ltd., of Chicago, for appellants.", "Ronald J. Hennings and Dale R. Wilson, both of Hayt, Hayt & Landau, of Evanston, for appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "SHERMAN HOSPITAL, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JEROME G. WINGREN et al., Defendants-Appellants.\nSecond District\nNo. 2\u201487\u20140912\nOpinion filed May 6, 1988.\nRobert E. Gordon and Lawrence G. Gordon, both of Gordon & Gordon, Ltd., of Chicago, for appellants.\nRonald J. Hennings and Dale R. Wilson, both of Hayt, Hayt & Landau, of Evanston, for appellee." }, "file_name": "0161-01", "first_page_order": 183, "last_page_order": 187 }