345 Ill. App. 3d 804 - Arthur v. Catour’s Empirical Analysis
2004
Citation profile
27 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 27 later decisions — most recently May 2023 · most notably Robinson v. Bates (2006), 216 Ill. 2d 72 - Arthur v. Catour (2005)
27 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on 131 Ill. 2d 308 - Wilson v. Hoffman Group, Inc. · 76 Ill. 2d 353 - Peterson v. Lou Bachrodt Chevrolet Co. · 133 Ill. App. 3d 119 - Barreto v. City of Waukegan · Hanif v. Housing Authority · Acuar v. Letourneau
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 27 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Although "discounting" of medical bills is a common practice in modern healthcare, it is a consequence of the power wielded by those entities, such as insurance companies, employers and governmental bodies, who pay the bills. While large "consumers" of healthcare such as insurance companies can negotiate favorable rates, those who are uninsured are often charged the full, undiscounted price. In other words, simply because medical bills are often discounted does not mean that the plaintiff is not obligated to pay the billed amount. Defendants may, if they choose, dispute the amount billed as unreasonable, but it does not become so merely because plaintiff's insurance company was able to negotiate a lesser charge.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“plaintiff's damages are not limited to the amount paid by her insurer, but may extend to the entire amount billed, provided those charges are reasonable expenses of necessary medical care”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Here, the amount received from the plaintiff's insurance company in full payment of plaintiff's past medical expenses $13,577.97 will be fully protected by the collateral source rule. The additional $5,777.28 needs no such protection, as the plaintiff never incurred or became obligated for that expense.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.