Court Opinion

ID: 9723179
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 10:05:19.279267+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:24:45.314618
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE McCULLOUGH, dissenting: I agree with the Health Center’s contention that there is not now a viable doctrine against corporate practice of medicine. The Health Center was not practicing medicine and there is no prohibition against the Health Center employing physicians. The supreme court’s holding in United Medical Service found the 1923 Act prohibited the corporate entity practice of medicine. The rationale of Allison, as adopted by United Medical Service, finding the practice of a profession not subject to incorporation, is no longer followed. The majority refers to legislative enactments which do allow corporations to be involved in health services. The Plans Act, Medical Corporation Act, Professional Corporation Act and HMO Act allow incorporation. The contract entered into between the parties did not permit the Health Center to practice medicine. Nor did the contract compromise Dr. Berlin’s practice of medicine. The Health Center does not treat patients. The Darling court accepts the premise that hospitals "regularly employ on a salary basis a large staff of physicians.” Darling, 33 Ill. 2d at 332, 211 N.E.2d at 257. The Licensing Act should not be construed to prohibit hospitals or entities such as the Health Center from entering into contracts with licensed physicians so long as there is no violation of the physician’s Hippocratic oath. I would not grant either motion by the respective parties for summary judgment.