filed herein, because IDPA had issued its payment- refusal notice (in response to Claimant’s invoice charging for said services) more than one year prior thereto, on May 28, 1991. Moreover, Claimant was obliged to file its court action as to Kirby’s services no later than December 14, 1991 (i.e., within two years following its rendition of those services on December 14, 1989), in order to avoid the jurisdictional bar imposed by subsection (2) of PAC section 11-13 and CCA section 439.22(b).We conclude that the cause of action presented in No. 92 CC 3342 had previously been barred from prosecution, under both subsections (1) and (2) of PAC section 11-13 and CCA section 439.22, when that claim was commenced. (See
Case summary
The claimant sought payment for services rendered to patient Kirby, but the court dismissed the claim because it was filed more than one year after IDPA's payment-refusal notice and more than two years after the services were provided, making it jurisdictionally barred under PAC section 11-13 and CCA section 439.22.
Statutes cited: PAC section 11-13; CCA section 439.22
Cases cited: Villalona v. State, No. 91 CC 644 (Opinion filed Feb. 19, 1991); Forutan, Kim; Franciscan Medical Center; and Pinckneyville Medical Group
AI-generated summary from the opinion text — may contain errors. The opinion text and PDF above are the official record.
filed herein, because IDPA had issued its paymentrefusal notice (in response to Claimant’s invoice charging for said services) more than one year prior thereto, on May 28, 1991. Moreover, Claimant was obliged to file its court action as to Kirby’s services no later than December 14, 1991 (i.e., within two years following its rendition of those services on December 14, 1989), in order to avoid the jurisdictional bar imposed by subsection (2) of PAC section 11-13 and CCA section 439.22(b).We conclude that the cause of action presented in No. 92 CC 3342 had previously been barred from prosecution, under both subsections (1) and (2) of PAC section 11-13 and CCA section 439.22, when that claim was commenced. (See Villalona v. State, No. 91 CC 644 (Opinion filed Feb. 19, 1991) and Forutan, Kim; Franciscan Medical Center; and Pinckneyville Medical Group; all cited supra. Claimant’s cause of action as to patient Ford was also barred, by PAC section 11-13 subsection (l),because Claimant filed the related court action