ABuchanan healthcare litigation team, including Sal Rotella, Jason Bologna, and Eric Horst, recently prevailed on behalf of a national healthcare company running outpatient clinics in multiple states. On July 21, 2025, the case was dismissed with prejudice.
In a whistleblower action, the plaintiffs alleged that multiple defendants that operate addiction treatment facilities violated 740 ILCS 92/5(a) by committing insurance fraud in treating the substance abuse disorder (“SUD”) of the plaintiff’s adult son. They alleged that the client healthcare company provided improper inducement because it treated a patient’s substance abuse without making ongoing and future treatment contingent upon the collection of all outstanding cost share and balance bill payments from the patient and his family. Unfortunately, the patient succumbed to his drug addiction, and the lawsuit also alleged that the client should have pressed the patient’s family to pay their share of the money owed. The death of a family member was indisputably a tragic event for the plaintiffs; however, the lawsuit sought to punish the client healthcare company for an alleged insurance fraud when the facts show that the company made every effort to treat the patient’s SUD to save his life.
To advocate for the case’s dismissal, the Buchanan team wrote a letter to the Illinois Office of Attorney General requesting that it intervene and dismiss the case. The letter described the plaintiffs’ “wholly unprecedented legal theory,” highlighting that the situation alleged in the lawsuit would be completely untenable for patients and the industry in the state. In addition, the possible impacts to the industry from the lawsuit were antithetical to Illinois public policy initiatives that seek to increase access to recovery homes and SUD treatment. In response, the Illinois Office of the Attorney General reported that it would intervene and dismiss the case, which led plaintiffs to preemptively dismiss their complaint with prejudice. Overall, Illinois law, the facts of the case, and Illinois public policy all supported this outcome for the client.