An Illinois trial court recently ruled that the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act (815 ILCS 505/1) does not apply to medicine, dentistry or law because they are not “ordinary commercial enterprises.”  The plaintiff sued the defendant dentist and his professional corporation both for professional negligence and for violation of the Act.  The claim under the Act was based on allegations that the dentist had advised plaintiff to undergo extensive dental procedures that were unnecessary in order to generate fees.  The court dismissed this claim, ruling that dental services did not qualify as “trade or commerce” under the Act.  The appellate court affirmed the dismissal, noting that “trade or commerce” under the Act does not include every business transaction.
     The court identified the elements for a claim under the Act: (1) a deceptive act or practice; (2) that is intended to deceive the plaintiff; (3) in the course of ordinary conduct involving trade or commerce; and (4) that caused injury.  While the court acknowledged precedent that has applied the Act to other business aspects of a professional practice, the court held that in this case the plaintiff’s claims under the Act were identical to those made in the negligence claims.  Because the two claims were identical, the court held that the Act did not allow the imposition of statutory liability for misconduct that amounts to professional negligence. The court emphasized that the professions are already extensively regulated and that plaintiffs may recover damages for injuries sustained as a result of negligence.  The purpose of the Act is to protect consumers in areas of trade and commerce that are less highly regulated, for which remedies are not otherwise available.

     In a related case, a couple sued a hospital alleging that the hospital’s pricing scheme violated the Act.  They alleged that the hospital concealed its charges and billing practices, charged excessively and charged for services not rendered. The trial court dismissed the claim and the couple appealed to the appellate court.  In affirming the trial court’s dismissal, the appellate court held that in order to engage in deceptive practices, the hospital must have known its rates were in excess of customary charges and intended that the couple rely on its misrepresentations of excess charges as customary in the healthcare industry.
     Although these two rulings set boundaries for claims by patients against healthcare providers alleging violation of the Act, one appellate court justice opined that the language of the Act ought to be modified to extend to professionals.