PRACTICE MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATES, INC., APPELLANT,
v.
TIMOTHY S. WAKEFIELD AND LORELEI N. WAKEFIELD, JOINTLY AND SEVERALLY, APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Practice Management Associates challenged a summary judgment finding that its contract with chiropractors required illegal fee splitting under Wisconsin law. The appellate court reversed, holding that the contract does not require illegal fee splitting and finding that Wisconsin's fee-splitting prohibitions are substantially similar to Illinois law previously analyzed in a related case.
The contract does not require illegal fee splitting. Wisconsin's fee-splitting statutory prohibitions are substantially similar to Illinois law, making prior precedent from a related case (Orman) applicable and controlling.
[1] A contract does not require illegal fee splitting when the relevant statutes of both jurisdictions involved are substantially similar regarding the prohibition of fee spl…
[2] Wisconsin law defines unprofessional conduct for chiropractors to include splitting or dividing fees for chiropractic services with any person except an associate license…
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Dividing with anyone other than physicians with whom the licensee practices in a partnership, Professional Association or Medical or Professional Corporation any fee, commission, rebate or other form of compensation for any professional services not actually and personally rendered.”
Illinois statutory provision prohibiting fee splitting that the court found substantially similar to Wisconsin law
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePMA entered into a contract with Timothy S. Wakefield and Lorelei N. Wakefield, chiropractors. The trial court granted summary judgment against PMA, f…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Fee Splitting cases and more on FLexlaw
CAMPBELL, Judge.
In this conflict of laws dispute, appellant, Practice Management Associates, Inc. (PMA), challenges the final summary judgment for appellee chiropractors, arguing that the trial court improperly found that the contract between PMA and appellees requires illegal fee splitting under Wisconsin law.
We agree with appellant that the contract does not require illegal fee splitting and reverse on the authority of Practice Management Associates, Inc. v. Orman, 614 So. 2d 1135 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993). Although Orman involved application of Illinois law, and this case involves the application of both Illinois and Wisconsin law, we believe that Orman applies because the Wisconsin law regarding fee splitting is substantially similar to the Illinois law. Chapter 111, paragraph 4400-22(14), Illinois Rev.Statutes (1989), provides as follows:
§ 22. A. The Department may revoke, suspend, place on probationary status, or take any other disciplinary action as the Department may deem proper with regard to the license or visiting professor permit of any person issued under this Act to practice medicine, or to treat human ailments without the use of drugs and without operative surgery upon any of the following grounds:
14. Dividing with anyone other than physicians with whom the licensee practices in a partnership, Professional Association or Medical or Professional Corporation any fee, commission, rebate or other form of compensation for any professional services not actually and personally rendered.
The Wisconsin law provides: “The examining board, by order, may reprimand a licensee or registrant and may deny, limit, suspend or revoke any license or certificate of registration if the licensee or registrant: ... (5) [i]s guilty of unprofessional conduct....” § 446.03 Wis.Stat. (1989).
“Unprofessional conduct includes, without limitation because of enumeration: ... (4) [sjplitting or dividing any fee for chiropractic service with any person except an associate licensed chiropractor....” § 446.04 Wis.Stat. (1989).
Since the Illinois and Wisconsin statutes are substantially similar, we find that the contract does not require illegal fee splitting and, on the authority of Orman, reverse the final summary judgment entered in favor of appellee chiropractors.
DANAHY, A.C.J., and PATTERSON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Practice Mgmt. Assocs., Inc. v. Hickman, 620 So. 2d 264 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993)…PER CURIAM. The above-styled cases, both of which are governed by our recent holding in Practice [*265] Management Associates, Inc. v. Wakefield, 615 So. 2d 846 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993), are hereby consolidated for disposition. We reverse the summary judgments entered for appellees and remand for further proceedings consistent with Wakefield. CAMPBELL, A.C.J., and PARKER and PATTERSON, JJ., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- Practice Mgmt. Assocs., Inc. v. Orman, 614 So. 2d 1135 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993)