Background
Complete Chicago Chiropractic and Sports Medicine treated Michael Martin after a 2021 vehicle accident. Martin signed an agreement authorizing his then-attorney to pay the provider from a settlement, describing itself as an assignment of rights and benefits, and stating that Martin remained directly responsible for the bills.
Ryan Margulis later represented Martin in the personal-injury claim and settled it in 2024. Complete Chicago alleged that Margulis knew it was entitled to $3,668 of the settlement but retained the money for Martin. It sued Margulis for conversion, conspiracy to commit conversion, and tortious interference with contract. The Cook County circuit court dismissed those claims with prejudice.
The Court’s Holding
The appellate court affirmed. The agreement did not validly assign Complete Chicago an identifiable portion of Martin’s settlement proceeds. Instead, it was an agreement or promise that Martin’s debt would be paid from settlement funds, while expressly preserving Martin’s direct responsibility for the bills. Without a valid assignment, Complete Chicago had no claimed ownership or immediate possessory right in the settlement funds to support conversion or conspiracy-to-convert claims.
The court also held that the tortious-interference count was conclusory. Although the complaint alleged that Margulis intentionally induced Martin to breach the agreement, it pleaded no specific facts supporting intentional and improper inducement. Dismissal with prejudice was proper because Complete Chicago did not identify additional facts it could plead. The court declined Margulis’s request for sanctions, finding the unsuccessful appeal was not frivolous or brought in bad faith.
Key Takeaways
- Language directing payment from litigation proceeds does not itself create an enforceable assignment of those proceeds.
- A conversion claim requires a present ownership or possessory right in identifiable property.
- Tortious-interference claims require factual allegations of intentional and improper inducement, not a bare conclusion.
Why It Matters
Providers seeking to protect payment from a patient’s recovery should use assignment language that clearly transfers a specified, identifiable interest in settlement proceeds. A promise to pay from a recovery, particularly when the patient remains personally liable, may not give the provider a claim against the settlement funds or the patient’s attorney.
This Rule 23 order is nonprecedential except in the limited circumstances permitted by Illinois Supreme Court Rule 23(e)(1).