College of American Pathologists
Printable Version

  PC billing case comes to a close


CAP Today




March 2010
Feature Story

The professional component billing case, Martis v. Pekin Memorial Hospital, et al., ended in a win for pathology on Jan. 27 when the Illinois Supreme Court denied the petition for review.

Patient Richard Martis’ lawsuit against Pekin (Ill.) Memorial Hospital, Data Management Inc., and Peoria-Tazewell Pathology Group concerned an October 2004 bill for laboratory tests: one from the hospital for $609 and one from the pathology group for $73.30. Martin contended in his lawsuit that the pathology group’s charges amounted to illegal double billing.

The appellate court affirmed a trial court’s dismissal of the case on Oct. 20, 2009. Martis petitioned a month later for review of the appellate court’s decision.

Jack R. Bierig of the Chicago law firm Sidley Austin LLP represented the defendant pathology group in the trial and appellate courts. “I am delighted that the case has finally concluded with a complete victory for pathology,” he told CAP TODAY. He was “honored” to have been able to represent the Peoria-Tazewell Pathology Group, he says, which “deserves the thanks and support of all pathologists who bill for the professional component of clinical pathology.”

For the three messages the Martis ruling sends to pathologists who want to bill for the professional component, see “PC billing dishes victory—with a side of caveats,” CAP TODAY, December 2009 (online at