Mathis v. Yildiz

Plaintiff appealed from the trial court dismissal of her claims filed under the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act against her dentist. The trial court dismissed the case on the basis that the Consumer Fraud Act does not allow a cause of action arising from the provision of dental services. The appellate court affirmed in part and reversed in part, finding that under the Consumer Fraud Act, dentists are precluded from conditioning treatment on the promise of full, out-of-pocket payments that the patients’ insurance does not permit and that this interpretation of the Act was consistent with the legislative intent of the Consumer Fraud Act. (REYES and LAMPKIN, concurring)