ILCS » Chapter 740 · Act 92
Illinois Compiled Statutes

740 ILCS 92/15 (2026)

Action by interested person

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section IL-ILGAilga.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(740 ILCS 92/15)
    Sec. 15. Action by interested person.
    (a) An interested person, including an insurer, may bring a civil action for a violation of this Act for the person and for the State of Illinois. The action shall be brought in the name of the State. The action may be dismissed only if the court and the State's Attorney or the Attorney General, whichever is participating, gives written consent to the dismissal stating their reasons for consenting.
    (b) A copy of the complaint and a written disclosure of substantially all material evidence and information the person possesses shall be served on the State's Attorney and Attorney General. The complaint shall be filed in camera, shall remain under seal for at least 60 days, and shall not be served on the defendant until the court so orders. The State's Attorney or Attorney General may elect to intervene and proceed with the action within 60 days after he or she receives both the complaint and the material evidence and information. If more than one governmental entity elects to intervene, the State's Attorney shall have precedence.
    (c) The State's Attorney or Attorney General may, for good cause shown, move the court for extensions of the time during which the complaint shall remain under seal under subsection (b). The motions may be supported by affidavits or other submissions in camera. The defendant shall not be required to respond to any complaint filed under this Section until 20 days after the complaint is unsealed and served upon the defendant.
    (d) Before the expiration of the 60-day period or any extensions obtained under subsection (c), the State's Attorney or Attorney General shall either:
        (1) proceed with the action, in which case the action
    
shall be conducted by the State's Attorney or Attorney General; or
        (2) notify the court that it declines to take over
    
the action, in which case the person bringing the action shall have the right to conduct the action.
    (e) When a person or governmental agency brings an action under this Act, no person other than the State's Attorney or Attorney General may intervene or bring a related action based on the facts underlying the pending action unless another statute or common law authorizes that action.
(Source: P.A. 92-233, eff. 1-1-02.)

    
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 8 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2014–2024 · leading case: State ex rel. Leibowitz v. Fam. Vision Care, LLC, 2020 IL 124754 (Ill. 2020).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State ex rel. Leibowitz v. Fam. Vision Care, LLC, 2020 IL 124754 (Ill. 2020). · cites it 4× “740 ILCS 92/15 (West 2016). ¶ 19 Defendants filed a combined motion to dismiss the complaint arguing, inter alia, that the Estate lacks standing to bring the qui tam action.”
State ex rel. Leibowitz v. Fam. Vision Care, LLC, 2019 IL App (1st) 180697 (Ill. App. Ct. 2019). · cites it 2× “) 740 ILCS 92/15 (West 2016). Noting that the Act does not define “interested person,” the court decided, after supplemental briefing, that a claimant must hold some legal interest in the cause of action.”
United States ex rel. Baltazar v. Warden, 302 F.R.D. 256 (N.D. Ill. 2014). “, and the Illinois Insurance Claims Fraud Prevention Act, 740 ILCS 92/15(a), by submitting false claims to Medicare and private insurers.”
State ex rel. Leibowitz v. Fam. Vision Care, LLC, 2020 IL 124754 (Ill. 2020). · cites it 4× “740 ILCS 92/15 (West 2016). ¶ 19 Defendants filed a combined motion to dismiss the complaint arguing, inter alia, that the Estate lacks standing to bring the qui tam action.”
Advanced Physicians, S.C. v. Provena Glenwood Med. Imaging, 2018 IL App (3d) 170296 (Ill. App. Ct. 2018). · cites it 2× “2d 544 ; see also 740 ILCS 92/15 (West 2014). ¶ 23 The limitations written into section 15 of the Act, such as the "interested" persons requirement, are not jurisdictional prerequisites and therefore do not impact the circuit court's subject matter jurisdiction.”
State of Illinois ex rel. Leibowitz v. Fam. Vision Care, LLC, 2019 IL App (1st) 180697 (Ill. App. Ct. 2019). · cites it 2× “) 740 ILCS 92/15 (West 2016). Noting that the Act does not define "interested person," the court decided, after supplemental briefing, that a claimant must hold some legal interest in the cause of action.”
Advanced Physicians, S.C. v. Provena Glenwood Med. Imaging, 2018 IL App (3d) 170296 (Ill. App. Ct. 2019). · cites it 2× “2d at 515 ; see also 740 ILCS 92/15 (West 2014). ¶ 23 The limitations written into section 15 of the Act, such as the “interested” persons requirement, are not jurisdictional prerequisites and therefore do not impact the circuit court’s subject matter jurisdiction.”
United States v. Rossi (C.D. Ill. 2024). “”); 740 ILCS 92/15(e) (“When a person . . . brings an action under [the IICFPA], no person other than the State’s Attorney or Attorney General may intervene or bring a related action based on the facts underlying the pending action unless another statute or common law authorizes…”
— 740 ILCS 92/15(a) — 5 cases
State ex rel. Leibowitz v. Fam. Vision Care, LLC, 2020 IL 124754 (Ill. 2020). “740 ILCS 92/15 (West 2016). ¶ 19 Defendants filed a combined motion to dismiss the complaint arguing, inter alia, that the Estate lacks standing to bring the qui tam action.”
United States ex rel. Baltazar v. Warden, 302 F.R.D. 256 (N.D. Ill. 2014). “, and the Illinois Insurance Claims Fraud Prevention Act, 740 ILCS 92/15(a), by submitting false claims to Medicare and private insurers.”
State ex rel. Leibowitz v. Fam. Vision Care, LLC, 2019 IL App (1st) 180697 (Ill. App. Ct. 2019). “) 740 ILCS 92/15 (West 2016). Noting that the Act does not define “interested person,” the court decided, after supplemental briefing, that a claimant must hold some legal interest in the cause of action.”
State of Illinois ex rel. Leibowitz v. Fam. Vision Care, LLC, 2019 IL App (1st) 180697 (Ill. App. Ct. 2019). “) 740 ILCS 92/15 (West 2016). Noting that the Act does not define "interested person," the court decided, after supplemental briefing, that a claimant must hold some legal interest in the cause of action.”
State ex rel. Leibowitz v. Fam. Vision Care, LLC, 2020 IL 124754 (Ill. 2020). “740 ILCS 92/15 (West 2016). ¶ 19 Defendants filed a combined motion to dismiss the complaint arguing, inter alia, that the Estate lacks standing to bring the qui tam action.”
— 740 ILCS 92/15(b) — 4 cases
State ex rel. Leibowitz v. Fam. Vision Care, LLC, 2020 IL 124754 (Ill. 2020). “740 ILCS 92/15 (West 2016). ¶ 19 Defendants filed a combined motion to dismiss the complaint arguing, inter alia, that the Estate lacks standing to bring the qui tam action.”
Advanced Physicians, S.C. v. Provena Glenwood Med. Imaging, 2018 IL App (3d) 170296 (Ill. App. Ct. 2018). “2d 544 ; see also 740 ILCS 92/15 (West 2014). ¶ 23 The limitations written into section 15 of the Act, such as the "interested" persons requirement, are not jurisdictional prerequisites and therefore do not impact the circuit court's subject matter jurisdiction.”
State ex rel. Leibowitz v. Fam. Vision Care, LLC, 2020 IL 124754 (Ill. 2020). “740 ILCS 92/15 (West 2016). ¶ 19 Defendants filed a combined motion to dismiss the complaint arguing, inter alia, that the Estate lacks standing to bring the qui tam action.”
Advanced Physicians, S.C. v. Provena Glenwood Med. Imaging, 2018 IL App (3d) 170296 (Ill. App. Ct. 2019). “2d at 515 ; see also 740 ILCS 92/15 (West 2014). ¶ 23 The limitations written into section 15 of the Act, such as the “interested” persons requirement, are not jurisdictional prerequisites and therefore do not impact the circuit court’s subject matter jurisdiction.”
— 740 ILCS 92/15(e) — 1 case
United States v. Rossi (C.D. Ill. 2024). “”); 740 ILCS 92/15(e) (“When a person . . . brings an action under [the IICFPA], no person other than the State’s Attorney or Attorney General may intervene or bring a related action based on the facts underlying the pending action unless another statute or common law authorizes…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.