In a dispute that had been going on for several years between a medical company that was a client of the firm and one of its former employees, the Brussels Court of Appeal has just confirmed a case law that had already been well established at first instance before the company's courts, based on a simple principle: the increase in the price of services benefits both parties.
Like other cases handled by the firm, the dispute concerned the payment of compensation by the INAMI at the height of the COVID-19 pandemic to one of the medical professions for which a lump-sum compensation had been set up by the Belgian federal government to offset the additional cost of protective measures (FFP2 masks, hydroalcoholic gel, etc.).
This allowance was granted per «patient contact», i.e. for each contact with a patient, the healthcare professional received a lump sum, around ten euros for most of the professionals concerned.
As the INAMI only knows the healthcare professionals through their INAMI number and, except in the case of practice in recognised hospitals, it is the practitioners themselves who have received the relevant allowances directly into their personal accounts.
This method of payment, which was understandable for the INAMI, ignored the fact that it was actually the healthcare structures that bore the costs covered by the benefits.
In many cases, healthcare professionals practising within a healthcare establishment are bound by an independent collaboration agreement providing for a division of fees between the structure hosting the professional and the latter, in order to cover the costs borne by the said structure. In practice, a certain number of establishments collect payments from patients or third-party payers and pass on to the professionals the proportion to which they are entitled.
Some healthcare professionals felt that the compensation paid by the INAMI should not be shared like ordinary fees and refused to retrocede anything to the establishment where they worked.
This attitude has given rise to numerous procedures which, over time, have all converged towards the classification of the compensation paid by the INAMI as fee increase, As a result, collaboration agreements will simply be applied, and compensation will be distributed according to the proportions set out for ordinary fees.
This first instance case law, now confirmed by the Court of Appeal, is based on a fairly logical consideration: in the absence of proof to the contrary that a party has assumed responsibility for exceptional costs, an increase in the price of a service benefits both parties having agreed on the apportionment of fees.
This approach is of great interest in professions, such as medicine, where the fees charged are subject to an official tariff. However, in addition to examples where the price may increase as a result of a decision by a third party - a public authority - we can also think of cases where the fees to be apportioned increase either as a result of indexation imposed on clients or as a result of a voluntary decision to increase the basic rates.
