It seems that Mr. Unruh promised more then he could provide;
Oh, but that’s the ‘catch’ of a quacktor-pracktor, “You’ll be fine if you just keep coming in to get ‘treatments’ ” I told my mom once “If bone-benders really worked, why do you have to keep going back to them for treatments?”
#25403 WEDNESDAY, Case 3, Unruh v. DeSmet Insurance
Dorothy and Henry Lentsch were injured in a motor vehicle accident caused by the negligence of a driver insured by DeSmet Insurance Company (“DeSmet”). Unruh Chiropractic Clinic (“Unruh”) treated Lentsches for their accident-related injuries.  Prior to treatment, Lentsches executed assignments of the “proceeds” of their personal injury claims against the negligent driver. The assignments were limited to the extent chiropractic services were provided. The assignments gave Unruh a right to the proceeds from any settlement DeSmet paid on behalf of the negligent driver.
Unruh served notices of the assignments on DeSmet. The notices informed DeSmet that if Lentsches had any unpaid chiropractic services, DeSmet “must include” Unruh as a payee on any settlement checks. Lentsches’ son, as attorney-in-fact for his parents, subsequently settled their claims and executed releases. The releases provided that the Lentsches would be responsible for paying their medical care providers. Thereafter, DeSmet delivered the settlement checks directly to the Lentsches, and Unruh was not made a joint payee.
Unruh contacted Lentsches and demanded that they pay their outstanding balances due for the chiropractic services provided. Lentsches refused. Unruh then demanded payment from DeSmet.  DeSmet also refused.
Unruh sued DeSmet, seeking to enforce the assignments. DeSmet brought the Lentsches into the lawsuit as third-party defendants. Unruh and DeSmet filed cross motions for summary judgment.  A magistrate court granted summary judgment in favor of Unruh and against DeSmet.  The court acknowledged that an assignment of a “claim” for personal injuries is invalid and unenforceable under the common law. The court, however, concluded that an assignment of “proceeds” is distinguishable from the common-law prohibition on the assignment of claims. Therefore, the magistrate court concluded that Lentsches’ assignments of proceeds were valid and enforceable.
DeSmet appealed to the circuit court, arguing that assignments of proceeds violate public policy. The circuit court acknowledged a split authority in other states regarding the validity of assignments of proceeds of personal injury claims.  The circuit court followed those authorities distinguishing between assignments of proceeds and assignments of claims.  The court also found that there was no public policy reason to preclude an assignment of proceeds. It therefore held that the assignments in this case were valid, and it affirmed the magistrate court.
DeSmet now appeals to this Court. The Court must determine the validity of assignments of proceeds of personal injury claims.
Mr. James R. Even, Attorney for Plaintiff and Appellee A. Unruh Chiropractic Clinic
Mr. Larry M. Von Wald, Attorney for Defendant and Appellant DeSmet Insurance Company of South Dakota