(concurring in part, dissenting in part).
Although I do not disagree with the court’s conclusion that respondent Lake-view is not entitled to automatic reimbursement of its treatment expenses, I nonetheless dissent from that part of the court’s opinion that suggests that Lake-view may have some obligation to reimburse relator Twin Cities. I do so because, on the record presented here, it is not clear to me that Lakeview has any such obligation.