Final answer:
Yes, there was a dissenting opinion in the Provena Covenant Medical Center v. Department of Revenue case. Dissenting opinions express a judge's disagreement with the majority. Judicial decisions often elicit a variety of public reactions, as seen with major cases concerning health care and the FCC.
Step-by-step explanation:
In the case Provena Covenant Medical Center v. Department of Revenue 236 Ill.2d 368, 925 N.E.2d 1131 (2010), the question asks about the presence of a dissenting opinion. To address this, yes, there was a dissenting opinion in the Provena case. Dissenting opinions are those in which one or more judges express disagreement with the majority opinion. In this case, such an opinion would provide an alternative view or legal reasoning to that of the prevailing judgment.
In the context of legal decisions and their reception, it's worth noting that judicial opinions, both majority and dissenting, can have varied reactions from the public and legal commentators. For example, the reaction to the Supreme Court ruling in National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, which upheld the Affordable Care Act, was mixed. Similarly, responses to dissenting statements, like that of Commissioner Michael J. Copps in FCC proceedings, reflect the contentious nature of many legal decisions. It is also evident that court decisions can remain controversial for years, as shown by polls like the Kaiser Foundation poll regarding the Affordable Care Act in 2015.