Illinois Supreme Court Strikes Down Tort Reform Law

The Madison Record reports that the Illinois Supreme Court struck down the "state's historic medical malpractice reform law" in Lebron, a Minor v. Gottlieb Memorial Hospital. The law at issue set caps on noneconomic (pain and suffering) damages in medical malpractice cases to $500,000 against doctors and $1 million against hospitals. Specifically, the court found "that the limitation on damages violates the separation of powers clause of the Illinois Constitution . . . by permitting the [Illinois] General Assembly to supplant the judiciary's authority in determining whether a remittitur is appropriate under the facts of the case." (For non-lawyers, a remittitur is a ruling by a judge that lowers the amount of damages awarded by the jury.) Please click here for the opinion.

The Decatur Herald-Review notes that the law had solved the huge problem in the state of skyrocketing medical malpractice rates, "especially for those health professionals in high-risk specialties such as obstetrics and neurosurgery." This, as what happens in other states without caps, caused a flight of doctors out of the state. "In many rural areas of the state, high-risk specialists were hard to find" before the passage of the law.

The Wall Street Journal also reported on the decision:

The ruling is a setback for supporters of tort-reform efforts in Illinois, including the state's doctors and hospitals. It was criticized by pro-business groups nationwide, which long have claimed that medical-malpractice suits are a major contributor to rising health-care costs.

"This is very disappointing and frustrating," said Ed Murnane, president of the Illinois Civil Justice League, a pro-business group.

Plaintiffs' lawyers, meanwhile, hailed the ruling. "The Illinois Supreme Court has decided that the health-care crisis can not be solved by further hurting the patients who are victims of medical errors," the Illinois Trial Lawyers Associations said in a statement.

Many state supreme courts have upheld the constitutionality of damage limits, and the high courts in Times New Roman, Kansas, and Missouri are weighing the issue.

The Illinois case is "part of a national trend by the plaintiffs' bar to challenge damage caps," says Mark Behrens, a Washington, D.C., defense lawyer with Shook, Hardy & Bacon LLP who tracks liability trends nationwide. Mr. Behrens says that the other courts opposed to caps may cite the decision as support, but "I doubt it will change many minds."

Unsurprisingly, "[t]he decision broke strictly along party lines," with the Democrats in the majority and the Republicans voting to uphold the caps.