Medical Malpractice Law Overturned by Illinois High Court

02-2010-09

On February 4, the Supreme Court in Illinois overturned the state's medical malpractice statute, citing the limits it placed on the compensation available to plaintiffs for non-monetary harms including pain and suffering, in a ruling that may have implications as far away as DC.

The decision comes as proposals for federal limits on malpractice damage awards are being considered anew in Congress. Enjoying widespread Republican support, such caps are seen as a viable method for breathing bipartisan life into the languishing healthcare debate on Capitol Hill. Substantive alteration of current medical malpractice rules was lacking in both the House and Senate bills passed by Democrats in late 2009.

The Illinois court held in a 4-2 decision that the 2005 statute in question was a violation of the separation of powers clause of the state Constitution, as it allowed the legislature to determine legal outcomes properly left to judges and juries. The statute in question had established a $500,000 limit on non-economic damage awards against doctors and a limit of $1 million against hospitals.

The court's ruling has reinvigorated advocates opposed to such limits, and has conversely dealt a blow to the American Medical Association, headquartered in Chicago.

The American Association for Justice, recently known as the Association of Trial Lawyers of America, stated in a release that the court's ruling demonstrated "why federal efforts to place arbitrary limits on the amount injured patients receive won't pass muster or fix America's broken health care system." While almost 30 states have legislation on the books limiting non-monetary damage awards, the limits imposed on those awards and the conditions under which they are triggered are broadly varied. The American Medical Association reports that legal challenges to these statutes have resulted in them being upheld in 16 states, overturned in 11.

Of the 11 states in which such laws failed to survive judicial scrutiny, some have enacted new legislation aimed at answering the courts' concerns. The Illinois Supreme Court had on two previous occasions defeated legislation placing limits on damage awards in tort actions. The most recent legislative attempt was intended to halt what was believed to be an exodus of medical professionals from Illinois, and also from the profession itself, due to the prohibitive and unsustainable cost of malpractice insurance coverage.

The medical society in Illinois believes the legislation has had a positive impact, referencing insurance industry data indicating drops in the volume of medical malpractice claims filed as well as the cost of coverage itself.

According to American Medical Association president Dr. J. James Rohack, the Illinois court's ruling may well undermine the gains patients and physicians in the state have made because of the damage limits, such as increased access to health care, decreased insurance rates and greater competition among malpractice carriers. The decision, stated Dr. Rohack, was a contravention of popular opinion in the state.

Justice Lloyd Karmeier, in a dissenting opinion, argued that state legislatures were entitled to limit patients' non-economic damages, citing the current federal debate over health care reform legislation, and the Obama administration's potential willingness to discuss tort reform.

The Illinois court's ruling was rendered in the matter of Abigaile Lebron, a child whose Caesarean birth resulted in substantial cognitive impairment. Ms. Lebron's litigation remains in the discovery stage.

The decision nullified several modifications in the law enacted concurrently with the damage limits, such as a provision that rendered inadmissible as evidence in litigation any apologies offered by practitioners in the aftermath of an undesirable treatment result.

Robert S. Peck, an attorney for Ms. Lebron, stated that in his opinion it would be impossible for legislators to redraft the liability law to sufficiently alleviate the concerns of the judiciary.

Mr. Peck believes that the court's ruling unambiguously held that malpractice limits are simply not subject to the legislature's authority, and therefore the decision will have real meaning for injured plaintiffs.

Other News Articles