Illinois Supreme Court overturns state's malpractice reform law!

[DailyGrind51]

"In a 4-2 opinion, the Illinois Supreme Court has overturned the state's medical malpractice reform law.

The Court's decision reverses a 2005 state law capping non-economic damages -- such as pain and suffering -- for physicians at $500,000 and hospitals at $1 million. The law aimed to lower medical malpractice insurance rates that were blamed for driving doctors out of the state.

But justices said the law was "facially invalid on separation of powers grounds," meaning that the justices felt that the state Legislature overstepped its constitutional bounds by constraining the judicial branch of government.

Chief Justice Thomas Fitzgerald delivered the majority opinion, writing that the court "necessarily" considered the legislature's goal in enacting the statute -- responding to a healthcare crisis.

"The crux of our analysis is whether the statute unduly infringes upon the inherent power of the judiciary," he wrote.

The state Legislature's attempt to limit damages in medical malpractice actions "runs afoul of the separation of powers clause," he wrote.

Fitzgerald also wrote that a $500,000 limit on non-economic damages is arbitrary.

"Although agreeing with the defendants that noneconomic damages are difficult to assess, we determined that such difficulty was not alleviated by imposing an arbitrary damages limitation in all cases, without regard to the facts or circumstances," Fitzgerald wrote.

Fitzgerald was joined in majority by Justices Charles Freeman, Thomas Kilbride and Anne Burke. Justices Lloyd Karmeier and Rita Garman concurred in part and dissented in part. Justice Robert Thomas did not participate in the decision.

"Indeed, we determined that the damages limitation actually undermined the statute's stated goal of providing consistency and rationality to the civil justice system," Fitzgerald wrote.

The Court based its decision on a case that arose from Cook County, LeBron v. Gottlieb Memorial Hospital, involving the severe disability of a young girl, Abigaile Lebron.

Its decision today upholds Cook County Circuit Judge Joan Larsen who ruled that caps were unconstitutional in LeBron in 2007.

In dissent, Karmeier quoted remarks made by President Barack Obama in an address to Congress on healthcare reform.

"Although his proposal focused on expanding health insurance coverage, he also recognized that reform of medical malpractice laws might aid in reducing our nation's health-care costs, while also improving the quality of care delivered by physicians and received by their patients," Karmeier wrote.

"That medical malpractice reforms might have salutary effects on the delivery of affordable health-care in Illinois was a view shared by our General Assembly...," Karmeier wrote.

"Whether this view is a sound one is a judgment our court is not competent to render. Public policy determinations of this kind are ultimately a matter for the legislature," he wrote.

Ed Murnane, president of the Illinois Civil Justice League, commended the opinions of Karmeier and Garman.

"Clearly, they understand what is at stake for the people of Illinois," Murnane said.

The decision is an obvious victory for personal injury lawyers.

Illinois Trial Lawyers Association (ITLA) President Peter Flowers blamed insurance companies for trying to convince the public that victims of medical negligence are responsible for rising healthcare costs..."

http://www.stclairrecord.com/news/224572-strong-reaction-follows-medical-malpractice-reform-overturn
______________________________________________________________________________________

Will this decision be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court?

[FBaggins]

1. "Will this decision be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court?"

That's a tough one. It sounds like it's a ruling based on the state's own constitution. The state SC should usually be the final word on that (if not directly contradicted by the US constitution).

OTOH, the ruling has some potentially fatal flaws. It's a bit odd to have a court tell the legislature that they "overstepped its constitutional bounds by constraining the judicial branch of government" - because the court could easily be seen as overstepping THEIR constitutional bounds by telling both of the other two branches what they can do (assuming the governor signed the legislation). The USSC doesn't often get involved in a review of a state SC's ruling on their own Constitution, but when the dispute is between two branches of a state's government? They might.

Not the least reason being that the USSC likely has a majority inclined to overturn this kind of ruling.

[immoderate]

3. Would USSC rule to limit a state SC?

They might not want to touch this one -- at least for now.

--imm

[FBaggins]

4. If the case was already a limit on the other two branches of government? Yes.

They very well might.

[KharmaTrain]

2. This Ruling Should Be Upheld...

This bill was a knee-jerk reaction...never thought out properly and missed the point as to what drives up the costs. It's the frivolous suits that tie up lots of time (billable hours) and drags in a lot more doctors than warranted that drive up their malpractice costs which drives up everyone's costs. The settlements are where the real expenses are...it's the way suits are filed and how long they're allowed to drag on.

If a person is the victim of a negligent doctor, they should see for all they can get...capping the payouts only helped the insurance companies but the lawyers have their responsibility here in what has been a cash cow for them for a long time. It's tightening up the system so that those who have been wronged can get restitution but that it doesn't drag in doctors who did no wrong and that these cases are allowed to drag on for months and years...precious time for those who've suffered enough.

I strongly favor setting up an arbitration panel...a doctor (preferably one with a law degree), a lawywer (again one with a medical background prefered) and an ALJ...a law judge who then can quickly determine if a suit has merit, who should be litigated and then move it quickly to either a trial or settlement.

[FBaggins]

5. You make some good points, but none are reasons for upholding the decision.

Passing laws that are bad idea is not an excuse for judges to overturn the law. If Congress decides to cut taxes to one third of the current level that would be an awfully stupid thing to do... but the courts would have to legitimate role to play.

The correct way to deal with stupid law is to replace legislators and repeal the law.

IOW... you make good arguments for why the law should never have been passed (and/or why it should be repealed)... not why it should be overturned.

[KharmaTrain]

7. Seperate But Equal

It's interesting to see how many in our side of the sandbox now are concerned about an activist court legislating from the bench. Not that you are doing that and I understand and agree with your perspective. It was citizens (albeit lawyers) who thought they were being discriminated against and brought the suit to have the law overturned. While the legislative is supposed to represent "the people", they also should be held accountable and the ballot box is one way, but the courts should be available as well.

The sticky problem with legislators...especially on the state level, there's a strong degree of NIMBY...the problem is everyone elses rep, not mine...thus replacing legislators...especially those who have amassed large war chests and favors in their districts are hard to remove.

Cheers...

[Luminous Animal]

6. Requiring arbitrations runs afoul of the Seventh Amendment.

"In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law."

[KharmaTrain]

8. Excellent Point...

But was that $20s in 1789? There are arbitrators available for contract disputes and some forms of personal injury...it's not preventing a trial by jury as the law does give the judge the power to determine the scope of a case. In reading this citation, it would be an interesting debate to determine if an arbitrator constitutes a "jury". My focus is on finding the sources of why the costs are so high and find ways to bring them down which would make establishing universal healthcare...be it single payer or public option far more viable.

Cheers...

[TheMadMonk]

9. In general or specific to medical "malpractice"?

For the general case I'd hold up those dickheads who jump from the top of the sign on the pier that says "Do not jump from this structure." and still somehow manage to win an award.

For medical (and particularly obstetrics) I'd suggest the many cases where doctors act in good faith, do everything right and still end up with a bad outcome and a legal finding against them. Sometimes because there WAS something that they could have done differently, even though that "something" was not apparent at the time and only comes to light in subsequent testing or worst case the autopsy.

By all means I favour proper damages in cases of true medical malpractice, along with criminal charges and either deregistration or mandatory retraining where appropriate. However, dammages awarded because of what amounts to a bad roll of the die should be stopped.