Illinois Court Overturns Malpractice Statute

[groovedaddy]

In a case that could resonate in Washington, the Illinois Supreme Court on Thursday overturned the state’s five-year-old medical malpractice law because it limited compensation to injured patients for pain, suffering and other non-economic harms.

The ruling came down as federal proposals to cap malpractice awards are receiving fresh attention on Capitol Hill. Republicans enthusiastically support the limits, and they are seen as a potential vehicle for restarting the stalled health care negotiations in Congress with bipartisan impetus. Neither the House bill that Democrats passed late last year nor its Senate counterpart included significant changes to medical malpractice regulations.

In a 4-to-2 ruling, the Illinois court wrote that the legislature, in enacting the 2005 law, violated the state Constitution’s separation of powers clause by imposing decisions that should be reserved for judges and juries. The law established caps of $500,000 for non-economic damages in verdicts against doctors and $1 million in cases against hospitals.

The decision armed opponents of such provisions with fresh ammunition, and held a particular sting for the American Medical Association, which has its headquarters in Chicago.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/05/us/05malpractice.html?th&emc=th

[Vinnie From Indy]

1. Wanna know what makes "conservatives" into liberals the fastest?

Being on the receiving end of what they so desperately want to impose on others. As sure as the sun rising in the East, almost every conservative you meet will be for tort reform up until the very minute they are wronged. I have seen it a thousand times.

[sharesunited]

2. Violates separation of powers? Not good reasoning.

The legislature defines the dollar amount constituting a small claims jurisdictional threshold. Why is this different?

The legislature defines what can be considered in awarding a damages judgment in breach of contract and eminent domain cases. Why is this different?

The legislature defines how soon a case must be filed or the claim disallowed due to passage of time (statute of limitations). Why is this different?

I think this decision simply reflects the desire of the judiciary to protect the livelihood of the malpractice bar. It is the only reason for treating it differently. And on the basis of a separation of powers argument? That's some intellectual desperation right there.

[happyslug]

3. The Actual Opinion is NOT on the Illinois Supreme Court site yet.

http://www.state.il.us/court/Opinions/recent_appellate.asp

The Actual Case name is, was to be posted 2/4/2010 but NOT on the web site yet:
Abigaile Lebron, a Minor, etc., et al., appellees,
105745 v. Gottlieb Memorial Hospital, etc., et al.,
cons. appellants. Appeal, Circuit Court (Cook).

I suspect something is not quite right with the report of the New York Times. The statement made that the State Legislature overstepped its bounds by capping non-economic damages does NOT sound quite right. In cases like this the better argument is that the State Legislature overstepped its bounds by taking of property by the state without compensation. I.e. when the state PROHIBITS someone from recovering from another do to a harm imposed by that second person, the State is taking away Property Rights from the Plaintiff and giving the person who lost rights NOTHING in compensation.

As a general rule the Courts have followed two policies on this matter, First to see if the State gave something to the Victim in exchange for losing the right to sue. For example under workmen's compensation, the victim lost their right to sue their employer, but they won the right to get workmen's compensation. Soldiers are forbidden to sue any other soldier who did them harm while in the Military in exchange for Military health benefit, Pensions for such disabilities AND VA care. These laws have been upheld on the ground that while the state did take away someone right to sue for damages, the person received another right of about the same value and thus was constitutional.

The Second way the courts look at something is this just a re-definition of rights NOT a taking. The classic case is Rails to Trails. Congress defined Railroad right of ways as being transferable to bike trails so that if the railroad ever needs that route again, it can take it back (This is called Rail-Banking). The Courts have been consistent that all this was NOT a taking but a redefinition of rights. In such cases it comes to the court when an adjacent property owner of the Railroad Right of Way tries to exercise their right recession of the Right of Way when the Railroad stop using the right of way. This was the law before 1976 and set forth in most of the contracts that granted the right of way. The Courts have ruled that when Congress "banked" such Right of way that was NOT a taking, just a redefinition. Now such a redefinition must be narrow, a state can not redefine something in such a way that makes something worthless when it was worth money before, Rails to Trails is about as far as it can go (What is the difference between a Steam Locomotive on the Right of Way compared to Bicyclist on that Right of Way? Not much to the value of the Adjunct property).

In this case when the State Legislature limited non-economic damages to $500,000 did the State Legislature define "Non-economic Damages? If the State Legislature defined Economic Damages in such a way that Pain and Suffering were make NON-Economic Damages? Even the US Supreme Court has ruled Pain and Suffering are Economic Damages and thus took away a right from the Plaintiff what did the State Legislature give her in return? (Probably nothing and that may be the point of the decision). I do not see this as a mere redefinition case, Pain and Suffering has long been viewed as something one can recover damages for, it is not like NOT having to go on a Railroad Track and then being permitted on the same right of way when it becomes a bike trail. I suspect the decision is based on the concept that the State Legislature overstepped it bounds by taking away someone's property right (And property right includes giving such rights to a third person i.e. forbidding someone from suing someone who did you harm) NOT as the New York Times report that the Court ruled that the State Legislature overstepped its bounds by restricting what the courts could do. i.e. the problem is that State Legislature took rights away from someone without giving them something in return NOT that the State Legislature overstepped its bounds by restricting what the courts could do.

Since I do NOT have access to the opinion I can not be sure the above is correct, but it makes more sense then what the New York Times is reporting on this case.

[happyslug]

4. The actual Opinion

http://www.state.il.us/court/Opinions/SupremeCourt/2010/February/105741.pdf

The statute defined “non-economic damages” as “damages which are intangible, including but not limited to damages for pain and suffering, disability, disfigurement, loss of consortium, and loss of society.” 735 ILCS 5/2–1115.2(b) (West 1996). The statute defined “economic damages,” which were not capped, as “all damages which are tangible, such as damages for past and future medical expenses, loss of income or earnings and other property loss.” 735 ILCS5/2–1115.2(a) (West 1996). The sum of noneconomic and economic damages constituted “compensatory damages.” 735 ILCS 5/2–1115.2(c) (West 1996). Thus, damages which were intended to make a person whole were limited by section 2–1115.1. Best, 179 Ill. 2d at 384.

Reading the opinion, it appears that previous Illinois Constitutional Law decision has made it an issue of Separation of Powers in regards to who can restrict what a Jury can find. In simple terms, the legislature has no State Constitutional Right to restrict what a Jury can find. A Judge can do so, if it is NOT supported by Evidence or other traditional restriction on what a Jury can find, but the Courts ruled only a Judge can do that NOT the State Legislature. This avoids the issue of "Takings" for its basically bans the State Legislature for doing such caps (And thus bans such "takings") and thus the whole issue of "Takings of Property without Compensation" is avoided.