Illinois Supreme Court Strikes Down Medical Malpractice
February 8, 2010
Chicago Tribune
By Bruce Japsen and Ameet Sachdev
The Illinois Supreme Court on Thursday struck down the state’s medical malpractice law, saying limits on damages awarded to victims of medical negligence are unconstitutional.
The much-anticipated ruling deals a blow to doctors and hospital officials who say caps on damages are a way to tame rising health care costs.
State lawmakers in 2005 passed legislation, which was signed into law by then-Gov. Rod Blagojevich, that established limits on pain and suffering and other non-economic damages of $500,000 in cases against doctors and $1 million against hospitals. Illinois followed other states, such as California, that capped damages years ago.
The court said the law violates the state’s separation-of-powers clause between the branches of government by allowing lawmakers to interfere with a jury’s right to determine damages. “The crux of our analysis is whether the statute unduly infringes upon the inherent power of the judiciary,” the majority opinion said.
Justices also said they were not persuaded by arguments used in other states. “That ‘everybody is doing it,’ is hardly a litmus test for the constitutionality of the statute,” wrote Chief Justice Thomas Fitzgerald in delivering the opinion for four siding in the majority of the seven-member court.
Justices Lloyd Karmeier and Rita Garman dissented on certain key points of the decision and expressed sympathy to providers of medical care, citing President Barack Obama’s recent address to a joint session of Congress that they said admonished the nation’s collective failure to enact health care reform.
But limiting medical liability is no silver bullet for controlling health costs. The Congressional Budget Office reported in September that reforms, such as capping non-economic damages, would lower the nation’s health care bill by only 0.5 percent.
The majority said the court’s decision was not made with Washington’s health care reform efforts in mind.
Still, the ruling could figure in the national debate of stalled health care legislation. Though Obama and Democrats have said they are unlikely to cap damages in federal health care legislation, they have been open to a compromise on liability reform.
The Obama administration, Republicans and doctor groups have made attempts to scale back the practice of “defensive medicine,” in which doctors perform medical procedures that are not necessary because of legal concerns. The CBO said recent studies have shown that liability reforms can slightly reduce the use of health care.
Thursday’s decision will not end the heated debate over whether lawsuits affect the quality and costs of medical care.
One area where there is agreement is on establishing evidence-based medicine, which offers guidelines for doctors to follow when treating patients.
“The high cost of potential damages impacts how insurers rate different types of practices,” said Larry Boress, chief executive of Midwest Business Group on Health, a coalition that represents some of the region’s largest employers. “While we encourage physicians to practice evidence-based medicine to ensure high quality medical care is provided, we know that not all of medicine has evidence-based guidelines. Our state and nation need alternative methods of addressing malpractice allegations.”
To continue reading this report, click here.
