*** Click here to read the Supreme Ct. opinion ***
* 10:40 am - From Crain’s…
The Illinois Supreme Court on Thursday struck down limits on jury awards in medical malpractice cases passed by the Legislature four years ago amid spiking liability costs for medical providers.
The court ruled that the caps on pain and suffering and other non-economic damages — $500,000 per case for doctors and $1 million for hospitals — are unconstitutional.
The court’s opinion upholds a 2007 ruling by a Cook County Circuit Court judge determining that the law violated the Illinois Constitution’s “separation of powers” clause, essentially finding that lawmakers interfered with the right of juries to determine fair damages.
It’s the third time the state’s high court has quashed limits on medical malpractice awards, having tossed out similar laws in 1976 and 1997.
* 10:41 am - From the Illinois Hospital Association…
The Illinois Hospital Association is disappointed that the Illinois Supreme Court has struck down critically needed medical liability reforms that were improving health care access throughout the state and restoring predictability to our broken medical liability system.
In doing so, the Court has rejected the clear will of the people of Illinois who called upon their legislators to enact this fair and sensible landmark legislation. In 2005, the General Assembly determined that there was a real public health crisis driving physicians out of Illinois and making health care more expensive and less available. Accordingly, it enacted a bipartisan and comprehensive solution that included judicial reform, strengthened insurance regulation and improved physician discipline.
The hospital community is deeply concerned that this decision will renew the malpractice lawsuit crisis and make it more difficult for Illinoisans to access or afford health care as liability costs for physicians and hospitals are driven to unsustainable levels. Hospitals across the state will again face even greater challenges recruiting and retaining physicians, especially specialists such as neurosurgeons and obstetricians, who were leaving Illinois during the height of the crisis.
This decision and its dire repercussions for the health care delivery system highlight the critical need for the President and Congress to embrace serious and meaningful medical liability reform as part of health care reform. All plausible forms of medical liability reform, such as arbitration, specialized courts and early settlement offer approaches, should be explored as part of health reform. However, caps on medical liability damages in many states (33) across the country have already proven to be effective at reducing health care delivery costs. We call on the President and Congress to include this important cost-reducing solution to the federal health reform package.
* 10:48 am - From the opinion…
The circuit court invalidated the statute for the sole reason that, pursuant to our decision in Best, the limitation on noneconomic damages in section 2–1706.5 violates the separation of powers clause of the Illinois Constitution (Ill. Const. 1970, art. II, §1). […]
The issue is not whether the General Assembly may change the common law. As we recognized in Best, the General Assembly’s authority to “alter the common law and change or limit available remedies *** is well grounded in the jurisprudence of this state.” Best, 179 Ill. 2d at 408, citing Grand Trunk Western Ry. Co., 291 Ill. 167. See also Michigan Avenue National Bank v. County of Cook, 191 Ill. 2d 493, 519 (2000) (“legislature has the inherent authority to repeal or change the common law and may do away with all or part of it”). The General Assembly’s authority, however, is not absolute; it must be exercised within constitutional bounds. See, e.g., People v. Gersch, 135 Ill. 2d 384, 395-98 (1990) (recognizing both the legislature’s inherent power to alter the common law and the court’s duty to invalidate unconstitutional actions of our legislature). Here, the legislature’s attempt in section –1706.5 to limit common law damages in medical malpractice actions runs afoul of the separation of powers clause.
* The majority also takes a whack at the minority’s dissent, which is quite unusual…
Among the dissent’s criticisms is that we have “rush[ed]” to address the constitutionality of Public Act 94–677; that we only “purport” to defend the constitution; and that we stand as an “obstacle” to the legislature’s efforts to find an answer to the health-care crisis, “put[ting] at risk the welfare of the people.” Slip op. at 33, 41, 52 (Karmeier, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part, joined by Garman, J.). The dissent implies that the majority opinion is somehow an affront to the health-care reform efforts of the Obama Administration, and expressly cautions that if we “persist in invalidating damages caps,” dire consequences will likely follow. Slip op. at 27-28, 51 (Karmeier, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part, joined by Garman, J.).
Plainly, the Obama Administration’s health-care reform efforts are not the backdrop against which we have decided the constitutionality of Public Act 94–677, and we express no opinion–favorable or otherwise–as to those efforts. Rather, our decision in this case, that Public Act 94–677 cannot stand, is based, as it must be, on the binding provisions of our state constitution and our case law interpreting the same. Although we do not expect that the members of this court will always agree as to what the law is, or how to apply the law in a given case, we do expect that our disagreements will focus on the legal issues, providing a level of discourse appropriate to the state’s highest court. The emotional and political rhetoric that peppers the dissent is ill-suited to this pursuit. [Emphasis added]
The dissent was written by Justice Karmeier, who was elected in the most expensive judicial race in history that was financed by tort reform groups like the US Chamber of Commerce. From his dissent…
While my colleagues purport to defend separation of powers principles, it is their decision, not the action of the General Assembly, which constitutes the improper incursion into the power of another branch of government.
Karmeier’s conclusion…
Our job is to do justice under the law, not to make the law. Formulating statutory solutions to social problems is the prerogative of the legislature. Whether there is a solution to the health-care crisis is anyone’s guess. I am certain, however, that if such a solution can be found, it will not come from the judicial branch. It is critical, therefore, that the courts not stand as an obstacle to legitimate efforts by the legislature and others to find an answer. If courts exceed their constitutional role and second-guess policy determinations by the General Assembly under the guise of judicial review, they not only jeopardize the system of checks and balances on which our government is based, they also put at risk the welfare of the people the government was created to serve.
That reads a whole lot like a political speech, as does the beginning of Karmeier’s dissent, which was the focus of the majority’s criticism…
In a recent address to a joint session of the United States Congress, President Obama admonished that our nation’s “collective failure to meet [the] challenge [of health-care reform]–year after year, decade after decade–has led us to the breaking point.” Millions are unable to obtain health care coverage,” he asserted; “medical costs are rising”; and the existing system is “placing an unsustainable burden on taxpayers.” According to the President, the failure to take immediate corrective action will be dire: “Our deficit will grow. More families will go bankrupt. More businesses will close. More Americans will lose their coverage when they are sick and need it the most. And more will die as a result.”
In outlining his strategy for addressing this crisis, the President advanced a multifaceted plan. 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.
* From House GOP Leader Tom Cross…
“Today’s ruling by the Illinois Supreme is especially disappointing because the law is working. With caps on non-economic damages and other reforms in place, competition has increased among insurance providers, medical malpractice insurance premiums have dropped between 5 and 30 percent, and doctors have begun to return to Illinois to care for families. Today’s ruling is a step backward, putting Illinois families at risk.”
* 11:13 am - Larry makes an excellent point. Things just got worse for the Democrats…
It’s a fairly good issue for Republicans so they get another favorite issue to fight and it’ll bring in plenty of money from insurers and hospitals.
* 11:15 am - From the Illinois Trial Lawyers Association…
The state’s highest court has, for a third time, ruled that caps on medical malpractice damages are unconstitutional and unfair to the very patients who rely on our civil justice system when they have been the victims of medical errors that forever harm their lives or take away a loved one before their time.
The majority opinion held “[W]e necessarily consider…the legislature’s goal in enacting the statue-responding to a health-care crisis. Our separation of powers analysis, however, does not stop there. The crux of our analysis is whether the statue unduly infringes upon the inherent power of the judiciary. Here, the legislature’s attempt to limit…damages in medical malpractice actions runs afoul of the separation of powers clause.”
The case before the Illinois Supreme Court was about a little girl, Abigaile LeBron. Her life has been forever changed by the severe brain damage she suffered as a result of medical errors. W Abigaile will have to be fed through a tube for the rest of her life. She will never develop cognitively or physically as her peers do. She will never live independently.
For years the insurance industry has tried to convince the public that patients who are victims of medical errors are responsible for the increased health care costs, even though Illinois’ largest malpractice insurer has reported that payouts have remained flat for the past 13 years. Rather than discussing what can be done to spur competition in the insurance industry and hold costs steady, the insurance companies wanted to convince the public that it was the victims – the families of people like Abigaile LeBron, who were to blame for rising costs and limited access to quality care. But in its ruling today, 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.
“Our health care system is reeling and rather than trying to fix it, insurance companies across the country have tried to divert attention from the real reforms that would improve access and care,” said Peter J. Flowers, president of the Illinois Trial Lawyers Association. “With this decision, we can now focus on the real issue – providing meaningful insurance reform that will keep costs down for doctors and patients alike, and ensure access to quality care for every resident in the state.”
Health care in Illinois will only improve when insurance companies are held accountable. The long-suppressed insurance reforms that were contained in this legislation have resulted in a forced reduction of malpractice premiums. The law forced malpractice insurance companies to provide greater transparency on rate-setting and payouts that has in turn spurred competition, motivated more companies to enter the marketplace, and lowered premiums for doctors.
“Today’s Illinois Supreme Court ruling making it illegal to impose caps on financial damages to victims of medical malpractice is a victory for working families whose lives and livelihoods are destroyed by medical negligence,” said Michael T. Carrigan, president of the Illinois AFL-CIO. “All citizens of this state should have the right to a trial by their peers to decide appropriate compensation. Hopefully today’s decision will finally put an end to the efforts of greedy insurance corporations to deny victims their due process.”
* 12:18 pm - From the Illinois Civil Justice League…
Ed Murnane, president of the Illinois Civil Justice League, released the following statement regarding today’s decision of the Illinois Supreme Court to strike down medical liability reforms signed into law in 2005:
“This is very disappointing – and frustrating. Republicans and Democrats in the Illinois General Assembly passed this law in 2005 after carefully considering all the potential and likely issues that could lead to a challenge. They knew it would be challenged and some very brilliant legal minds were involved in the drafting of the legislation and the defense of the law before the Supreme Court.
“It is very unfortunate that an issue that has an impact on the quality of health care for Illinois citizens can be decided by the Supreme Court choosing between doctors and patients on one side, and trial lawyers on the other — and siding once again with the trial lawyers.
“We commend Justices Garman and Karmeier for their dissent. Clearly, they understand what is at stake for the people of Illinois.”
Pingback ArchPundit | Yes, Things Can Get Worse - Thursday, Feb 4, 10 @ 10:45 am:
[…] Medical malpractice caps are struck down by the Illinois Supreme Court. It’s a fairly good issue for Republicans so they get another favorite issue to fight and it’ll bring in plenty of money from insurers and hospitals. […]
- Anonymous - Thursday, Feb 4, 10 @ 10:45 am:
Madison and St. Clair Counties will be busy again
- Amalia - Thursday, Feb 4, 10 @ 10:47 am:
absolutely ridiculous.
- lake county democrat - Thursday, Feb 4, 10 @ 10:48 am:
Just in time for the fall elections — gift for the GOP.
- E Pluribus - Thursday, Feb 4, 10 @ 10:49 am:
A bad decision for patients and health care providers who are again at the mercy of trial lawyers.
A great decision for the Republicans who can vilify the Dems who are fawning lap dogs for the trial bar.
- Carl Nyberg - Thursday, Feb 4, 10 @ 10:51 am:
When physicians get serious about policing their own in a transparent way then I’ll start listening to them about the woes of medical malpractice suits.
But right now, physicians policing physicians for malpractice seems to work about like cops policing cops for police brutality.
- OneMan - Thursday, Feb 4, 10 @ 10:52 am:
There goes my wife’s malpractice insurance again… (sigh)…
- Downstate - Thursday, Feb 4, 10 @ 10:53 am:
After three times with a bill, I think it’s time for a constitutional amendment on this issue.
- Anon - Thursday, Feb 4, 10 @ 11:07 am:
I don’t see Karmeier’s cited opinion as a “political speech” Rich. Putting as part of your opinion that it is their job to interepret the law, not make it, is common phrasing for opinions by conservative justices stating. It’s legitimate reasoning for his opinion.
- Served - Thursday, Feb 4, 10 @ 11:07 am:
Agreed, Downstate. The head and the wall are too familiar.
If it passes, it passes. Also, let’s try to find some new solutions.
- Downstate - Thursday, Feb 4, 10 @ 11:09 am:
I do not understand the court’s logic in this case. If the legislature can legislate sentences for crimes, surely it can legislate jury awards in civil trials. The arrogance of this court is amazing.
- Lee - Thursday, Feb 4, 10 @ 11:11 am:
And the comments by the majority were not political????
- dupage dan - Thursday, Feb 4, 10 @ 11:11 am:
Amazing and wrong. I suppose this can’t be taken to the US Supreme Court, can it? What are these Justices thinking?
- Rich Miller - Thursday, Feb 4, 10 @ 11:12 am:
==I don’t see Karmeier’s cited opinion as a “political speech” Rich. ===
Please. What does the president’s speech have anything to do with this? That’s politics, not Illinois law and legal review.
- VanillaMan - Thursday, Feb 4, 10 @ 11:15 am:
Quinn is going to have to figure out a good way to address this new problem without feeding the GOP’s demands for tort reform, which is quite popular with voters.
After all, it was pressure to gain voter approval that forced the Democrats to pass this legislation to begin with.
Now, the issue is even hotter.
See another “Pat’s Blue Ribbon” committee being formed within the week?
- train111 - Thursday, Feb 4, 10 @ 11:16 am:
Kudos to Karmeir and his opposition to this.
I sat on a jury dealing with a drug case a few years ago. I totally disagree with our drug laws, but the instruction was to judge the law as it is written. It wasn’t our place as a jury to make new law but rather to judge according to how it was written. Well that’s the Supreme Court’s job too. It is the legislature’s job to write laws–not the Supreme Court’s or any judge’s for that matter. You may disagree with it, but you have to accept it for what it is, and if you want it changed, take it up with the legislative branch. Karmeir is spot on with his dissention here.
train111
- wordslinger - Thursday, Feb 4, 10 @ 11:25 am:
Both sides will be able to raise money now that the issue is back in play.
- Anon - Thursday, Feb 4, 10 @ 11:27 am:
==Please. What does the president’s speech have anything to do with this? That’s politics, not Illinois law and legal review. ==
Please, back at you. He cites policy discussion by politicians because it furthers his point that such decisions should be left to legislative and executive branch, and are not decisions Courts should be making. And like the another comment stated: if Karmeier’s opinion is political in your mind, how is the majority opinion not?
- dupage dan - Thursday, Feb 4, 10 @ 11:28 am:
=See another “Pat’s Blue Ribbon” committee being formed within the week?=
That sound you are hearing is PQs Blatz on the ground. More bad news for our intrepid populist reformer.
- Fan of the Game - Thursday, Feb 4, 10 @ 11:33 am:
Downstate @11:09 brings up the valid point. If the ILSC believes that caps on damages constitutes an infringement of the separation of powers, then mandatory sentencing guidelines infringe, also.
- Anon - Thursday, Feb 4, 10 @ 11:41 am:
Downstate is right on both his points — the Court’s decision is outrageously bad law and the solution is to amend the constitution, if you think award caps are the best policy.
The Supreme Court has also mandated continuing legal education for lawyers. We might consider amending the constitution to require the Justices to pass some basic law courses before they can take their places on the bench, because I doubt some of them could.
- Angry Chicagoan - Thursday, Feb 4, 10 @ 11:44 am:
Malpractice reform is very much required in medicine, but let’s be under no illusion about this — malpractice insurance probably isn’t even in the top three of problem health care cost categories, whether you take a realistic valuation like $50 billion a year or a Republican wishful thinking number like $200 billion a year.
- why - Thursday, Feb 4, 10 @ 11:45 am:
Why is anyone not questioning the timing of this opinion? How can they release this two days after the primary and then criticize the minority for being too political?
- OdysseusVL - Thursday, Feb 4, 10 @ 11:47 am:
As somebody in the risk management field, I always viewed damages caps as “Bad Lawyer Protection Acts.” If companies hire decent defense counsel, they don’t need damages caps. Also, there is no real reason to apply caps to just med mal, and not things like products liability or trucking accidents. If you suffer a traumatic brain injury because a doctor screws up, the dcotor is (was) protected by caps. But if you suffer it because a truck destroys your car, then the defendant is not limited by caps. That makes no sense at all until you factor in that doctors pay for better lobbysists.
- Anon - Thursday, Feb 4, 10 @ 11:50 am:
If you get hurt at work, you are essentially capped in the amount you can recover under workman’s comp laws, based on what body part is hurt and how badly it’s hurt. According to the Court, those caps are ok…but if you get hurt at a doctor’s office, it’s a different test?! Moral of the story, don’t get hurt at work, make sure your doctor does the damage.
- Madison County Watcher - Thursday, Feb 4, 10 @ 11:53 am:
“Why” is right…
Why is anyone not questioning the timing of this opinion? How can they release this two days after the primary and then criticize the minority for being too political?
Now the question is why it was pulled from the docket in December? Hopefully not for political reasons…
- **sigh** - Thursday, Feb 4, 10 @ 11:58 am:
Everyone closely involved saw this day coming a few years back - but no one would/could support the Senate’s “paired down” version at that time because the Speaker’s bill had everything and the Senate’s did not (though it was widely held that the Senate’s bill would withstand constitutional scrutiny). I’m glad I’m not involved this year. I wish those staffers that get to work on this the best of luck.. uh, while working on remap as well. Look around, I’m sure there’s the unfiled Senate version sitting on the 5th floor somewhere – it’ll save you a lot of trouble ;)
- OdysseusVL - Thursday, Feb 4, 10 @ 12:01 pm:
Anon,
WC is different because fault and negligence play no role. With WC,caps are put in place but the only question is whether it was work-related. It is a completely different sort of claim.
- D.P. Gumby - Thursday, Feb 4, 10 @ 12:03 pm:
The success of the Insurance lobby at convincing people that compensating the injured is at the root of medical cost crises is one of the greatest propaganda successes in history. There was no reduction in med. mal. premiums; there was no reduction in med. cost inflation; there was no influx of new docs into Ill (indeed, there had been no exit of docs as had been claimed before the act was passed). The myth of caps is equal to the myth that “we will balance the Ill budget by cutting waste in govt”. The legitimate reforms–certificate of review by ind. doc. when filing case and requiring experts to be in the med field–have removed what few cases might have made it into the system that were questionable. But there is no economic purpose for a lawyer to bring a case that is not viable–it costs too much. Whereas Docs believe any case brought against them is frivolous and Med Ins encourage that attitude. Before you drink the insurance Kool-Aid, check to see what they’ve spiked it w/.
- Anonymous - Thursday, Feb 4, 10 @ 12:03 pm:
Society should be about compensating those who are harmed not rewarding the likes of John Edwards. Get the ambulance chasers out of the equation. Create commissions that review the legitimacy of claims. It would be a whole lot cheaper.
- Downst8 - Thursday, Feb 4, 10 @ 12:08 pm:
Under these damage caps, if my young son dies because of a doctor or hospital’s negligence, the award is capped at the pre-determined amount. It doesn’t matter how awful or gross the negligence or how often the negligence occurred–the damages are capped at the same amount. Why? Because he died because of a doctor’s negligence when he was too young to have lost wages or people financially dependent upon him.
Regarding another post,there are limitations on workers compensation awards. That’s because there was a legislative compromise made long ago that an employee is entitled to compensation if he/she is injured while working and the worker need not file a civil lawsuit showing that the injury was the “fault” of the employer. In Illinois and other states, a person who files a medical malpractice must file a civil lawsuit and PROVE the doctor was somehow at fault before a jury even considers damages.
- Anon - Thursday, Feb 4, 10 @ 12:12 pm:
@OdysseusVL –
Yep. And if the case is filed on a Thursday, that’s different from a case filed on a Friday. WC takes the common law issue of negligence away from the jury (with all the attendant problems with the common law doctrines of assumption of risk and the fellow servant rule). Those issues mark the difference between no liability at all and some liability. Isn’t taking that question away from the jury more egregious than taking away part of the jury’s authority to set the amount of liability?
- Anon - Thursday, Feb 4, 10 @ 12:14 pm:
Odysseus, but the argument that caps can be legit policy in terms of injury rewards in one area and not the other is completely illogical. In essense, the court says we can have caps to prevent businesses from numerous work related lawsuits, but we can’t do the same for doctors.
- Anon - Thursday, Feb 4, 10 @ 12:27 pm:
==It doesn’t matter how awful or gross the negligence or how often the negligence occurred–the damages are capped at the same amount. Why? ==
Why not? The DAMAGES are still the same, no matter how negligent the doctor was or how often. If you want to punish particularly egregious behavior, make it a crime. Also, if legislative compromise is legitimate for WC, why not for medmal?
- Oswego Willy - Thursday, Feb 4, 10 @ 12:27 pm:
Just a simple question, was this the last of the Lee Daniels Speakership agenda left as law?
- OdysseusVL - Thursday, Feb 4, 10 @ 12:33 pm:
Anon, in one context there is a guaranteed recovery regardless of fault.
In the other, fault must be established.
There is a trade off which in the end, protects workers.
The comparison between that and caps is completely off.
- OdysseusVL - Thursday, Feb 4, 10 @ 12:35 pm:
“Also, if legislative compromise is legitimate for WC, why not for medmal?”
What’s the compromise there? Doctors get something and patients do not? Not much of a compromise from the perspective of the patient.
- OdysseusVL - Thursday, Feb 4, 10 @ 12:36 pm:
Anon,
Also, in WC, there is no jury.
- TitforTat - Thursday, Feb 4, 10 @ 12:39 pm:
Where are the FEDS when you need them? Let’s see the Trial lawyers and their minnions in the iLlinois State House lose to those who want to reform medical malpractice laws and now the ATTORNEY’s on the Supreme Counrt don’t think it’s a good law? Talk about one hand washing the other!!!!
- Anon - Thursday, Feb 4, 10 @ 1:06 pm:
==What’s the compromise there? Doctors get something and patients do not? Not much of a compromise from the perspective of the patient. ==
So half a million dollars non-economic damages equals nothing now? Again, what is and is not “nothing” should be a policy decision.
- gary klass - Thursday, Feb 4, 10 @ 1:45 pm:
In essence the Court has ruled that the Court’s power to create Common Law supersedes the Legislature’s power to enact statutory law.
This is if fundamentally at odds with the most fundamental principles of jurisprudence.
On this reasoning, Workman’s Compensation law (which also limits damages) is also a violation of separation of powers.
- D.P. Gumby - Thursday, Feb 4, 10 @ 1:51 pm:
Oswego–this bill wasn’t the one from Daniels…that one was the one overturned in Best. This is the one that was a compromise between Trial Lawyers, Docs, Hospitals and Dems/Reps. It’s just that caps are inconsistent w/ the Illinois Constitution.
- Ahoy - Thursday, Feb 4, 10 @ 2:02 pm:
So who checks the courts?
- Marcus Agrippa - Thursday, Feb 4, 10 @ 2:09 pm:
This is the third time that caps have been held unconstitutional, the last time being 12 years ago with the Best decision. Isn’t this judicial restraint and overturning years of precedent “judicial activism”? Also, a trail judge determined that the caps were unconstitutional. This appeal to the Supreme Court was to determine whether the judge’s decision was correct. Finally re: workers comp. - that system arose because injured workers could not recover in the civil justice system in the 30’s. If you were in any way at fault (contributory negligence) your case would have been thrown out. Workers’ comp was made to be a no fault system with specific benefits that could be received. This gave the worker more rights than he would have in civil court.
- Peggy SO-IL - Thursday, Feb 4, 10 @ 2:15 pm:
Wow. I am stunned by the politicization of the ruling in the orders themselves. Perhaps it is time for a constitutional amendment.
- Robert Traver - Thursday, Feb 4, 10 @ 2:24 pm:
Interesting that the court announced it was going to release this decision in December and then without explanation pulled it. Karmeier in his dissent then leads by quoting from Obama’s state of the union address delivered in late January. I wonder how many more times Karmeier might have changed his dissent if he would have had more time.
- Anon - Thursday, Feb 4, 10 @ 3:05 pm:
==Anon,
Also, in WC, there is no jury. ==
Correct. The statute took the matter away from the jury. Exactly what the Supreme Court just held (again) violates separation of powers. Isaiah 6:9
- Yellow Dog Democrat - Thursday, Feb 4, 10 @ 3:16 pm:
Anon -
Unless I’m mistaken, and I’m pretty sure Odysseus will correct me if I am:
Workman’s compensation rates are administrative, not judicial. If you’re injured on the job, you can seek workman’s comp, but you also still have the option of going to court.
Karmeier’s opinion is an embarrassment to the judicial process, and does real damage to his credibility and his cause. Karmeier argues that:
1) The lower court didn’t have authority to review the case;
2) The plaintiff didn’t have standing to challenge the law’s constitutionality;
3) The Supreme Court didn’t have authority to review the legislation.
All of this despite the fact that the medical society has been telling us since Day 1 that they expected the case to go to the Supreme Court and the insurance industry said it wouldn’t lower insurance rates until the case was decided by the Supreme Court.
In short, Karmeier thinks we’re all idiots.
As for whether or not this is a gift for Republicans, I’ll take issue with Larry and Rich on this one, for two reasons:
1) Even at the height of the med mal debate, only 4% of voters in Illinois rated it as their #1 issue. You can bet they weren’t voting for a Democrat anyway.
2) The #1 issue far-and-away in Illinois is Jobs, and if Republicans start spending their time and money talking about med-mal, two things will happen: 1) voters will ignore them, until 2) they can convince voters to focus on health care, an issue where Democrats will always continue to have a distinct advantage.
BUT, if Democrats want to play it safe, what they should do is re-enact the insurance reforms from 2005, which will:
1) Prevent ISMIE from jacking up its rates, creating yet another artificial med mal crisis, and
2) Prevent ISMIE from creating yet another huge political warchest with which to bludgeon Democrats.
- Yellow Dog Democrat - Thursday, Feb 4, 10 @ 3:25 pm:
Illinois State Medical Society political contributions since caps were passed:
House Republicans: $984K
House Democrats: $612K
Senate Republicans: $581K
Senate Democrats: $497K
THAT’S how the Medical Society thanked Democrats for pushing through medical malpractice caps.
- Hisgirlfriday - Thursday, Feb 4, 10 @ 3:35 pm:
Rich,
I actually don’t think it is that unusual for a majority opinion to address the concerns of a dissenting opinion.
- GovtTeacher - Thursday, Feb 4, 10 @ 3:37 pm:
Does NO ONE know the IL Constitution?? How about what separation of powers and the 3 branches is all about…..
The Court judged the law against what the Constitution says. PERIOD.
Yes, the legislature can write laws….but they don’t have unlimited power. They still must stay within the boundaries of the Constitution. If the Constitution leaves the awarding of damages to a jury thru a judicial process, then the other 2 branches don’t get to jump in and take that away. Not without a change in the Constitution.
The Legislature cannot legislate its way into another branche’s business.
People, it’s not about whether CAPS are good or bad, the Court took no position on that. They said under the current IL Constitution, CAPS are unconstitutional.
- gary klass - Thursday, Feb 4, 10 @ 3:43 pm:
workers comp:
Was actually on of the first employment laws upheld in the courts, by 1911 19 states had created the program — in part because it protected the employers from outrageous jury awards.
- Rich Miller - Thursday, Feb 4, 10 @ 3:45 pm:
Hisgirlfriday, it’s not that the majority “addressed the concerns” of the minority opinion. It’s that they did it in such a rough manner.
- GovtTeacher - Thursday, Feb 4, 10 @ 3:55 pm:
[U]nder Wright, Grace and Grasse, the automatic $500,000 limit on noneconomic damages was
arbitrary and violated the special legislation clause. [Citation.] Although agreeing with the defendants that noneconomic injuries 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. [Citation.] Indeed, we determined that the damages limitation actually
undermined the statute’s stated goal of providing consistency and rationality to the civil justice system. [Citation.] We also rejected the defendants’ argument that the legislature’s interest in reducing the systemic costs of tort liability was sufficient to overcome the plaintiffs’ special legislation challenge, noting that the entire burden of any cost savings would impermissibly rest on one class of injured plaintiffs.
- Anon - Thursday, Feb 4, 10 @ 3:59 pm:
Nothing strange about dissing another opinion, either. If you want strange, you need to read Justice (sic) Heiple’s response to Bob Greene’s column in the Baby Richard case.
To GovtTeacher, the point again is that there are literally thousands of statutes out there that violate the separation of powers clause under the Supreme Court’s reading of it in this case. And, since you’re so keen on reading the constitution, where in the constitution does it leave the awarding of damages to a jury? Article I, Section 15 says that compensation in an emininent domain proceeding “shall be determiend by a jury as provided by law.” I can’t find any other place that comes close, and this provision seems to say that the legislature can tinker with matters by enacting laws.
- Anon - Thursday, Feb 4, 10 @ 8:50 pm:
The insurance reforms in the Act don’t get much attention but they are more important than many realize. I hope the GA quickly reenacts them.