* 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.”