Illinois Supreme Court throws out med mal limits on noneconomic damages

Source: Illinois Trial Lawyers Association

Lebron v. Gottleib memorial Hospital

full text here:

http://www.iltla.com/pdf/LeBronOpinion.pdf

Read more: http://www.iltla.com/pdf/LeBronOpinion.pdf

---

The supreme Court of Illinois just ruled that the Best (our previous foray into tort reform limits on recovery) arguments continue to stand.

In Lebron, an infant suffered from cerebral palsy as a result of bad birthing practices at Gottleib.
When we had GOP governors, our mixed legislature passed tort reform, cutting recoveries, limiting med mal damages for noneconomic damages, and more. Most of the tort reform had been tossed years ago, but the noneconomic cap had not been ruled on. Until now. The Court said that this is an unconstitutional effort by the legislature to use law as an automatic remittitur, limiting the recovery in all cases, without regard to the actual loss suffered by a plaintiff.

GREAT NEWS HERE!.

Now, if those tort reformers in congress would suffer the same fate, that would be even better.
I just heard that the GAO estimated that tort reform in medical cases would save 50 Billion. Why don't they attack the root of the problem, and fix medical mistakes, instead of hurting those who already were hurt by their doctor or hospital?

1. This stupid law was passed by a Democratic legislature and signed by a Dem governor (Blago, natch).

2. Damage caps are dead until the Illinois constitution is changed.

3. Non-severability clause was key.

it guarantees them a lot more business from med mal insurers who refuse to settle clear liability cases.

We have been waiting on a ruling in the Provena case for what seems like an eternity. (Arguments were heard in the September 09 term.) One opinion from that same docket was released in November. One was released in December, one was released in this batch, and two opinions remain outstanding.

I had hoped we might see a ruling this month, but it looks like they have been busy with other stuff...



Laura

I confess I lost track

Local Board of Review submitted an opinion to Illinois Dept of Revenue that Provena should not be exempted from taxes based on several issues. One issue cited was that Provena had provided less than ONE percent in Charity Care according to their own audited financials. AFter several months IDOR stripped Provena's Property Tax exemption.

Provena asked for an administrative review. The ALJ in the case was overruled by the Director of the IL Dept of Revenue, Brian Hamer. Provena remained taxable. Judge Londrigan in Springfield was the next stop, and he ruled from the bench after 30 minutes, saying he knew it was gonna be appealed no matter how he ruled. Londrigan restored exemption to Provena.

IDOR appealed.

4th Appellate wrote an extended unanimous decision on this case that pretty much left it that they did not see how Provena could hope to be exempted given the set of facts. Provena appealed and the Supremes agreed to hear it.

Tax code says property must be used "exclusively" for charitable purposes. Actual case law gives zero clarification, however the "less than one percent" provided by Provena has been an issue. They made the argument that "community benefit" extends to more than just provision of care, and the court gets to sort it all out.

My interest in this case is that I was one of the local folks who initially felt they should be taxed.

Here is a link if you want to see more:

http://www.allbusiness.com/government/government-bodies-offices-public/13025451-1.html



Laura

1% charity (which is lower than most hospitals donate on their own) means no taxes? Huh. Sounds like Rev. Dollar and his merry band of religious thieves.

Le sigh. If only all judges could think...

....I can only conclude it must be cheaper to kill, injure then pay, rather than correct, the tens of thousands of yearly medical butcheries occurring in the best capitalist healthcare system in the world.

That's about the size of it.