02-09-2010, 04:47 PM
February 4, 2010
E-mail Print Share Text Size
The Illinois Supreme Court on Thursday threw out a sound law passed by the General Assembly in 2005 to protect health care in this state. The court threw out a sound law that has worked. The court threw out a sound law and essentially told the state's lawmakers: Don't even bother to try this again.
This is a disastrous decision.
It declares that caps on medical malpractice awards violate the state constitution's separation-of-powers clause. The caps limited noneconomic damages, such as pain and suffering, to $500,000 in claims against doctors and to $1 million in claims against hospitals.
The Legislature acted appropriately in response to a crisis. Malpractice costs were skyrocketing in Illinois because insurers were afraid to do business here. They were afraid of runaway jury verdicts. They also knew that more than 20 states had some caps on damages, making those states much safer places to do business.
Malpractice premiums in Illinois were particularly egregious for doctors in riskier specialties such as obstetrics and neurosurgery. As a result, doctors were leaving, particularly doctors in rural areas. They couldn't afford to practice in their communities. That made it more difficult for patients to find the care they needed.
The 2005 law eased the crisis. Malpractice premiums declined. The exodus of doctors stopped.
But now the law has been declared unconstitutional. Watch out for what happens now.
The majority on the Supreme Court, in ruling that the law was unconstitutional, cited its own wisdom in a previous decision that had struck down damage caps.
But here's something uncomfortable. Justice Lloyd Karmeier, joined in a dissent by Justice Rita Garman, wrote that the court's wisdom in that previous decision "has not only been rejected by the federal courts, it has failed to carry the day in any reported decision in any other state in the United States since it was filed 12 years ago."
Nobody has recognized the wisdom of the Illinois Supreme Court on this matter ⦠except the Illinois Supreme Court.
"We have no business telling the General Assembly it has exceeded its constitutional power if we must ignore the constitutional constraints on our own authority to do so," Karmeier wrote. The Illinois Constitution "expressly states that '(n)o branch shall exercise powers properly belonging to another.' In my view, the majority's opinion today flatly violates this prohibition."
The law represented one of the best moments of bipartisan negotiation and agreement the Illinois Legislature has seen in a long, long time.
At the Supreme Court, though, the decision broke strictly along partisan lines. In the majority, four Democrats: Thomas Fitzgerald, Charles Freeman, Thomas Kilbride and Anne Burke. In the minority, two Republicans: Karmeier and Garman. Republican Bob Thomas did not participate in the decision.
Karmeier wrote a powerful dissent. But today the plaintiff's bar is cheering because the high court has decided that the Illinois Legislature doesn't have this authority to respond to a health care crisis.
As a result, the doctors and hospitals and patients in Illinois will almost certainly face new risks.
Copyright © 2010, Chicago Tribune
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
See All comments
E-mail Print Share Text Size
The Illinois Supreme Court on Thursday threw out a sound law passed by the General Assembly in 2005 to protect health care in this state. The court threw out a sound law that has worked. The court threw out a sound law and essentially told the state's lawmakers: Don't even bother to try this again.
This is a disastrous decision.
It declares that caps on medical malpractice awards violate the state constitution's separation-of-powers clause. The caps limited noneconomic damages, such as pain and suffering, to $500,000 in claims against doctors and to $1 million in claims against hospitals.
The Legislature acted appropriately in response to a crisis. Malpractice costs were skyrocketing in Illinois because insurers were afraid to do business here. They were afraid of runaway jury verdicts. They also knew that more than 20 states had some caps on damages, making those states much safer places to do business.
Malpractice premiums in Illinois were particularly egregious for doctors in riskier specialties such as obstetrics and neurosurgery. As a result, doctors were leaving, particularly doctors in rural areas. They couldn't afford to practice in their communities. That made it more difficult for patients to find the care they needed.
The 2005 law eased the crisis. Malpractice premiums declined. The exodus of doctors stopped.
But now the law has been declared unconstitutional. Watch out for what happens now.
The majority on the Supreme Court, in ruling that the law was unconstitutional, cited its own wisdom in a previous decision that had struck down damage caps.
But here's something uncomfortable. Justice Lloyd Karmeier, joined in a dissent by Justice Rita Garman, wrote that the court's wisdom in that previous decision "has not only been rejected by the federal courts, it has failed to carry the day in any reported decision in any other state in the United States since it was filed 12 years ago."
Nobody has recognized the wisdom of the Illinois Supreme Court on this matter ⦠except the Illinois Supreme Court.
"We have no business telling the General Assembly it has exceeded its constitutional power if we must ignore the constitutional constraints on our own authority to do so," Karmeier wrote. The Illinois Constitution "expressly states that '(n)o branch shall exercise powers properly belonging to another.' In my view, the majority's opinion today flatly violates this prohibition."
The law represented one of the best moments of bipartisan negotiation and agreement the Illinois Legislature has seen in a long, long time.
At the Supreme Court, though, the decision broke strictly along partisan lines. In the majority, four Democrats: Thomas Fitzgerald, Charles Freeman, Thomas Kilbride and Anne Burke. In the minority, two Republicans: Karmeier and Garman. Republican Bob Thomas did not participate in the decision.
Karmeier wrote a powerful dissent. But today the plaintiff's bar is cheering because the high court has decided that the Illinois Legislature doesn't have this authority to respond to a health care crisis.
As a result, the doctors and hospitals and patients in Illinois will almost certainly face new risks.
Copyright © 2010, Chicago Tribune
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
See All comments