Supreme Court Summaries

Opinion filed February 4, 2010

Nos. 105741, 105745 cons.    Lebron v. Gottlieb Memorial Hospital

Direct appeal from the circuit court of Cook County.

      CHIEF JUSTICE FITZGERALD delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion.

      Justices Freeman, Kilbride and Burke concurred in the judgment and opinion.

      Justice Karmeier concurred in part and dissented in part, with opinion, joined by Justice Garman.

      Justice Thomas took no part in the decision.

      In 2005, a statutory provision, part of Public Act 94–677, took effect in Illinois that places limits on awards for noneconomic damages, such as pain and suffering, in medical malpractice cases. The total limit is $1 million for hospitals and their personnel and $500,000 for doctors.

      Shortly after the effective date of this enactment, a baby who was born by Caesarean section was found to have numerous permanent injuries. Suit was filed against Gottlieb Memorial Hospital in Melrose Park, the doctor, and an assisting nurse.

      This litigation is the lead case in a number of lawsuits which raise the same issue and which the circuit court of Cook County consolidated.

      As part of their complaint, the plaintiffs sought a declaratory judgment that the damage limitation was invalid on constitutional grounds and later moved for partial judgment on the pleadings on this question. The circuit court granted the relief requested by the plaintiffs, and, because of inseverability wording in the enactment in which the provision is contained, declared the entire enactment invalid. This direct appeal to the Illinois Supreme Court followed.

      In this decision, the supreme court reversed as unnecessary the circuit court’s judgment holding the statute unconstitutional as applied, but affirmed the finding that, under the Illinois Constitution, the statute is facially invalid on separation of powers grounds.

      The supreme court said that the damage limitation violates the constitutional principle of separation of powers by interfering with the authority of the judicial branch to reduce verdicts. What the statute allows for amounts to a “legislative remittitur.” The supreme court agreed with the circuit court that, because the challenged provision is not severable, the entire statute is invalid. However, the legislature is free to reenact the other provisions.

      The cause was remanded to the circuit court for further proceedings.