Pantagraph.com Weather forecast, local radar and more
NewsMonday, November 20, 2006 11:50 PM CST
Are malpractice caps constitutional?
Advertisement

SPRINGFIELD - A lawsuit alleging a botched delivery left an infant with serious health problems could ignite a courtroom debate over whether Illinois' caps on medical malpractice claims are constitutional.

The lawsuit - filed Monday against a doctor and the Cook County hospital where the girl was delivered last October - claims the state's caps on non-economic damages, such as pain and suffering, unconstitutionally limit what 13-month-old Abigaile LeBron and her family should receive.

LeBron's lawyers are using the case to ask the Cook County court and eventually the Illinois Supreme Court to throw out the limits, signed into law last summer as part of an effort to reduce doctors' malpractice insurance costs.

Both sides predict a lengthy legal fight over the caps.

"Ultimately, our goal must be justice for the victims of medical negligence," Judy Cates, president of the Illinois Trial Lawyers Association, said in a statement. "We are hopeful that the LeBron case will accomplish that worthwhile goal."

The lawsuit against Gottlieb Memorial Hospital in Melrose Park and Dr. Roberto Levi-D'Ancona contends the doctor didn't act quickly enough when Abigaile's mother began showing problems during her October 2005 labor.

Deprived of oxygen at birth, Abigaile has severe brain damage, is fed through a tube in her stomach and does not crawl or show other abilities of a normal 1-year-old, her lawyers say.

A hospital spokeswoman said the hospital would not comment on the lawsuit.

Chicago lawyer Jeff Goldberg said he realized this summer that Abigaile's case called for much greater damages than the caps would allow - $500,000 against doctors and $1 million against hospitals. He wouldn't say how much he will seek.

"It's very early," Goldberg said. "It's going to take a while to figure that out."

Goldberg asked for help from other constitutional lawyers, who said the case is strong and has history on its side.

Two previous caps on damages have been deemed unconstitutional by the state Supreme Court - the last time in 1997 as part of a broader reform law that covered wrongful death and personal injury cases. The court said the law was illegal special legislation and legislators infringed on the judiciary's power to reduce unfair damage awards.

The LeBron's lawyers are making the same arguments about the latest caps, and claim victims' due process and equal protection rights are being violated. They hope the case ends up before the Supreme Court and has a similar outcome.

"These are fundamental flaws that cannot be cured," said Bob Peck, a lawyer for the Washington, D.C.-based Center for Constitutional Litigation who is assisting with the case. "We think there's a very strong argument there."

The lawsuit caps were part of a measure designed to lower medical malpractice costs that had driven dozens of doctors out of the state and prompted a heated lobbying battle at the Statehouse last year.

Advocates pushed the caps as a way to stop frivolous lawsuits from driving up insurance costs but acknowledged they wouldn't truly work until the court system upheld the caps.

The head of the major lobbyist group for doctors called the lawsuit "predictable" and potentially disastrous for health care if it is successful. But the group is confident the caps will withstand the challenge.

"The Illinois State Medical Society strongly stands by the constitutionality of these reforms and the state's urgent need to preserve them," Dr. Peter Eupierre, the society's president, said in a statement. "Balance and fairness in our state's medical litigation system are integral to ensuring patient access to core medical care services throughout Illinois."

Video
Most commented stories
Browse online archives
Recent issues:
Reader comments on this story - 6 total

Note: All views and opinions expressed in reader comments are solely those of the individual submitting the comment, and not those of the Pantagraph or its staff.

to ??? wrote on Nov 22, 2006 1:29 AM:

" I don't think the doctors are benefiting much either. When was the last time any of your insurance costs went down? I doubt the doctors saw a decrease in theirs either. "

i say wrote on Nov 21, 2006 7:06 PM:

" what does the constitution have to do with it? "

An alternative wrote on Nov 21, 2006 8:26 AM:

" Everything has a cost. How about a health insurance company develop a "maximum legal exposure" policy? It would cost less and the doctors could charge less if their legal exposure is known. Those desiring the right to future 8 figure lawsuits should share in the huge malpractice costs associated with those lawsuits. "

An alternative wrote on Nov 21, 2006 8:21 AM:

" If the law can't blanket caps, which I somewhat understand, then how about individual insurers offer a "maximum legal recourse" health policy. I'd imagine medical groups could offer a great reduction in service costs if their exposure to legality was limited. And those who want the right to 8 figure lawsuits can pay more for medical care/insurance in the first place. "

??? wrote on Nov 21, 2006 3:02 AM:

" Has everyone noticed how the cost of medical care has gone down since the medical malpractice caps went into force last summer? What a joke the caps are. The only ones benefitting are the doctors and the insurance companies. "

No wrote on Nov 21, 2006 12:57 AM:

" I can understand the need to watchdog people with the load of lawsuits for a zillion uncalled for dollars. When you botch a the delivery of a child rendering it severely brain damaged, the lifetime medical and care expences a max payout of 1.5 million is a drop in the bucket. "

Add your own comments

Please read the rules before posting comments.

You must be logged in to leave comments.
If you don't have a member ID, please register.

*Member ID:
*Password:
Remember login?
(requires cookies)
  Forgot Your Password?