Illinois Supreme Court Declares Statutory Limits on the Recovery of Non-Economic Damages Unconstitutional
Hinshaw Alert
Hinshaw Alert | 2 min read
Feb 4, 2010
Lebron v. Gottlieb Memorial Hosp.
On February 4, 2010, in a widely anticipated decision, the Illinois Supreme Court struck down the statutory limits on the recovery of non-economic damages in medical malpractice actions. Relying on its 1997 decision in Best v. Taylor Machine Works, which invalidated a $500,000 cap on non-economic damages in any common-law action, the Court in Lebron held that the cap on recoverable damages in malpractice suits violated the separation of powers clause of the Illinois Constitution.
The limitation on the amount a jury could award for non-economic damages (e.g., pain and suffering), which was struck down in Lebron, was the centerpiece of a series of reform measures targeted at reducing the financial burdens on physicians and hospitals, which had limited the availability of medical care in portions of Illinois. Those reform measures included revisions to expert witness standards in medical malpractice actions; enhancement of the state’s regulation and ability to discipline physicians; creation of an Internet-based system for public access to physician’s disciplinary histories; heightened oversight of medical insurance carriers; changes to required pre-suit affidavit and certificate of merit requirements; and the creation of an evidentiary rule allowing medical apologies.
Because the Act adopting these various reform measures contained a non-severability clause, the entire Act was invalidated by the Court’s decision in Lebron. The Court noted that because it only substantively addressed the constitutionality of the damage caps, the legislature remained free to reenact any of these other reform measures that it deemed appropriate.
The opinion was written by Chief Justice Thomas Fitzgerald and was joined by Justices Freeman, Kilbride and Burke. Justices Karmeier and Garman wrote a dissent, which prompted a short rebuke by Justice Fitzgerald. Justice Thomas took no part in the decision.
To view a copy of the decision, click on download PDF.
For further information, please contact Steven M. Puiszis, Stephen T. Moore, Dawn A. Sallerson or your regular Hinshaw attorney.
This alert has been prepared by Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP to provide information on recent legal developments of interest to our readers. It is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship.
Featured Insights

Healthcare Alert
Aug 3, 2026
Fixing the Emergency Refill Trap: What California’s AB 1587 Means for Pharmacies

Consumer Crossroads: Where Financial Services and Litigation Intersect
Jul 30, 2026
Should Text Messages be Considered “Calls” Under the TCPA? The Seventh Circuit Says No

Healthcare Alert
Jul 30, 2026
California Courts Sharply Curtail the MICRA Damages Cap in Nursing Home Litigation

Insights for Insurers Alert
Jul 30, 2026
Analyzing a Couple of Cases Involving Exclusions in D&O Policies

In The News
Jul 29, 2026
Hinshaw Authors Contribute Two Articles in Latest Edition of the CCFL Quarterly Report

Webinar
Jul 28, 2026
Cathy Mulrow-Peattie and Sabrina Janeiro Present on Legal AI Technology

In The News
Jul 27, 2026
Scott Seaman Discusses How the Insurance Industry Contributed to the 2026 FIFA World Cup

Privacy, Cyber & AI Decoded Alert
Jul 27, 2026
Compliance Guidance for the New Vermont Data Privacy and Online Surveillance Act (VDPOSA)

Healthcare Alert
Jul 24, 2026
Q&A: Right to Electronic Monitoring Extended to Illinois Assisted and Shared Living Facilities

Press Release
Jul 23, 2026
Insurance Partner Christophe Burusco Joins Hinshaw in Los Angeles

In The News
Jul 16, 2026
Jennifer Driscoll Anticipates Epic Battle Between “Titans of the Antitrust Bar”




