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

Press Release
Sep 10, 2026
Hinshaw Attorneys Recognized as 2027 Lexology Index Thought Leaders: USA

In The News
Sep 10, 2026
Nicholas Ajello and Gregory Emry Analyze FAA’s Proposed BVLOS Drone Regulations

Consumer Crossroads: Where Financial Services and Litigation Intersect
Sep 9, 2026
“Play Now, Arbitrate Later”—“Not So Fast,” Ninth Circuit Says

In The News
Sep 9, 2026
Jennifer Driscoll Discusses “Patchwork” of Laws Targeting Personalized Pricing

Employment Law Observer
Sep 8, 2026
Five Workplace Issues Every Employer Should Address Before They Become a Costly Lawsuit

Press Release
Sep 8, 2026
Jim Sandy Appointed Chair of ABA Debt Collection and Bankruptcy Subcommittee

In The News
Sep 3, 2026
Jennifer Driscoll Analyzes FTC Suit over Amazon’s Advertising Pricing Practices

In The News
Sep 2, 2026
Yvonne Ocrant Discusses Horse Business Legal Protection on the EquineRevShare Podcast

Consumer Crossroads: Where Financial Services and Litigation Intersect
Sep 2, 2026
Two Key Wins for Mortgage Lenders on Illinois Statute of Limitations

Press Release
Sep 2, 2026
Jennifer Driscoll Reappointed to CBA's Antitrust & Trade Regulation Section Executive Committee





