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
Oct 5, 2026
Mitchel Chargo Selected to the Seventh Edition of the Global Top 200 Cannabis Lawyers Directory

Consumer Crossroads: Where Financial Services and Litigation Intersect
Oct 2, 2026
Expansive New Commercial Financing Licensing Requirement Signed into Law in California

In The News
Oct 2, 2026
Spencer Kook Explores How AI is Reshaping the Insurance Workforce

In The News
Oct 1, 2026
Jennifer Driscoll Discusses Emerging Antitrust Risks Tied to Social Media Algorithms

Healthcare Alert
Sep 30, 2026
Feeding Better Outcomes: The OIG’s Compliance Roadmap for Food-As-Medicine Programs

Consumer Crossroads: Where Financial Services and Litigation Intersect
Sep 30, 2026
Illinois Supreme Court Delivers a Third Key Win for Mortgage Lenders

In The News
Sep 28, 2026
Carol Rooney and Adam Topel Co-Author Article on Recent Developments in Appellate Advocacy

In The News
Sep 28, 2026
Lucy Wang Discusses New Landmark California Wildfire Insurance Reforms

Event
September 27–29, 2026
Hinshaw Partners Discuss Key Compliance and Litigation Issues at the 2026 MBA Conference

Press Release
Sep 24, 2026
Hinshaw Recognized as a 2027 “Powerhouse in Litigation” by BTI Consulting





