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

Webinar
Jul 14, 2026
Scott Seaman Presents on Horizontal vs. Vertical Exhaustion of Insurance

Event
July 13-15, 2026
Hinshaw Proudly Sponsors 2026 Lavender Law Conference and Career Fair

Healthcare Alert
Jul 8, 2026
A New Era of Compliance Standards for California DSOs and MSOs After the Aspen Dental Settlement

Insights for Insurers Alert
Jul 7, 2026
What Insurers Need to Know About California’s FAIR Plan Assessment Recoupment Guidance

In The News
Jul 6, 2026
Francesco Palanda’s Practical Guide for Mitigating AI-Related Business Interruption Risk

Lawyers' Lawyer Newsletter
Jun 29, 2026
Beyond Malpractice: The Rising Threat of Privacy and Statutory Claims Against Lawyers

In The News
Jun 26, 2026
Brian McGrath Discusses Far-Reaching Impact of a NY Foreclosure Ruling on Mortgage Industry

In The News
Jun 26, 2026
Jason Oliveri Discusses AI Companions in Elder Care and the Risks for LGBTQ+ Residents






