Lebron v. Gottlieb Mem'l Hosp.

Decision Date04 February 2010
Docket NumberNo. 105741,105745.,105741
Citation237 Ill.2d 217,341 Ill.Dec. 381,930 N.E.2d 895
PartiesAbigaile LEBRON, a Minor, et al., Appellees,v.GOTTLIEB MEMORIAL HOSPITAL et al., Appellants.
CourtIllinois Supreme Court

237 Ill.2d 217
930 N.E.2d 895
341 Ill.Dec.
381

Abigaile LEBRON, a Minor, et al., Appellees,
v.
GOTTLIEB MEMORIAL HOSPITAL et al., Appellants.

Nos. 105741, 105745.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

Feb. 4, 2010.


930 N.E.2d 896

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

930 N.E.2d 897

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

930 N.E.2d 898
David C. Hall, Hugh c. Griffin, Jacqueline R. Sharuzi, Hall, Prangle & Schoonveld, LLC, Eugene A. Schoon, Gary Feinerman, Sidley Austin LLP, Chicago for appellants Gottlieb memorial Hosp., Florence Martinoz.

Richard H. Donohue, Karen Kies DeGrand, Donohue Brown Mathewson & Smyth LLC, Chicago, Saul J. Morse, Brown, Hay & Stephens LLP, Springfiueld, Theodore B. Olson, Douglas R. Cox, Andrew S. Tulumello, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Washington, DC, for appellant Roberto Levi-D‘Ancona.

Lisa Madigan, Atty. Gen., Springfield (Michael A. Scodro, Solicitor Gen., Jane Elinor Notz, Deputy Solicitor Gen., Brett Legner, Asst. Atty. Gen., Chicago, of counsel), for intervenor-appellant.

Todd A. Smith, Devon C. Bruce, Power Rogers & Smith, P.C., Jeffrey M. Goldberg, Chicago, Kenneth Chesebro, Cambridge, MA, Jonathan S. Massey, Bethesda, HD, Michael H. Gottesman, Georgetown University Law Center, Robert S. Peck, Francine A. Hochberg, Valerie M. Nannery, Center for Constitutional Lit., P.C., Washington, DC, for appellees.

Carmel M. Cosgrave, Michael Resis, Ellen L. Green, Jennifer Stuart, SmithAmundsen LLC, Chicago, for amicus curiae Advocate Health and Hospitals Corp.

Melinda Reid Hattan, Maureen D. Mudron, Washington, DC, for amicus curiae Amer. Hosp. Ass'n.

Jon N. Ekdahl, Leonard A. Nelson, Chicago, for amicus curiae Amer. Med. Ass'n.
930 N.E.2d 899
George F. Galland, Jr., Miner Barnhill & Galland, Chicago, for amicus curiae Ill. Catholic Health Ass'n, Ill. Rural Health Ass'n.

Thaddeus J. Nodzenski, Naperville, for amicus curiae Ill. Hosp. Ass'n.

Richard R. King, II, Robert John Kane, Chicago, for amicus curiae Ill. State Med. Society.

Charles E. Reiter, III, James L. Reed, Jr., Maywood, for amici curiae Loyola University Med. Center, Loyola University Physician Foundation.

Richard A. Devine, State's Atty., Chicago (Patrick T. Driscoll, Jr., Elizabeth Reidy, Randolph Johnson, Karen J. Dimond, Asst. State's Attorneys, of counsel), for amicus curiae County of Cook.

H. Thomas Wells, Jr., Chicago (Miles J. Zaremski, of counsel), for amicus curiae Amer. Bar Ass'n.

J. Timothy Eaton, Shefsky & Froehlich, Ltd., Aurora N. Abella-Austriaco, Chicago, Jack C. Carey, Charles J. Northrup, Springfield, for amici curiae Chicago Bar Ass'n, Ill. State Bar Ass'n.

Joseph P. Costello, Costello, McMahon, Burke & Murphy, Ltd., Chicago, for amicus curiae Chicago Federation of Labor.

Geoffrey L. Gifford, opavalon Gifford & Laatsch, Chicago, for amici curiae Citizen Action/Ill., Ill. Alliance for Retired Americans.

Michael W. Rathsack, Chicago (Donald R. Jackson, Peoria, Marian E. Perkins, Chicago, of counsel), for amici curiae Nat. Ass'n for Advancement of Colored People, Cook County Bar Ass'n.

Joel D'Alba, Asher, Gittler, Grenfield & D'Alba, Ltd., Chicago, for amicus curiae Ill. AFL-CIO.

Philip Harnett Corboy, Jr., Bruce M. Kohen, Springfield (Bruce R. Pfaff, of Chicago, of counsel), for amicus curiae Ill. Trial Lawyers Ass'n.

Edward J. Kionka, Carbondale, for amicus curiae Professors Neil Vidmar, et al.

Michelle M. Kohut, Chicago, for amicus curiae Women's Bar Ass'n of Ill.
OPINION
Chief Justice FITZGERALD delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion.

At issue in this appeal is the constitutionality of section 2-1706.5 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Code) (735 ILCS 5/2-1706.5 (West 2008)), which was adopted as part of Public Act 94-677 (Act) (see Pub. Act 94-677, § 330, eff. August 25, 2005). Section 2-1706.5 sets certain caps on noneconomic damages in medical malpractice cases. Relying on this court's decision in Best v. Taylor Machine Works, 179 Ill.2d 367, 228 Ill.Dec. 636, 689 N.E.2d 1057 (1997), the circuit court of Cook County ruled that the statutory caps violate the separation of powers clause of the Illinois Constitution (Ill. Const. 1970, art. II, § 1) and declared the entire Act invalid, pursuant to its inseverability provision (Pub. Act 94-677, § 995, eff. August 25, 2005).

For the reasons discussed below, we affirm in part and reverse in part the judgment of the circuit court, and remand this matter for further proceedings.

BACKGROUND

In November 2006, plaintiffs Abigaile Lebron (Abigaile), a minor, and her mother, Frances Lebron (Lebron), filed a medical malpractice and declaratory judgment action in the Cook County circuit court against defendants Gottlieb Memorial Hospital, Roberto Levi-D'Ancona, M.D., and Florence Martinoz, R.N. According to the five-count amended complaint, Lebron was under the care of Dr. Levi-D'Ancona during her pregnancy. On October 31, 2005,

930 N.E.2d 900
Lebron was admitted to Gottlieb, where Dr. Levi -D'Ancona delivered Abigaile by Caesarean section. Martinoz assisted in the delivery and provided the principal nursing care from the time of Lebron's admission. In counts I through IV, plaintiffs alleged that as the direct and proximate result of certain acts and omissions by defendants, Abigaile sustained numerous permanent injuries including, but not limited to, “ severe brain injury, cerebral palsy, cognitive mental impairment, inability to be fed normally such that she must be fed by a gastronomy tube, and inability to develop normal neurological function.”

In count V, relevant to this appeal, plaintiffs sought a judicial determination of their rights with respect to Public Act 94-677 and a declaration that certain provisions of the Act, applicable to plaintiffs' cause of action, violate the Illinois Constitution. Although plaintiffs challenged several provisions of the Act, at issue here is plaintiffs' challenge to the caps on noneconomic damages set forth in section 2-1706.5 of the Code.1 Plaintiffs alleged that Abigaile “has sustained disability, disfigurement, pain and suffering to the extent that damages for those injuries will greatly exceed the applicable limitations on noneconomic damages under Public Act 94-677.” Citing Best, plaintiffs alleged that the limitation on damages violates the separation of powers clause of the Illinois Constitution ( Ill. Const. 1970, art. II, § 1) by permitting the General Assembly to supplant the judiciary's authority in determining whether a remittitur is appropriate under the facts of the case. Again citing to Best, plaintiffs further alleged that the limitation on non-economic damages constitutes improper special legislation ( Ill. Const. 1970, art. IV, § 13) in that “the restrictions on noneconomic damages grant limited liability specially and without just cause to a select group of health care provider[s].” Plaintiffs additionally alleged that the damages caps violate Abigaile's right to a trial by jury ( Ill. Const. 1970, art. I, § 13), due process ( Ill. Const. 1970, art. I, § 2), equal protection ( Ill. Const. 1970, art. I, § 2), and a certain and complete remedy ( Ill. Const. 1970, art. I, § 12).2

Plaintiffs filed a motion for partial judgment on the pleadings as to count V, and Gottlieb and Martinoz countered with a motion for partial summary judgment on count V. Dr. Levi-D'Ancona moved for judgment on the pleadings as to his counterclaim seeking a declaration that the challenged statutory provisions do not violate the Illinois Constitution. After briefing and oral argument, the circuit court granted plaintiffs' motion for partial judgment

930 N.E.2d 901
on the pleadings, and denied Dr. Levi-D'Ancona's motion for judgment on the pleadings as to his counterclaim to the extent it sought a declaration that the damages caps are consistent with the separation of powers clause. The circuit court did not expressly deny the motion for partial summary judgment as to count V filed by Gottlieb and Martinoz.

The circuit court determined that the statutory cap on noneconomic damages in section 2-1706.5, like the statutory damages cap at issue in Best, operates as a legislative remittitur in violation of the separation of powers clause of the Illinois Constitution (Ill. Const. 1970, art. II, § 1). Based on the Act's inseverability provision (Pub. Act 94-677, § 995, eff. August 25, 2005), the circuit court invalidated the Act in its entirety. The circuit court declined to consider plaintiffs' other constitutional challenges to the Act. The circuit court later amended its order to add the findings required by Supreme Court Rule 18 (210 Ill.2d R. 18) and, on the motion of Gottlieb and Martinoz, made a Rule 304(a) finding of appealability (210 Ill. 2d R. 304(a)).

Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 302(a) (210 Ill.2d R. 302(a)), Gottlieb and Martinoz, and Dr. Levi-D'Ancona, filed appeals directly with this court. We consolidated these appeals for review, and allowed the Illinois Attorney General to intervene to defend the constitutionality of the Act. See 210 Ill. 2d R. 19. We also allowed numerous individuals and organizations to file briefs amicus curiae. See 210 Ill. 2d R. 345.3

ANALYSIS
I

This case comes to us following the grant of plaintiffs' motion for judgment on the pleadings. See 735 ILCS 5/2-615(e) (West 2008). “ ‘[A] motion for judgment on the pleadings is like a motion for summary judgment limited to the pleadings.’ ” Employers Insurance of Wausau v. Ehlco Liquidating Trust, 186 Ill.2d 127, 138, 237 Ill.Dec. 82, 708 N.E.2d 1122 (1999), quoting 3 R. Michael, Illinois Practice § 27.2, at 494 (1989), citing Tompkins v. France, 21 Ill.App.2d 227, 157 N.E.2d 799 (1959). Judgment on the pleadings is proper if the pleadings disclose no genuine issue of material fact and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. M.A.K. v. Rush-Presbyterian-St.-Luke's Medical Center, 198 Ill.2d 249, 255, 261 Ill.Dec. 710, 764 N.E.2d 1 (2001); Employers Insurance of Wausau, 186 Ill.2d at 138, 237 Ill.Dec. 82, 708 N.E.2d 1122. We review the grant of judgment on the pleadings de...

To continue reading

Request your trial
393 cases
  • Laws v. Grayeyes
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Utah
    • September 30, 2021
    ...Lansing Schs. Educ. Ass'n , 792 N.W.2d at 693 ).65 For example, the Michigan court cited Lebron v. Gottlieb Mem'l Hosp. , 237 Ill.2d 217, 341 Ill.Dec. 381, 930 N.E.2d 895, 917 n.4 (2010), which observed that, because the Illinois Constitution lacks an analog to the federal cases and controv......
  • Downtown Disposal Servs., Inc. v. City of Chi., Docket No. 112040
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Illinois
    • November 1, 2012
    ...that "everybody's doing it" is scarcely a litmus test for the validity of a legal proposition. See Lebron v. Gottlieb Memorial Hospital, 237 Ill. 2d 217, 249 (2010). "Although decisions from other jurisdictions can provide guidance where precedent from Illinois is lacking" (id.), "Illinois ......
  • Beason v. I. E. Miller Servs., Inc.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Oklahoma
    • April 23, 2019
    ......50 Johnson v. St. Vincent Hosp., Inc. , 273 Ind. 374, 404 N.E.2d 585 (1980), overruled on other grounds, ...55 Lebron v. Gottlieb Memorial Hospital , 237 Ill. 2d 217, 341 Ill.Dec. 381, 930 ......
  • Lansing Sch. Educ. Ass'n v. Lansing Bd. of Educ.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Michigan
    • July 31, 2010
    ...that "in Florida, unlike the federal system, the doctrine of standing has not been rigidly followed"; Lebron v. Gottlieb Mem. Hosp., 237 Ill.2d 217, 254, 341 Ill.Dec. 381, 930 N.E.2d 895 (2010), explaining that "[t]his court is not required to follow federal law on issues of standing, and h......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
9 books & journal articles
  • Table of Cases
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Archive Illinois Pretrial Practice. Volume 2 - 2014 Contents
    • August 12, 2014
    ...LeBanc v. G.D. Searle & Co. 178 Ill App 236, 533 NE2d 41, 127 Ill Dec 423 (1st Dist 1988), §7:80 Lebron v. Gottlieb Memorial Hospital, 237 Ill2d 217, 930 NE2d 895, 341 Ill Dec 381 (2010), §6:09 Leen v. Carr , 945 F Supp 1151 (ND Ill 1996), §16:28 Lee v. City of Decatur , 256 Ill App3d 192, ......
  • Subject Matter Jurisdiction
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Archive Illinois Pretrial Practice. Volume 1 - 2018 Contents
    • August 9, 2018
    ...to rule. Any action taken by a court without jurisdiction is null and void and cannot be waived. [ Lebron v. Gottlieb Memorial Hospital, 237 Ill2d 217, 930 NE2d 895, 341 Ill Dec 381 (2010).] B. Related Concepts §6:10 Personal Jurisdiction Subject matter jurisdiction and personal jurisdictio......
  • Subject Matter Jurisdiction
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Archive Illinois Pretrial Practice. Volume 1 - 2016 Contents
    • August 10, 2016
    ...to rule. Any action taken by a court without jurisdiction is null and void and cannot be waived. [ Lebron v. Gottlieb Memorial Hospital, 237 Ill2d 217, 930 NE2d 895, 341 Ill Dec 381 (2010).] B. Related Concepts §6:10 Personal Jurisdiction Subject matter jurisdiction and personal jurisdictio......
  • Toward a Theory of Medical Malpractice
    • United States
    • Iowa Law Review No. 97-4, May 2012
    • May 1, 2012
    ...in original) (quoting GA. CONST. OF 1983, art. 1, § 1, para. 1(a)) (internal quotation marks omitted)); Lebron v. Gottlieb Mem’l Hosp., 930 N.E.2d 895, 908–14 (Ill. 2010) (striking down as unconstitutional Illinois’ $1,000,000 cap on a medical malpractice victim’s noneconomic recovery); Fer......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 provisions
  • Act 097-1145, HB 5151 – AN ACT concerning civil law
    • United States
    • Illinois Session Laws
    • January 1, 2011
    ...367 (1997), the Illinois Supreme Court held that Public Act 89-7 was void in its entirety. In Lebron v. Gottlieb Memorial Hospital, 237 Ill.2d 217 (2010), the Illinois Supreme Court held that Public Act 94-677 was void in its (b) The purpose of this Act is to re-enact and repeal statutory p......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT