News
Illinois Supreme Court strikes down medical malpractice caps
February 04, 2010
(Crain’s) — The Illinois Supreme Court on Thursday struck down a 4-year-old law that caps jury payouts in medical malpractice cases, infuriating doctors and hospitals that claim those caps were helping to tame once-soaring liability costs.
The court ruled that the caps on pain and suffering and other non-economic damages — $500,000 per case for doctors and $1 million for hospitals — are unconstitutional. Those limits were passed by the Legislature in 2005 after a fierce lobbying battle by medical providers, who said spiking liability insurance premiums were driving neurosurgeons, obstetricians and other doctors out of Illinois.
The court ruled that the law violated the Illinois Constitution’s “separation of powers” clause, essentially finding that lawmakers interfered with the right of juries to determine fair damages. It upheld a 2007 ruling by a Cook County Circuit Court judge.
It’s the third time the state Supreme Court has quashed limits on medical malpractice awards, having tossed out similar laws in 1976 and 1997.
Whether removing the caps will have an effect on the number of malpractice lawsuits or the premiums doctors and hospitals pay for insurance is a source of endless debate between the two sides.
Medical groups and their insurance companies contend the ruling could prompt more malpractice suits, which have dropped since the law took effect in August 2005, and rates could rise again following several years of stability.
Since the law took hold, “patient access to health care has expanded, frivolous lawsuits have ebbed and malpractice rates have leveled off or decreased for many doctors,” said Harold Jensen, chairman of Chicago-based ISMIE Mutual Insurance Co., the state’s largest malpractice insurer. “This is practical proof the law is working.”
Liability insurance rates for Illinois doctors generally have held steady or dipped slightly since the caps took effect, according to survey data from Medical Liability Monitor, an Oak Park-based trade publication.
Illinois’ malpractice-insurance rates have followed national trends. Trial lawyers and other critics of the caps contend that the flattening of rates has been the result of natural underwriting cycles and other state reforms that helped make the Illinois’ insurance market more competitive.
“For years the insurance industry has tried to convince the public that patients who are victims of medical errors are responsible for the increased health care costs,” said a statement from the Illinois Trial Lawyers Assn., the chief opponent of the caps on damages. “But . . . the Illinois Supreme Court has decided that the health care crisis cannot be solved by further hurting the patients who are victims of medical errors.”
In declaring the jury-award caps unconstitutional, the court’s decision also scraps several other insurance reforms included in the original law that both sides have said helped ease liability costs.
One example: A provision that forced ISMIE, the state’s dominant malpractice insurer, to disclose the data it uses to set rates. That has made it easier for smaller companies to compete for business, luring a few firms back into Illinois.
Hospitals worry that “insurance companies that came into Illinois might decide they no longer want to do business,” said Mark Deaton, general counsel at the Illinois Hospital Assn.
I own a condominium. The Board of Managers says I’m behind on my monthly assessment payment, and is threatening to evict me if I don’t pay. How can they evict me if I own the unit? If they can, do I lose my unit?
May 16, 2010
A condominium owner can be evicted for not paying their monthly assessment. If evicted, they don’t lose ownership of the unit, but do lose the right to live there.
Condo owners own their individual unit, and share ownership of common areas outside their unit. They also share common expenses. Those expenses can be for just minor things, like trimming the grass, or can include major expenses like monthly utilities, or roofs and furnaces.
An owner’s share of the common expenses is determined by their percentage of ownership. That’s determined by what fraction they own of the total owned area. For example, if a unit is one of 100 identically sized units, the ownership share is 1%.
The percentage of ownership is the owner’s share of annual expenses, which are laid out in the Board of Manager’s annual budget. Owners pay their share of the annual budget on a monthly basis.
If owners don’t pay, the condo can’t pay its bills, and bad things happen, like no maintenance or no utilities. To avoid that, Illinois eviction law specifically permits condominium associations to evict people who don’t pay.
Evicting for non-payment of condo assessments is very like evicting a regular apartment tenant for non-payment of rent. The two main differences are that a condo owner gets a 30-day (instead of a 5-day) notice before an eviction case gets filed in court, and then gets from 60 to 180 days after an eviction judgment is entered to pay up. Apartment tenants get no chance to pay and stay if a judgment is entered against them.
The 30-day notice starts the eviction process by stating the amount owed, and giving 30 days to pay.
If that doesn’t produce full payment, the second step is filing an eviction case in court. If the condo association prevails, they get a judgment for possession against the condo owner. But that judgment is “stayed”—it can’t be enforced—for 60 to 180 days.
If the owner pays up (including court costs and attorney fees), the judgment is vacated. Things return to normal as if nothing happened.
But if the owner doesn’t pay by the deadline set in the stay, the sheriff can remove them. They still own their unit, but can’t live there anymore.
Eventually, the condo association could foreclose a lien for the unpaid money, and force a sale of the unit to pay the money judgment. But that’s really a separate court procedure. Until then, the condo owner’s still an owner, but not a resident.
U.S. Supreme Court ruling on campaign spending may undermine elections
January 21, 2101
A 63-year-old law limiting political spending by labor and big business was overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court today in a landmark decision that called any ban a restraint of free speech.
The ruling by a sharply divided court lifted restrictions on what corporations and labor organizations may invest to sway voters in federal elections, meaning both groups now have free rein to pour money in support of races for Senate and the House of Representatives in all 50 states.
"The First Amendment protects more than just the individual on a soapbox and the lonely pamphleteer," wrote the court in its 5-4 decision.
But those who have worked to limit campaign spending warned of a huge influx of corporate money that would undermine the integrity of elections large and small.
"With a stroke of the pen, five justices wiped out a century of American history devoted to preventing corporate corruption of our democracy," declared Fred Wertheimer, president of the Washington-based government-watchdog group Democracy 21.
The decision, which now also threatens similar limits imposed by 24 states on state and local races, will change the rules of engagement for congressional races this fall, allowing corporations and unions to target individual races in an effort to influence policy.
The ruling covers the money corporations and unions may spend from their own profits on independent ads and other advocacy efforts on behalf of candidates or issues. It does not change restrictions on direct contributions to candidates for federal office, which remain prohibited under federal law, but are allowed in New Jersey state races.
However, the closely watched case could end New Jersey’s own long-time ban on political contributions from casinos and regulated industries — such as banks and utility companies — which may now be unconstitutional in light of the high court ruling.
"Somewhere, John D. Rockefeller is smiling. This goes back to the robber baron days," said state Sen. Bill Baroni (R-Mercer). "This is a rollback of decades of campaign finance law. It’s going to affect every campaign from fire commissioner to President of the United States."
The Supreme Court decision comes one day after Gov. Chris Christie signed an executive order limiting political donations by labor unions with state contracts, widening New Jersey’s pay-to-play restrictions. But the high-court ruling has no affect on that edict.
Baroni called for a bipartisan legislative commission to review all of New Jersey’s own campaign finance laws, before a court does it first.
"If banks and casinos have no restriction on what they may spend, well that just changes the face of New Jersey politics," he said.
Conservatives, though, hailed the ruling. Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Senate Republican leader, praised the court for "restoring the First Amendment rights" of corporations and unions.
"By previously denying this right, the government was picking winners and losers," McConnell said.
The ruling by the court’s conservative majority found that any limits on independent expenditures by corporations violate First Amendment free-speech rights.
"The government may regulate corporate political speech through disclaimer and disclosure requirements, but it may not suppress that speech altogether," Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote for the majority. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Samuel A. Alito Jr., Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas all supported Kennedy’s opinion.
The decision essentially means that if a corporation wanted to spend millions of dollars of its own money on its own issues ads in support of a candidate, it may do so. The ruling does not change spending rules covering the thousands of political action committees by corporations and special interest groups.
In his dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens, calling the decision a "radical change" in the law, said, "The court’s ruling threatens to undermine the integrity of elected institutions around the nation."
Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer, all joined his 90-page dissent.
The case grew out of a lawsuit against the Federal Election Commission by Citizens United, a conservative group that made a 90-minute movie that targeted Hillary Rodham Clinton during the 2008 Democratic presidential primary.