 |
Malpractice Act Comes of Age |
The Illinois Malpractice Reform Act of 1985 won a hard-fought victory this year, as the Illinois Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the provision which allows health care providers to file malicious prosecution lawsuits without evidence of "excessive damages."
The Illinois Malpractice Reform Act was adopted by the state legislature in an attempt to reduce the number of frivolous malpractice lawsuits burdening the state judiciary. Normally, lawsuits alleging malicious prosecution by a plaintiff required evidence of "excessive" economic damages (e.g., damages in excess of routine defense costs, time constraints and productivity) to demonstrate that a plaintiff filed a lawsuit with malicious intent, and/or "a reckless disregard for relevant facts."
The Malpractice Reform Act was put to a lengthy test in 1988, when a patient filed a lawsuit against Jerald Miller, DDS, for alleged failure to diagnose an impacted wisdom tooth, leading to multiple complications. In the course of the trial, Dr. Miller was not only able to prove that he had properly diagnosed the patient and advised her to seek treatment from an oral surgeon, but that he was not the first to do so. The case wended its way through the courts until 1995, when a jury ruled in Dr. Miller's favor.
Later that year, Dr. Miller struck back with a lawsuit alleging malicious prosecution, arguing that the trial had caused damage to his practice and reputation, enormous attorney fees, and increased malpractice premium. The plaintiff, however, appealed for dismissal, arguing that the Malpractice Reform Act was unconstitutional, since it exempts healthcare professionals from having to prove "excessive damages" - the normal requirement for a malicious prosecution lawsuit.
The Circuit Court originally denied the plaintiff's motion to dismiss. The case, however, was re-examined in 1999, after a ruling in another case declared the 1995 Civil Justice Reform Statute unconstitutional. By applying that argument to Dr. Miller's case, the court concluded that the Malpractice Reform Act was unconstitutional, and Dr. Miller's victory was negated.
Dr. Miller appealed to the Illinois Supreme Court. While examining the constitutionality of the Malpractice Reform Act, the Supreme Court concluded that health care providers were not afforded preferential treatment with the Malpractice Reform Act, since at the time of its adoption the Illinois legislature was charged with reducing the number of medical malpractice lawsuits overwhelming the Illinois court system. In the Supreme Court's opinion, the "special damages" exemption was intended to protect doctors, by warning plaintiffs that they could face legal action for filing frivolous malpractice lawsuits.
The Miller v. Rosenberg odyssey reaffirms the necessity the Illinois Medical Practice Act - not to mention the need for further legislation that protects physicians from malicious lawsuits that have nothing to do with the quality of patient care. More importantly, the fact that the Illinois Supreme Court upheld the Act's constitutionality indicates that the state legislature and judiciary may be ready to reconsider tort reform initiatives in the not-so-distant future.