Illinois` medical malpractice law has been ruled unconstitutional, evidently because it has been working. Circuit Judge Joseph M. Wosik held that the law infringes on citizens` rights because it makes suits against doctors and hospitals less inviting.
It also infringes on lawyers` incomes, which is the chief reason why the law is still an issue. Since it took effect last summer, malpractice suits have dwindled from 40 or 50 filings a day to 1 or 2.
Still, Judge Wosik`s ruling is not unwelcome. The malpractice act will now be appealed to the Illinois Supreme Court, which would have had to settle the constitutional question sooner or later. The net effect will be to settle it sooner.
The compromise law was enacted after doctors and lawyers slugged it out in the General Assembly. The need for it was plain. Malpractice suits were multiplying; doctors, the chief targets, had to pay skyrocketing insurance rates to protect themselves, and those who could not afford them were being forced out of practice. The choice was between trying to discourage frivolous suits and seeing the state`s supply of doctors depleted.
The law was a reasonable answer. It provides a filtering-out process: A panel consisting of a judge, a lawyer and a medical specialist must screen all malpractice cases before they go to trial. If a panel unanimously finds that a plaintiff`s case isn`t good enough for trial, the plaintiff still can sue, but may be liable for the defendant`s legal costs if he loses.
Judge Wosik ruled that the threat of such costs would keep many would-be plaintiffs from going to court–which, of course, is the whole point of this provision. Plaintiffs who share the risk will be more inclined to weigh the consequences of suing.
Under the law, judgments of $250,000 or more must be paid out in installments over the patient`s lifetime. This is inconvenient for some plaintiffs and their lawyers; blocking huge lump-sum payments keeps them from making a quick killing. But the idea was to keep hefty judgments from bankrupting the defendant, while making sure that the plaintiff`s future medical costs were covered.
The judge objected to this too, noting that inflation would reduce the value of payments over the years. Apparently the Constitution protects the money interests of only one side.
The Supreme Court will deal with these and other concerns. One can only hope it will not share Judge Wosik`s view about malpractice suits: that the Constitution requires doctors to be standing targets but lets plaintiffs and their lawyers shoot from behind a barricade.
