The Illinois Supreme Court recently struck a blow to "tort reformers" across the country, declaring that the nation's most comprehensive and draconian "reform" statute was invalid in its entirety.

In a 5-1 decision, the court found that core provisions of the law -- including a $500,000 noneconomic damages cap in products liability, medical negligence, and wrongful death cases -- improperly encroached on the judiciary's powers and violated the state constitutional proscription against "special legislation" by arbitrarily discriminating against injured plaintiffs. (Best v. Taylor Machine Works, No. 81890 (Ill. Dec. 18, 1997).)

AAJ President Richard D. Hailey of Indianapolis hailed the decision as a victory for injured workers and consumers and predicted it would have far-reaching impact. "This decision -- while directly affecting the rights of the citizens of Illinois -- has national importance and sends a clear signal that America's civil justice system should not be treated as a political football," Hailey said.

The court struck down four key provisions of the law, but seemed particularly troubled by the damages cap, which the court said violated two constitutional doctrines. The cap violated a constitutional ban on special legislation, the court noted, by unfairly discriminating against plaintiffs who suffer the most severe injuries and conferring a benefit on those defendants who cause the injuries.

The legislative limitations on damages also violated the separation of powers clause, the court said. "[The damages cap] undercuts the power, and obligation of the judiciary to reduce excessive verdicts. In our view, [the cap] functions as a 'legislative remittitur,'" wrote Justice Mary Ann McMorrow for the majority.

The court dismissed the argument that the cap would reduce systemic costs of the civil justice system and relieve triers of fact from the burden of having to assess what "reformers" said were "inherently unmeasurable" noneconomic damages.

"The $500,000 limit does not reestablish the credibility of the tort system, and does nothing to assist the trier of fact in determining appropriate damages for noneconomic injuries," McMorrow wrote. "The limitation actually undermines the stated goal of providing consistency and rationality to the civil justice system."

The court also found unconstitutional sections of the law that abolished joint and several liability and that mandated unlimited disclosure of plaintiffs' medical information and records. These provisions violated the separation of powers doctrine, the court concluded, and allowing defendants unlimited access to plaintiffs' medical records improperly infringed on individual privacy rights.

Determining that these provisions and the damages cap were "core" components of the law and could not be severed from the remainder of the statute, the court declared the entire statute invalid.

Hailey said the court's decision makes it clear that "tort reform" measures like damages caps cannot pass constitutional muster.

"The Illinois Supreme Court unequivocally stated that limiting an injured person's legal damages constituted special legislation benefiting a select few, thus violating the state constitution," Hailey said. The court's reasoning and analysis, Hailey added, will aid consumer and labor groups that are now challenging similar "reform" statutes in other states, such as Indiana, Ohio, and Oregon.