A Cook County judge has declared Illinois’ Democrat-dominated state legislature and Gov. JB Pritzker violated the state constitution in enacting a new state law that changed the way interest is calculated on personal injury and wrongful death judgments, starting the clock at the moment the lawsuit was filed.
In her ruling, Cook County Judge Marcia Maras declared the new law infringes on the rights of defendants to defend themselves before a jury, while also encroaching on the power of the jury to properly award damages under the law.
Further, Judge Maras said the law unconstitutionally creates different classes of plaintiffs and defendants, allowing plaintiffs in personal injury and wrongful death cases to extract greater paydays than those allowed to plaintiffs in other kinds of lawsuits. And the law also forces companies and others defending against personal injury and wrongful death actions to mount their defense under threat of an unfair and discriminatory penalty, essentially for not agreeing to satisfy plaintiffs’ demands quickly enough.
“The requirement that prejudgment interest be added to a jury’s award removes the jury from determining questions of fact as to what is reasonable and just compensation for a party’s injuries and conditions a defendant’s right to a jury trial on the payment of a penalty,” Maras wrote. “This purpose cannot be construed to advance any compelling State interest.”
Maras’ ruling came on May 27, almost a year to the day since Pritzker quietly signed the legislation docketed as Senate Bill 72 into law, in the final moments of business before the start of the 2021 Memorial Day weekend.
The legislation had ignited fierce opposition from many in Illinois, particularly from groups like the Illinois State Medical Society, which lobbies on behalf of doctors, and the Illinois Manufacturers Association.
Lawsuit reform advocates said the legislation was a “sop” and a “gift” to trial lawyers in Illinois by the Democrats who control Springfield, and who regularly receive massive political contributions from the trial lawyers who lead such lawsuits.
Supporters of the law said the measure was needed to help encourage the parties to settle lawsuits, rather than engage in protracted court fights, as well-capitalized defendants seek to wear defendants down to discourage lawsuits.
However, there was very little actual debate on the legislation, as Democrats rushed it to the floor of the Illinois Capitol for votes in the wee hours of the morning on the final day of the legislative session.
Indeed, in her ruling, Maras noted the tactics employed by the Democratic supermajority left her unable to look to the “legislative debate history” for any help in discerning the intent and thoughts of state lawmakers on the law and how it might pass constitutional muster.
Maras’ ruling came in a medical malpractice case. The lawsuit was filed in 2017 by plaintiff Jennifer Hyland, who suffered the death of one of her twin children during childbirth. She accused three doctors, identified as Christoper Barbour, Catherine Nolan-Watson and Li Fan, along with Advocate Good Samaritan Hospital, of malpractice, for allegedly prescribing medication to which Hyland was allergic, triggering a reaction.
While the lawsuit was pending, Pritzker signed SB72 into law, changing the rules concerning prejudgment interest and leaving the defendants suddenly facing substantially greater payouts.
In response, Nolan-Watson filed a motion, joined by Advocate and the other defendants, asking Judge Maras to strike down SB72 as unconstitutional.
They principally argued the new law violates their rights to jury trials and the Illinois state constitution’s ban on so-called “special legislation,” written to benefit only certain classes or groups of people in Illinois.
While attorneys representing plaintiffs claimed the law should not be read to interfere with jury deliberations and damage calculations.
But Judge Maras found otherwise.
She noted the law requires courts to tack prejudgment interest onto any jury award that exceeds the highest settlement offer made by the defendants within one year of the lawsuit being filed.
This requirement, she said, improperly interferes with the authority of juries to calculate damages, under the law.
She noted a study conducted in 1983 by Stephen J. Carroll of Rand Corporation, showed juries were at that time were already baking some form of prejudgment interest into their verdicts, taking into account the amount of time that may have elapsed between the filing of a lawsuit and an eventual trial.
Further, Judge Maras said the law violated the state constitution by granting special status and benefits to plaintiffs in personal injury cases.
The law, she said, divides tort parties into two groups: Parties to personal injury and wrongful death actions who are subject to prejudgment interest, and all other tort parties who are not,” Maras wrote. “It clearly and arbitrarily favors personal injury and wrongful death plaintiffs and is not rationally related to any State interest.
“For these reasons, the Amendment (SB72) is unconstitutional.”
Maras’ decision does not strike the law down immediately, as it is limited to the case before her. But the ruling sets up a potential showdown before the Illinois Supreme Court over the law’s constitutionality, as plaintiffs have the right to a direct appeal.
It also will allow other defendants facing personal injury and wrongful death claims to also directly challenge the law’s constitutionality as a defense against lawsuits claiming prejudgment interest.