Pain & Suffering: Medical Malpractice vs. Ordinary Injury

By the FigureMyTax Editorial Team · How we calculate

Illinois tried to draw this line twice through legislation, and its Supreme Court erased the distinction both times.

Two caps, two rulings, no surviving distinction

After Best v. Taylor Machine Works (1997) struck down a broad 1995 cap covering all common-law actions, the legislature tried again in 2005 with a narrower, medical-malpractice-specific cap as the centerpiece of a larger reform package. Lebron v. Gottlieb Memorial Hospital (2010) struck that one down too — on separation-of-powers grounds this time, rather than the special-legislation theory used in Best.

The entire reform package fell with it

Because the 2005 act contained a non-severability clause, the Lebron ruling didn't just remove the damages cap — it invalidated the entire reform package, including provisions on expert witness standards and physician disciplinary transparency that weren't themselves constitutionally defective.

Fault works the same way too

The same 735 ILCS 5/2-1116 modified comparative negligence rule, with its 51% bar, applies uniformly across both claim types — no special fault standard exists for malpractice.

Procedure is where the real difference lives

The identical damages and fault rules don't make malpractice claims simpler overall. They carry real procedural requirements ordinary injury claims don't, including an affidavit of merit requirement establishing a reasonable basis for the claim before it can even proceed.

This is general information, not legal advice. Medical malpractice claims involve procedural requirements beyond what's described here. Confirm how Illinois's rules apply to your specific case with a licensed attorney.