The information below explains general legal concepts for educational purposes. It is not legal, financial, or tax advice, and it does not create an attorney-client relationship. Laws and procedures vary by jurisdiction and may change. The author and publisher disclaim liability for actions taken based on this content.
Key Facts
- State level: The Illinois Supreme Court held the noneconomic-damages limitation in 735 ILCS 5/2-1706.5 violated the Illinois Constitution’s separation of powers clause and was invalid.
- State level: The Illinois Supreme Court held Public Act 94-677 invalid and void in its entirety because the Act contained an inseverability provision.
- State level: Section 2-1706.5 set different historical noneconomic damages caps of $1,000,000 for awards against a hospital and $500,000 for awards against a physician.
- State level: Public Act 94-0677 included “health care crisis” legislative findings and framed limiting non-economic damages as a civil justice reform.
- State level: Public Act 97-1145 stated it aimed to re-enact and repeal provisions so the statutory text conformed to Best v. Taylor Machine Works and LeBron v. Gottlieb Memorial Hospital.
- State level: Illinois codification now lists 735 ILCS 5/2-1706.5 as repealed, with the repeal attributed to P.A. 97-1145 effective 1-18-13.
Last reviewed: May 2026. Legal rules, forms, deadlines, and procedures can change by jurisdiction, agency, and court system.
- Archive recovery frame and what this page does with the missing ABA text
- The Illinois Supreme Court’s separation of powers holding in LeBron
- What section 2 1706.5 capped historically
- Why the decision treated Public Act 94 677 as invalid and void
- The policy framing lawmakers used in Public Act 94 0677
- The legislature’s conforming response in Public Act 97 1145
- Comparison the historical cap, the constitutional ruling, and the later codification status
- Procedural ripples described by Illinois appellate courts
- Current status of the specific cap section discussed in LeBron
- Where the archived ABA leadership statement fits in
- Related legal information
- Sources
Archive recovery frame and what this page does with the missing ABA text
The legacy ABA NOW entry referenced in the import could not be retrieved from the provided legacy URL in this research run, so this archive recovery does not quote or reproduce Carolyn B. Lamm’s statement. Instead, it explains the Illinois Supreme Court decision that the entry points readers toward: LeBron v. Gottlieb Memorial Hospital and the noneconomic-damages cap provision the court held unconstitutional.
The Illinois Supreme Court’s separation of powers holding in LeBron
In LeBron v. Gottlieb Memorial Hospital, the Illinois Supreme Court addressed the constitutionality of section 2-1706.5 of the Code of Civil Procedure (735 ILCS 5/2-1706.5), which set caps on noneconomic damages in medical malpractice cases. The court held that this limitation violated the Illinois Constitution’s separation of powers clause and therefore was invalid (see the opinion text at LeBron v. Gottlieb Memorial Hospital, No. 105741).
What section 2 1706.5 capped historically
The LeBron opinion describes that section 2-1706.5 imposed two different noneconomic-damages caps, depending on who the award was against, including these historical limits:
- Awards against a hospital (and related covered persons and entities) had a cap of $1,000,000.
- Awards against a physician (and related covered persons and business or corporate entities) had a cap of $500,000.
Those cap amounts appear in the LeBron opinion’s discussion of what section 2-1706.5 provided (see LeBron v. Gottlieb Memorial Hospital).
Why the decision treated Public Act 94 677 as invalid and void
Beyond striking the noneconomic-damages limitation, LeBron also addressed the effect of an inseverability provision in the law that created section 2-1706.5: Public Act 94-677. The Illinois Supreme Court held that because the Act contained an inseverability clause, the court would hold the Act invalid and void in its entirety (see LeBron v. Gottlieb Memorial Hospital).
In plain terms, an inseverability clause changes the stakes: rather than leaving parts of the larger statute standing, the court’s ruling treated the whole public act as unable to survive in that form.
The policy framing lawmakers used in Public Act 94 0677
Public Act 94-0677 (the enacted form tied to Public Act 94-677 referenced in LeBron) included legislative findings. Those findings tied an asserted “health care crisis” and rising medical liability insurance costs to proposed reforms in the civil justice system, including limiting non-economic damages (see Public Act 094-0677, SB0475 Enrolled).
That same public act text also contained an inseverability concept, which later mattered to the constitutional outcome in LeBron (see Public Act 094-0677, SB0475 Enrolled).
The legislature’s conforming response in Public Act 97 1145
After LeBron, Illinois lawmakers enacted Public Act 97-1145. The Act’s purpose section states that it was intended to re-enact and repeal statutory provisions so the statutory text would conform to decisions of the Illinois Supreme Court in Best v. Taylor Machine Works and LeBron v. Gottlieb Memorial Hospital (see Public Act 97-1145).
What Public Act 97 1145 repealed
Public Act 97-1145 included conforming statutory changes to the Code of Civil Procedure for medical malpractice cases and expressly includes repeal of the relevant noneconomic-damages cap section number. The public act’s page states the Code was amended by repealing sections that included 2-1706.5 (see Public Act 97-1145).
Comparison the historical cap, the constitutional ruling, and the later codification status
| Topic | What the law did in the period addressed by LeBron | What happened after LeBron and the conforming legislation |
|---|---|---|
| Noneconomic-damages cap (section 2-1706.5) | Set two historical caps based on the defendant category ($1,000,000 vs. $500,000) (see LeBron). | The Illinois Supreme Court held the limitation invalid due to a separation-of-powers violation (see LeBron). |
| Larger act that created the cap | Public Act 94-677 included an inseverability structure that affected what survived the ruling (see LeBron). | LeBron held Public Act 94-677 invalid and void in its entirety (see LeBron). |
| Current statutory codification of section 2-1706.5 | Not available as in-force law after the conforming legislation. | ILCS lists 735 ILCS 5/2-1706.5 as repealed, with the repeal attributed to P.A. 97-1145 effective 1-18-13 (see 735 ILCS 5/2-1706.5 (Repealed)). |
This comparison separates the historical cap the LeBron opinion discussed from the later legislative conforming and current codification status.
Procedural ripples described by Illinois appellate courts
The LeBron decision did not only affect what happened to the noneconomic-damages cap provision. During the aftermath period, Illinois appellate courts described how the invalidation of Public Act 94-677 could affect procedural questions in medical malpractice cases under the Code of Civil Procedure.
In McDonald v. Lopov, an Illinois Appellate Court discussed that after the Illinois Supreme Court held Public Act 94-677 “invalid and void in its entirety,” parts of section 2-622 that the public act had amended reverted to earlier versions (see McDonald v. Lopov).
In Collins v. Fleming, another Illinois Appellate Court described the practical effect of those earlier section-2-622 versions. The court stated that under the pre-2005 version, the trial court was vested with discretion to allow late filings on good cause, and the appellate court remanded for determination of good cause where the trial court failed to exercise its discretion (see Collins v. Fleming).
Current status of the specific cap section discussed in LeBron
Illinois’s codification page for 735 ILCS 5/2-1706.5 lists the provision as (Repealed) and identifies the repeal as P.A. 97-1145, effective 1-18-13 (see 735 ILCS 5/2-1706.5 (Repealed)).
That codification snapshot is often where confusion starts: people may recall the historical cap from the LeBron discussion, but the current ILCS status shows the section number itself no longer remains in force.
Where the archived ABA leadership statement fits in
A recurring theme in major court decisions is how different institutions respond publicly. In this archive recovery, the ABA NOW statement is treated as historical commentary tied to a constitutional ruling. The legal effect and the controlling outcomes come from the Illinois Supreme Court opinion and the later Illinois legislative codification described above (see LeBron and 735 ILCS 5/2-1706.5 (Repealed)).
Related legal information
- ABA president statements tied to court decisions
- Separation of powers and ABA materials in the archives
