Illinois Medical Malpractice Damages
There are three types of damages that are generally available in Illinois law: economic damages, non-economic damages and punitive damages. As the name suggests, punitive damages are used as a form of punishment, and are not available in medical malpractice. The reasoning behind no punitive damages is that medical malpractice is a form of negligence, which is a non-intentional tort that society generally does not punish.
Economic damages include all of the medical bills and expenses that arise from malpractice, which can range from hospital bills, prescriptions and transportation costs involved. There are no caps, or limitations to the amount of medical malpractice economic damages that juries can award. Anything that a patient is billed for as a result of malpractice is an economic damage that doctors and hospitals are liable for.
Non-economic damages involve payment for all of the intangible expenses that patents endure, such as pain and suffering or even loss of relationships. As of August of 2005, non-economic damages are limited to $500,000.00 against individual doctors and $1,000,000.00 against hospitals. Thus, an Illinois jury’s decision for the total amount of damages owed to a patient is limited to the medical costs associated with the malpractice, plus a maximum of $1.5 million for non-economic damages.
Comparative Negligence in Illinois Medical Malpractice
Once a conclusion is reached for the amount of damages that were incurred by a patient, juries are asked to deduct from those damages a percentage of the patient’s own comparative fault. Damages can be deducted as far as 50%, but once a patient’s fault is recognized as more than half, damages for the plaintiff are removed entirely.
The 50/50 comparative negligence test in Illinois only allows medical malpractice recovery against doctors when patients are 50% or less at fault. For example, if a patient is released from a hospital, and instructed by a doctor not to drive for one week while on antibiotics, but ignores the instructions, crashes a car and is severely injured, a jury would probably find that although the antibiotic may have caused the accident, the patient was more than 50% at fault for ignoring the doctor’s instructions, and thus barred from recovery against the doctor who ordered the prescription.
On the other hand, in closer cases, juries can determine that patients are less than 50% at fault. In a recent case, a patient was rushed to a hospital for severe allergies that were aggravated by his smoking habits. The patient died when doctors administered a food supplement through his feeding tube that contained milk, which he was also allergic to. The jury found that the patient was 38% at fault, because it was his smoking that contributed to the patient’s weakened condition that led to his death. Because the patient was less than 50% at fault, doctors were responsible for paying the patient’s estate according to their share of the blame, which was 62%.
The calculation of damages, and comparative negligence along with restrictions such as the statute of limitations and requirements of expert testimony regarding standard care helps juries arrive at fair verdicts in extremely difficult cases. The downside to the extremely involved process is that it results in long lawsuits that can last for years and involve expensive legal fees. Nevertheless, the Illinois legal system strives to strike an appropriate balance between protecting both patients and doctors.
Chicago Malpractice Lawyer and Chicago Malpractice Lawyer
Fetch pragmatic knowledge in the sphere of immune system boosters - make sure to go through the web site. The times have come when concise info is truly within one click, use this opportunity.