Opinion ID: 2031948
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: disability and disfigurement

Text: Plaintiff received more than $500,000 for disability and disfigurement. As stated above, plaintiff is entitled to damages only for the disability and disfigurement that resulted from the premature failure of defendant's device. After plaintiff's initial knee injury at work, he was disabled from many activities. Once his knee was replaced by the Howmedica knee, plaintiff was able to be more active, but was still restricted from heavy lifting. At that time, plaintiff's doctor rated him as having a 50% disability for purposes of worker's compensation. Following failure of the Howmedica knee and the necessary revision surgery, plaintiff suffered from various disabilities, including limitations on boating, golf, and gardening. However, plaintiff is not entitled to damages for these restrictions because they existed prior to the implantation of the Howmedica knee and were not caused by its premature failure. Indeed, plaintiff's doctor testified that plaintiff was better off after surgery than if he had never had knee replacement surgery. Once again, this court refuses to rein in the riverboat gambling atmosphere that characterizes the Illinois tort system. See Lee v. Chicago Transit Authority (1992), 152 Ill.2d 432, 480, 178 Ill.Dec. 699, 605 N.E.2d 493 (Heiple, J., dissenting) (While the courts could order remittitur in an appropriate case such as [this], they have shown no willingness to do so).