Court Opinion

ID: 9862453
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-25 01:11:08.691138+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:25:34.700763
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE MILLER, concurring in part and dissenting in part: I joined the court’s opinion in Kunkel v. Walton, 179 Ill. 2d 519 (1997), and therefore I concur in the portion of the present judgment that reaffirms our holding in that case. I do not agree with the majority’s disposition of the remaining issues addressed in the present opinion, however, and accordingly I dissent from those portions of the majority opinion. I Legislation is presumed to be valid, and a party challenging the constitutionality of a statute has the burden of establishing its invalidity. DeLuna v. St. Elizabeth’s Hospital, 147 Ill. 2d 57, 67 (1992); Pre-School Owners Ass’n of Illinois, Inc. v. Department of Children & Family Services, 119 Ill. 2d 268, 275 (1988); Sayles v. Thompson, 99 Ill. 2d 122, 124-25 (1983). This court’s role in evaluating these provisions is necessarily limited. Our function here is not to determine whether the legislature has chosen the best or most effective means of resolving the problems addressed in the legislation. "Our nation was founded in large part on the democratic principle that the powers of government are to be exercised by the people through their elected representatives in the legislature, subject only to certain constitutional limitations. Although this court has never hesitated to invalidate laws that it believes to be unconstitutional, we emphasize that our role is a limited one. The issue here is 'not what the legislature should do but what the legislature can do.’ [Citation.]” People v. Kohrig, 113 Ill. 2d 384, 392-93 (1986). Accordingly, the question before this court is not whether the measures contained in the Civil Justice Reform Amendments of 1995 (the Act) are wise, but simply whether they are constitutional. Bernier v. Burris, 113 Ill. 2d 219, 229-30 (1986). Our cases have repeatedly recognized that no one possesses a vested right in the continuation of any particular remedy or mode of recovery. First of America Trust Co. v. Armstead, 171 Ill. 2d 282, 291 (1996); Bernier v. Burris, 113 Ill. 2d 219, 236 (1986); Trexler v. Chrysler Corp., 104 Ill. 2d 26, 30 (1984). Subject only to the collective will of the voters and to the constraints of the federal and state constitutions, the legislature enjoys broad power to change the common law, and to modify and even eliminate statutory and common law rights and remedies. In People v. Gersch, 135 Ill. 2d 384, 395 (1990), this court explained, "The legislature is formally recognized as having a superior position to that of the courts in establishing common law rules of decision. The Illinois General Assembly has the inherent power to repeal or change the common law, or do away with all or part of it. [Citations.]” "[T]his pervasive power of the legislature to alter the common law” (Gersch, 135 Ill. 2d at 395) reflects the legislature’s superior role in articulating public policy. In Collins v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co., 232 Ill. 37, 44 (1907), this court explained the proper hierarchy between the legislative and judicial branches in matters of public policy: "When the sovereign power of the State has by written constitution declared the public policy of the State on a particular subject, the legislative and judicial departments of the government must accept such declaration as final. When the legislature has declared, by law, the public policy of the State, the judicial department must remain silent, and if a modification or change in such policy is desired the law-making department must be applied to, and not the judiciary, whose function is to declare the law but not to make it.” See also Roanoke Agency, Inc. v. Edgar, 101 Ill. 2d 315, 327 (1984) (quoting Collins); Stroh v. Blackhawk Holding Corp., 48 Ill. 2d 471, 483 (1971) (same). Our cases are replete with references to the legislature’s authority to determine public policy, to prescribe solutions to problems, and to alter the common law. For example, in Maki v. Frelk, 40 Ill. 2d 193, 196 (1968), this court declined to adopt a system of comparative negligence, concluding instead that "such a far-reaching change, if desirable, should be made by the legislature rather than by the court. The General Assembly is the department of government to which the constitution has entrusted the power of changing the laws.” Although this court later decided to adopt comparative negligence on its own, without waiting for legislative action (see Alvis v. Ribar, 85 Ill. 2d 1 (1981)), the court did so not because it believed that the legislature lacked the authority to make that change, but for other reasons. Later, the legislature rejected the pure form of comparative fault adopted by this court in Alvis, replacing it with a modified version (735 ILCS 5/2 — 1116 through 2 — 1118 (West 1996)), which has withstood constitutional challenge (see Reuter v. Korb, 248 Ill. App. 3d 142 (1993)). More recently, in Committee for Educational Rights v. Edgar, 174 Ill. 2d 1, 29-32 (1996), this court declined to rule that the current method of funding public schools is unconstitutional, deciding instead to defer to the legislature’s superior ability to establish public policy and to devise appropriate answers to questions facing our society. Although it is certainly true that the power of the legislature to act in a particular field is not a license to act unconstitutionally, the legislature generally enjoys broad discretion in its determinations of public policy. The majority does not disagree with these basic principles of review, yet the court reaches conclusions that are far different from what our precedents require, and that strike at the heart of the venerable and fundamental relationship between the legislative and judicial branches. The majority undermines these principles when it effectively substitutes its own view of public policy for the legislature’s considered judgment. II The majority devotes a substantial part of its opinion to a discussion of the $500,000 limit imposed by the Act on the recovery of noneconomic losses in personal injury actions. The majority’s principal conclusion is that the statute violates the Illinois Constitution’s prohibition on special legislation. Ill. Const. 1970, art. IV, § 13. Applying the rational basis test, the majority assiduously attempts to locate its special legislation analysis within the framework of our case law, but the majority’s analysis actually marks a significant departure from precedent. The Act’s limitation on the recovery of noneconomic damages is found in section 2 — 1115.1 of the Code of Civil Procedure (735 ILCS 5/2 — 1115.1 (West 1996)). Section 2 — 1115.1(a) provides: "In all common law, statutory or other actions that seek damages on account of death, bodily injury, or physical damage to property based on negligence, or product liability based on any theory or doctrine, recovery of non-economic damages shall be limited to $500,000 per plaintiff. There shall be no recovery for hedonic damages.” Noneconomic damages are defined as "damages which are intangible, including but not limited to damages for pain and suffering, disability, disfigurement, loss of consortium, and loss of society.” 735 ILCS 5/2 — 1115.2(b) (West 1996). In contrast, economic damages, upon which no limit is imposed, are "all damages which are tangible, such as damages for past and future medical expenses, loss of income or earnings and other property loss.” 735 ILCS 5/2 — 1115.2(a) (West 1996). The amount of the limitation on noneconomic damages is to be adjusted annually to reflect changes in the consumer price index. 735 ILCS 5/2 — 1115.1(b) (West 1996). "It is well settled that review of a special legislation challenge is governed by the same standard that applies to review of equal protection challenges. [Citations.]” Cutinello v. Whitley, 161 Ill. 2d 409, 417 (1994). The statute at issue does not impinge on a fundamental right or delimit a suspect or quasi-suspect classification, so the appropriate standard of review that governs the plaintiffs’ special-legislation challenge is the rational basis test, as the majority correctly determines. A court applying this standard must decide whether the challenged classification is rationally related to a legitimate governmental interest. Nevitt v. Langfelder, 157 Ill. 2d 116, 125 (1993); Chicago National League Ball Club, Inc. v. Thompson, 108 Ill. 2d 357, 368 (1985). The considerations that govern a court’s review of a statute under the rational basis test are familiar and have been stated as follows: "A statute will be held unconstitutional as special legislation and as violative of the equal protection guarantee only if it was enacted for reasons totally unrelated to the pursuit of a legitimate State goal. [Citation.] The legislature has broad latitude and discretion in drawing statutory classifications to benefit the general welfare, and the classifications it makes are presumed to be valid. A legislative classification will be upheld if any set of facts can be reasonably conceived which justify distinguishing the class to which the law applies from the class to which the statute is inapplicable. [Citations.]” Bilyk v. Chicago Transit Authority, 125 Ill. 2d 230, 236 (1988). Contrary to the majority’s holding, I would conclude that the limit on noneconomic losses contained in the Act does not violate the special legislation prohibition of the Illinois Constitution, for the provision at issue readily satisfies the requirements of the rational basis test. Reform of the civil justice system is surely a legitimate governmental goal, and imposing a $500,000 limit on the recovery of noneconomic damages is rationally related to those ends. Noneconomic losses by their nature resist precise measurement. Economic losses, which include items such as medical expenses, lost income, and lost support, are objective and are readily quantifiable. In contrast, noneconomic losses, which include pain and suffering, among other things, are subjective and therefore more difficult to quantify. There is great difficulty in determining proper compensation for noneconomic losses, and awards for such damages will vary greatly from case to case. Thus, there is a rational basis for the legislature’s decision to distinguish between economic and noneconomic damages. Limiting compensation for noneconomic losses is rationally related to the objectives of the legislation. As the preamble to the Act evidences, the legislature was concerned about disparities, inconsistencies, and the lack of predictability in the awarding of noneconomic damages, and about the costs to society of unrestricted compensation for those damages. The legislature believed that imposing a limit on the recovery of noneconomic losses would promote fairness and would help reduce the costs of the tort system. Some will argue that the amount selected by the legislature in the provision at issue here is too low. Although that might be a valid objection to the Act as an expression of public policy, for each of us would probably set the limit at a greater or lesser level, it is not a constitutional defect in the legislation. Like a repose statute, the limit on the recovery of noneconomic losses reflects the balance struck by the legislature between an individual’s interest in compensation for his or her own injuries, and the public’s interest in an affordable system of tort law. See Mega v. Holy Cross Hospital, 111 Ill. 2d 416, 428 (1986). Again, to uphold the statute we need not be convinced of the correctness of the legislature’s judgment — we need only find that the question is debatable and that the legislature has adopted a rational means of achieving the desired ends. Bernier v. Burris, 113 Ill. 2d 219, 229-30 (1986). In Minnesota v. Clover Leaf Creamery Co., 449 U.S. 456, 464, 66 L. Ed. 2d 659, 668-69, 101 S. Ct. 715, 724 (1981), the Supreme Court articulated the appropriate degree of deference: "But States are not required to convince the courts of the correctness of their legislative judgments. Rather, 'those challenging the legislative judgment must convince the court that the legislative facts on which the classification is apparently based could not reasonably be conceived to be true by the governmental decisionmaker.’ Vance v. Bradley, [440 U.S. 93, 111, 59 L. Ed. 2d 171, 184-85, 99 S. Ct. 939, 949-50 (1979)]. [Citations.] Although parties challenging legislation under the Equal Protection Clause may introduce evidence supporting their claim that it is irrational, United States v. Carolene Products Co., [304 U.S. 144, 153-54, 82 L. Ed. 1234, 1242, 58 S. Ct. 778, 784 (1938)], they cannot prevail so long as 'it is evident from all the considerations presented to [the legislature], and those of which we may take judicial notice, that the question is at least debatable.’ [304 U.S. at 154, 82 L. Ed. at 1243, 58 S. Ct. at 784.] Where there was evidence before the legislature reasonably supporting the classification, litigants may not procure invalidation of the legislation merely by tendering evidence in court that the legislature was mistaken.” Thus, under rational basis review, "a legislative choice is not subject to courtroom factfinding and may be based on rational speculation unsupported by evidence or empirical data. [Citations.]” Federal Communications Comm’n v. Beach Communications, Inc., 508 U.S. 307, 315, 124 L. Ed. 2d 211, 222, 113 S. Ct. 2096, 2102 (1993). In deciding that the cap on noneconomic losses is invalid special legislation, the majority tests the provision against specially selected hypothetical cases that are obviously designed to illustrate defects in the statute. 179 Ill. 2d at 402-03. The legislature, however, makes no pretense that the reform measures at issue here are a panacea for all the ills, perceived or otherwise, in our system of tort law. Nor is it necessary that legislation like this have such miraculous effect. Under rational basis review, we ask only whether the means chosen by the legislature are rationally related to the purposes of the law. In contrast to the examples posited by the majority, one could as easily select hypothetical cases that support and sustain the remedy devised by the legislature. We have never before required legislation under rational basis scrutiny to qualify under a standard as rigorous as that applied by the majority. In People v. Kohrig, 113 Ill. 2d 384, 402-03 (1986), in the course of sustaining the validity of the mandatory seat belt law, we observed, " '[T]he law need not be in every respect logically consistent with its aims to be constitutional. It is enough that there is an evil at hand for correction, and that it might be thought that the particular legislative measure was a rational way to correct it.’ (Williamson v. Lee Optical of Oklahoma, Inc., (1955), 348 U.S. 483, 487-88, 99 L. Ed. 2d 563, 572, 75 S. Ct. 461, 464.)” Nor is today’s decision compelled by Wright v. Central Du Page Hospital Ass’n, 63 Ill. 2d 313 (1976), Grace v. Howlett, 51 Ill. 2d 478 (1972), or Grasse v. Dealer’s Transport Co., 412 Ill. 179 (1952), as the majority believes. In all three cases the court found special legislation violations. The statutes at issue in those cases, however, were much different from the measure involved here. The statute challenged in Wright imposed a limit of $500,000 on the total amount of damages, both economic and noneconomic, that could be recovered by a plaintiff in a medical malpractice action. The court found the statute to be a violation of the special legislation prohibition, concluding that medical malpractice plaintiffs had been arbitrarily selected to bear the burden of being limited in the total amount of compensation they were allowed to receive for their injuries. Both these concerns are alleviated in the provision at issue here, which is broader in scope but narrower in effect: the statute applies to all actions for personal injury, but it limits only a plaintiff’s recovery of noneconomic losses and does not impose any cap on the recovery of economic losses. Moreover, in Anderson v. Wagner, 79 Ill. 2d 295, 304-05 (1979), this court counseled that Wright should not be read "too broadly,” noting that the statute in Wright could have prevented the full recovery of medical expenses. Anderson rejected constitutional challenges, including one of special legislation, to a statute of limitations for medical malpractice actions. Grace and Grasse are also distinguishable. The legislation challenged in Grace limited an injured plaintiiFs ability to recover compensation for injuries incurred in traffic accidents, depending on whether the other party was using the vehicle for personal or commercial purposes. In Grasse a provision of the Worker’s Compensation Act would have transferred an injured employee’s action against a third-party tortfeasor to the plaintiiFs employer if the third party’s employee was also covered by the Act. In neither case was the court able to discern a rational basis for the classifications drawn by the legislature. I believe that the opposite conclusion is required here. In contrast to the measures at issue in Wright, Grace, and Grasse, the limit on the recovery of noneconomic losses bears a rational relationship to a legitimate governmental purpose. Here, the legislature could find that a $500,000 limitation on noneconomic damages would reduce the costs to society of allowing compensation for damages that, by their nature, are subjective and difficult to measure. For these reasons, I would join the group of jurisdictions that have upheld, against corresponding challenges on equal protection grounds, similar limits on the recovery of damages in tort actions. See, e.g., Davis v. Omitowoju, 883 F.2d 1155 (3d Cir. 1989) (applying Virgin Islands law; $250,000 limit on noneconomic damages in medical malpractice actions); Boyd v. Bulala, 877 F.2d 1191 (4th Cir. 1989) (applying Virginia law; $750,000 limit on damages in medical malpractice actions); Fein v. Permanente Medical Group, 38 Cal. 3d 137, 695 P.2d 665, 211 Cal. Rptr. 368 (1985); Scholz v. Metropolitan Pathologists, P.C., 851 P.2d 901 (Colo. 1993) ($250,000 limit on noneconomic damages and $1,000,000 on total damages in medical malpractice actions); Johnson v. St. Vincent Hospital, Inc., 273 Ind. 374, 404 N.E.2d 585 (1980) ($500,000 limit on damages in medical malpractice actions); Murphy v. Edmonds, 325 Md. 342, 601 A.2d 102 (1992) ($350,000 limit on noneconomic damages in personal injury actions); Etheridge v. Medical Center Hospitals, 237 Va. 87, 376 S.E.2d 525 (1989) ($750,000 limit on damages in medical malpractice actions); Robinson v. Charleston Area Medical Center, 186 W. Va. 720, 414 S.E.2d 877 (1991) ($1,000,000 limit on noneconomic damages in medical malpractice actions). Perhaps uncertain of its own conclusion, the majority opinion goes on to consider an alternative argument against the limit on noneconomic damages, hoping to persuade the reader by prolixity, if not by force of reasoning. Here, the majority finds that the limit on the recovery of noneconomic damages functions as a legislatively imposed remittitur and for that reason violates the separation of powers doctrine. The majority’s discussion of this additional argument is entirely unnecessary, given the majority’s prior holding that the same measure is invalid special legislation. On the merits, I disagree with the majority’s conclusion that the cap on noneconomic damages improperly intrudes on the judicial power of remittitur. The challenged provision does not represent a finding about the evidence of any particular case, and it does not detract from the power of a court to reduce an award of damages in appropriate circumstances. Remittitur pertains to judges and juries, not the legislature; by characterizing the cap on damages as a remittitur, the majority is simply erecting and demolishing a strawman. The majority’s broad holding on this question means, in essence, that the legislature may never impose a limit on damages, at least in common law actions. Given the implications of this holding and the absence of any need to discuss the issue, I would not join this part of the majority opinion even if I agreed with the court that the caps provision was invalid special legislation. Ill The majority’s lengthy treatment of several other provisions of the Act is also superfluous, given the court’s conclusion that the $500,000 limit on the recovery of noneconomic damages is invalid special legislation, and the court’s subsequent holding that the damages cap is not severable from the remainder of the Act. The majority’s discussion of these other issues is simply unnecessary to the court’s resolution of the appeals and should be recognized as the dicta that it is. First, the majority considers section 3.5 of the Contribution Act. The majority concludes that the new provision is internally inconsistent and could allow an improper "double reduction” of damages awarded to an injured employee in an action against a third-party tortfeasor. I agree with the defendants that the legislature could not have intended to permit a double reduction in damages and that the measure should be interpreted accordingly. In that manner, the constitutionality of the provision can be preserved. The majority next considers the validity of the modification made to section 2 — 1117 of the Code of Civil Procedure (735 ILCS 5/2 — 1117 (West 1996)), abolishing joint and several liability. In discussing this provision the majority initially pursues several lines of thought until it finally settles on one, determining that the measure violates the special legislation prohibition of our state constitution because it selectively restores joint and several liability in medical malpractice cases in the event that the cap on noneconomic losses is found invalid. Although the purpose of the provision restoring joint and several liability in the area of medical malpractice might be somewhat obscure, I do not agree that it is unconstitutional on that ground alone. Separately, because I believe that the cap on noneconomic losses is not invalid for the reasons found by the majority, I cannot agree with the majority’s conclusion that the provision restoring joint and several liability in medical malpractice cases has even been triggered. The majority also considers the constitutionality of the physician-patient disclosure provisions. Just last month, in Kunkel v. Walton, 179 Ill. 2d 519 (1997), this court invalidated the same provisions. The majority in the present case now relies on a somewhat different rationale to reach the same conclusion. While I agree with the result, I do not agree with its alternative holding that the statutes violate a right of privacy that the majority locates in the "certain remedy” provision found in article I, section 12, of the Illinois Constitution (Ill. Const. 1970, art. I, § 12). Contrary to the majority’s view, our prior cases construing the "certain remedy” provision of the constitution have characterized it as an expression of a philosophy rather than as a guarantee of the continued existence of any particular cause of action or form of recovery. See Mega v. Holy Cross Hospital, 111 Ill. 2d 416, 424 (1986); Sullivan v. Midlothian Park District, 51 Ill. 2d 274, 277 (1972). It should be noted, moreover, that the majority’s discussion of the certain remedy provision is entirely unnecessary, for the majority finds the discovery statutes invalid on the separate and independent ground that they violate the separation of powers doctrine. IV As a final matter, I disagree with the majority’s conclusion that the portions of the Civil Justice Reform Amendments of 1995 found unconstitutional here and in Kunkel v. Walton, 179 Ill. 2d 519 (1997), cannot be severed from the remainder of the Act and that the invalidity of those measures therefore dooms the entire body of legislation. Contrary to the majority’s holding, there is compelling evidence that the legislature intended for the different provisions of the Act to be severable from each other. The question of severability is essentially one of legislative intent. People v. Warren, 173 Ill. 2d 348, 371 (1996); Tully v. Edgar, 171 Ill. 2d 297, 313 (1996); Russell Stewart Oil Co. v. State of Illinois, 124 Ill. 2d 116, 128 (1988); Springfield Rare Coin Galleries, Inc. v. Johnson, 115 Ill. 2d 221, 237 (1986). As expressed by this court in Fiorito v. Jones, 39 Ill. 2d 531, 540 (1968): "The settled and governing test of severability is whether the valid and invalid provisions of the Act are 'so mutually "connected with and dependent on each other, as conditions, considerations or compensations for each other, as to warrant the belief that the legislature intended them as a whole, and if all could not be carried into effect the legislature would not pass the residue independently ***”.’ [Citation.] The provisions are not sever-able if 'they are essentially and inseparably connected in substance.’ [Citations.]” Notably, the Act contains an express severability clause, which states, "The provisions of this Act, including both the new and the amendatory provisions, are severable under Section 1.31 of the Statute o[n] Statutes.” Pub. Act 89 — 7, § 990, eff. March 9, 1995. The general severability provision found in section 1.31 of the Statute on Statutes provides: "If any provision of an Act *** or application thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid, such invalidity does not affect other provisions or applications of the Act which can be given effect without the invalid application or provision, and to this end the provisions of each Act *** are severable, unless otherwise provided by the Act.” 5 ILCS 70/1.31 (West 1996). Although the presence of an express severability clause is not dispositive of the question, it does establish a presumption that the various provisions of a body of legislation are severable. Jacobson v. Department of Public Aid, 171 Ill. 2d 314, 329 (1996); People ex rel. Chicago Bar Ass’n v. State Board of Elections, 136 Ill. 2d 513, 532 (1990). Moreover, the various provisions of the Act are not so interrelated that one must conclude that the elimination of the provisions struck down by the majority means that the remainder of the Act also falls. Although the majority characterizes the invalid portions of the Act as "core provisions” whose removal yields an unenforceable "residue” (179 Ill. 2d at 467), the remaining provisions are actually substantial measures in their own right that are independent of the provisions invalidated here. In Grasse v. Dealer’s Transport Co., 412 Ill. 179, 202 (1952), this court stated: "The established rule is that only the invalid parts of a statute are without legal effect, unless all the provisions are so connected as to depend upon each other. [Citations.] If that which remains after the unconstitutional portion is stricken is complete in itself and capable of being executed wholly independently of that which is rejected, the invalid portion does not render the entire section or act unconstitutional. ’ ’ Although all the provisions contained in the Act are related to tort law generally, they are not so intertwined or interrelated that the failure of any one measure, such as the provision limiting the recovery of noneconomic damages, necessitates the corresponding failure of any other measure, such as the. provision requiring a certificate of merit in products liability actions. The limit on the recovery of noneconomic damages and the requirement of a certificate of merit function independently of each other, and there is no reason to believe that the legislature would not have enacted one in the absence of the other. Moreover, although the legislature might have viewed the limit on noneconomic losses as one of the most significant parts of the legislative package, the invalidity of that provision does not undermine the operation of the remaining provisions. As this court explained in People ex rel. Dougherty v. City of Rock Island, 271 Ill. 412, 422 (1915): " 'If a statute attempts to accomplish two or more objects and is void as to one, it may still be in every respect complete and valid as to the other; but if its purpose is to accomplish a single object, only, and some of its provisions are void, the whole must fail unless sufficient remains to effect the object without the aid of the invalid portion.’ ” In the present case, whether the Act is viewed as having multiple purposes accomplished in multiple ways, or a single purpose accomplished in multiple ways, I believe that the legislature intended that the measures found invalid by the majority would be severed from the remaining provisions of the Act. The Act itself contains further proof that the legislature believed that any portion found to be invalid would be severable. The provision restoring joint and several liability in medical malpractice actions in the event that the cap on noneconomic damages is found unconstitutional represents compelling evidence that the legislature intended for the various provisions of the Act — or at least the cap on damages, the crux of the majority’s antiseverability argument — to be severable from the other. The majority believes that the provision restoring joint and several liability "demonstrates that key provisions of the Act are interconnected and mutually dependent upon each other” (179 Ill. 2d at 466) and thus supports a finding of nonseverability. In my view, however, the provision compels the opposite conclusion, for it establishes that the legislature was concerned about the possible invalidation of the cap on noneconomic damages and intended for the remaining portions of the Act to survive any adverse judicial ruling. Clearly, the legislators would not have crafted a response to that contingency if they had thought that a ruling invalidating the limit on noneconomic damages would drag down the remaining provisions of the Act. Whether or not the legislature considered the cap on noneconomic damages to be the most important feature of the Act, as the majority asserts, it is clear that the legislature did not believe that the failure of that measure would doom the rest of the Act. In sum, given the presence of a severability clause in the Act, the ability of the valid measures to stand independently of those found invalid, and the legislature’s concern about a ruling striking down a portion of this body of legislation, I would conclude that the provisions found unconstitutional here are severable from the remainder of the Act. * * * Although I agree with the majority that the physician-patient disclosure provisions are invalid, for the reasons expressed by the court in Kunkel v. Walton, 179 Ill. 2d 519 (1997), I do not agree that the limit on noneconomic damages is invalid special legislation or violates the separation of powers clause. Nor do I agree with the majority’s further conclusion that the provisions found invalid here and in Kunkel are not sever-able from the remainder of the Act, and I would therefore consider in this appeal the plaintiffs’ remaining challenges to the provisions of the Act. As I have noted, the judicial role in assessing the constitutionality of legislation is quite limited, and the majority’s result here cannot be defended under traditional standards of review. Today’s decision represents a substantial departure from our precedent on the respective roles of the legislative and judicial branches in shaping the law of this state. Stripped to its essence, the majority’s mode of analysis simply constitutes an attempt to overrule, by judicial fiat, the considered judgment of the legislature.