Chicago Personal Injury Lawyer Blog

The American Association of Justice (AAJ) is an organization dedicated to supporting plaintiff trial lawyers. From September 23, 2010 through September 26, 2010, the AAJ hosted a case workshop for trial lawyers in Baltimore, MD. Chicago personal injury attorney Robert Kreisman of Kreisman Law Offices was selected as a faculty member for the Baltimore workshop.

The workshop focused on working up specific cases for trial. Trial lawyers in attendance were encouraged to bring their real cases for pending trials so that they could be fine-tuned by their peers. Along with other trial lawyers and trial consultants, lawyers from around the country brought their own cases to be tested, analyzed and sequenced for upcoming trials.

This legal education program has been a regular of the AAJ for many years. The program schedule began each day with morning presentations made by experienced trial lawyers and trial consultants who shared their vast knowledge on a range of topics. The afternoons then involved various workshops where small groups of three to four attorneys focused on specific cases and topics.

Continue reading "Civil Justice Advocacy Program at Baltimore AAJ Conference Promotes High Quality Trial Training" »

The Illinois Appellate Court recently reviewed a trial court's summary judgment ruling in an Illinois auto accident case. The trial court had granted defendants' motion for summary judgment under the Dead Man's Act following the death of Edward Henry, one of the defendants. However, the Illinois Appellate Court reversed the lower court's decision and remanded the Illinois personal injury claim back to the trial court. Ladys Balma and Linda Gallup v. Edward Henry and Cynthia Grosvenor, No. 2-09-1301.

The Illinois Code of Civil Procedure has an act called The Dead Man's Act (735 ILCS 5/8‑201). In Balma, the defendant Edward Henry died before the case came up for trial. Henry's estate and the other defendant, Cynthia Grosvenor, brought a motion for summary judgment, citing the Dead Man's Act as grounds for the Illinois personal injury case's dismissal.

Under the Dead Man's Act, "no adverse party or person directly interested in the action shall be allowed to testify on his or her own behalf to any conversation with the deceased . . . or to any event which took place in the presence of the deceased." Therefore, the defendants in Balma argued that because the decedent's evidence deposition had not been taken that there was no testimony that could be used in his defense at trial. The trial court agreed and therefore granted the motion for summary judgment, which in essence dismissed the Illinois auto accident case.

Continue reading "Illinois Car Accident Case Reviewed For Application of Dead Man's Act - Balma v. Henry" »

An Illinois chemical plant is denying allegations that toxins it dumped into the groundwater in the 1960s and 1970s is linked to a cancer cluster. Rohm & Haas Chemical Co. insists that the several brain cancer cases occurring among current or former residents near their Illinois plant are an unfortunate coincidence. However, the numerous plaintiffs, some with wrongful death claims, in Branham v. Rohm & Haas Co. disagree. The case is set for trial in Philadelphia and is anticipated to be an eight to 10 week trial.

In addition to the negligence claims against the Illinois plant, the plaintiffs have also accused the company of fraud and covering up the potential dangers of their dumping practices. The lawsuit involves an eight-acre sludge pond located about 50 miles northwest of Chicago that was the dumping site of the plant's chemicals. The sludge pond was constructed without any liner to prevent these chemicals from leaking into the groundwater. Nearby residents used well water, or groundwater, on a daily basis for everything from drinking to showering and cleaning.

According to the plaintiff's lawsuit, the toxins in the contaminated water eventually broke down into vinyl chloride, a carcinogen, which was then released into the air whenever the contaminated water was used. While over 30 plaintiffs have individual claims filed against Rohm & Haas, each relies on the same theory of negligence - that their cancers were caused by exposure to groundwater that was contaminated by toxins dumped by the chemical plant into the unlined sludge pond.

Continue reading "Illinois Chemical Plant on Trial for Potential Brain Cancer Clusters Caused By Leaking Chemicals - Branham v. Rohm & Haas Co." »

An Illinois birth injury case involving allegations that a delayed cesarean section resulted in the baby's cerebral palsy and spastic quadriplegia recently settled for $9.5 million while the trial was underway. The Northern Trust Company, et al. v. Ghia, et al., 04 L 7500.

Like many birth injury lawsuits, the case involved claims that the hospital and obstetrician failed to recognize the baby was in distress and order a c-section in a timely manner. The mother, Alecia Owen, presented to the hospital at 41 weeks pregnant for an induced pregnancy. After being administered Pitocin and an epidural her labor progressed slowly and eventually raised concerns with the hospital's nursing staff.

Monitoring of the baby's heart rate was showing intermittent decelerations, which could be a sign of fetal distress. When the obstetrician, Dr. Nirali Ghia, was notified of the decelerations, he ordered an amnioinfusion, a procedure that can help reduce variable decelerations if there is a suspicion of cord compression. However, Dr. Ghia told not one, but several, nurses that the patient did not need a c-section even though the decelerations became more prolonged.

Continue reading "Illinois Birth Injury Lawsuit Criticizes Nurses For Chain of Command Breakdown - $9.5 Million Settlement in The Northern Trust Company, et al. v. Ghia, et al." »

The most recent in a round of settlements reached following a 2005 Metra train derailment have resulted in $1.45 million to Catherine Kozi-O'Donnell, a woman who sustained injuries in the Illinois train accident. The Joliet resident's leg was badly broken during the train accident and required knee replacement surgery.

Earlier this summer Metra reached a $2 million settlement with a man who suffered hip, shoulder, and leg injuries following the Illinois train derailment. In addition, the surviving families of two passengers who were killed as a result of the 2005 train accident, Jane Cuthbert and Allison Walsh, settled their claims with Metra for $11 million.

The 2005 Illinois train accident resulted in the death of the two women and 117 injured passengers. In Illinois, whenever there are large numbers of plaintiffs filing personal injury lawsuits against one similar entity, typically their claims are broken up into manageable groups. While these groups might initially all be treated as one entity in order to aid the discovery process, eventually they are placed on different litigation schedules. This schedule allows the defendant to stagger their response to the different individual lawsuits. Not only does this help the defendant, but it also helps the plaintiff by insuring that each's case receives equal attention.

Continue reading "Additional Metra Train Derailment Settlement Reached - $1.45 Million to Illinois Woman With Leg Injury" »

The Illinois Supreme Court evaluated a Chicago personal injury case involving a slip in fall accident on a Chicago Transit Authority (CTA) platform. The issue in the case was whether the CTA, as a common carrier, owed a duty to protect its passengers from a natural accumulation of ice on its outdoor platforms. Krywin v. Chicago Transit Authority, No. 108888.

Under Illinois law the CTA is recognized as a common carrier, which is any person or company that is engaged in the business of transporting goods or people. Illinois case law has long established that a common carrier "must use the highest degree of care which is practicable in order to provide passengers with a safe passage from its trains". In Krywin, the plaintiff's personal injury complaint maintained that the CTA's negligence led to her slipping on an icy platform and fracturing her left leg.

The Chicago train company responded by stating that it owed no duty to the plaintiff under the natural accumulation rule. This rule states that a property owner does not have a duty to remove snow, ice, or water that has naturally accumulated on the owned property. The natural accumulation rule typically applies to landowners and has generally not been extended to include common carriers.

Continue reading "Chicago Transit Authority's (CTA) Duty as Common Carrier Evaluated By Illinois Supreme Court Regarding Removal of Ice from Train Platform - Krywin v. Chicago Transit Authority" »

A New Hampshire jury awarded the state's highest product liability verdict ever when it awarded Karen Bartlett $21 million for the injuries she incurred as a result of taking Sulindac, an anti-inflammatory prescription drug manufactured by Mutual Pharmaceutical Co., Inc. The jury found the drug company liable for Bartlett's injuries based on the concept that it should have known that the drug was unreasonably dangerous. Bartlett v. Mutual Pharmaceutical Co., Inc.

Bartlett was initially prescribed Sulindac to treat her shoulder pain. However, quickly after beginning the medication she began to experience skin irritation and a sensation of having "pebbles" in her throat and eyelids. Eventually these symptoms worsened as the drug continued to essentially burn Bartlett from the inside out, leaving her with burns to over 65% of her body. In addition, Bartlett was left legally blind despite undergoing 12 eye surgeries. Bartlett was eventually diagnosed with Stevens-Johnson Syndrome and toxic epidermal necrolysis (SJS/TEN).

The main legal issue in the pharmaceutical liability case was whether or not the drug, Sulindac, was unreasonably dangerous and whether the pharmaceutical company should have known that it was dangerous. At the trial the plaintiff's attorney presented evidence demonstrating that Sulindac has been linked with incidents of SJS/TEN. Furthermore, plaintiff demonstrated that the occurrences of SJS/TEN among consumers taking Sulindac was higher than any other anti-inflammatory medication on the market.

Continue reading "Prescription Drug Liability Case Receives $21 Million Verdict - Bartlett v. Mutual Pharmaceutical Co., Inc." »

An Illinois Appellate Court recently ruled on spoliation issues in an Illinois product liability lawsuit. A spoliation claim can be brought if an entity, in this case Enterprise Leasing Company of Chicago, destroys or loses evidence that would be an important component of a potential lawsuit. Generally the court preserves an entity's duty to preserve evidence; however, the trial court in Esther Brobbey, et al. v. Enterprise Leasing Company of Chicago, No. 1-08-3474, dismissed a spoliation claim against the car rental company.

When renting a 2003 Chevrolet Astro van from Enterprise, John Brobbey noted that the vehicle jerked and wobbled upon application of the brakes. He advised the agent of his findings before driving off with the vehicle and was told that the brakes were fine. However, two days later the brakes failed while Brobbey's wife was driving the van, causing her to lose control. The vehicle rolled over several times and ended up landing in a ditch.

A little over a year after the Illinois auto accident, General Motors had issued a recall of its 2003 Chevrolet Astro vans regarding a suspension defect that could result in loss of control of the vehicle. Typically in an Illinois product liability case when a product defect is the potential cause of a party's injuries the plaintiff needs to demonstrate that the specific product in question is defective. This is typically done by performing a thorough inspection of the product, which in this instance would be the Astro van. However, by the time the plaintiffs were aware of the recall the Astro van they were driving had already been destroyed, thus giving rise to the spoliation claim against Enterprise.

Continue reading "Illinois Product Defect Lawsuit Springs From Rollover Accident - Appellate Court Rules on Spoliation Issues in Brobbey, et al. v. Enterprise Leasing Co. of Chicago" »

A series of articles by the Chicago Tribune on the poor state of Illinois nursing homes has prompted public action, the latest of which is an increase in surprise inspections to local nursing homes by state officials. Surprise inspections are key in maintaining a safe and healthy environment for nursing home residents and protecting against instances of Illinois nursing home abuse. These investigations ensure that Illinois nursing homes are up to state standards and represent a safe environment for their residents.

However, a recent Chicago Tribune article has uncovered further information that suggests Illinois nursing homes are not as safe as these investigations indicate. According to the article's sources, several Chicago area nursing homes have possibly been tipped off that their facilities were going to be investigated, giving them time to prepare for the 'surprise' inspection. Those facilities that were aware of the pending inspections supposedly increased the staff and presented a false image of the facilities on the date of inspection.

Traditional Illinois nursing home abuse cases focus on negligence or abuse by the nursing home and often are a result of inadequate care by the nursing home staff. For example, one common nursing home negligence claim is that the nursing home failed to prevent the development and spread of decubitus ulcers, also known as pressure sores. There is a high incidence of pressure sores developing in bedridden patients or patients with limited mobility, a category which a high number of nursing home residents fall into.

Continue reading "Chicago Nursing Home Inspections May Be Compromised - Suspicions That Nursing Home Owners Tipped Off" »