Chicago Personal Injury Lawyer Blawg

September 26, 2008

Doctors Spread Infection Through Contaminated Scrubs

Hospitals in Chicago and nationwide could be affected by new evidence that suggests that doctors and nurses could be spreading infectious diseases through contaminated scrubs and clothing. Given all the new antibiotic-resistant disease, like methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), now it is more important than ever to stem the spread of infection.

Chicago and Illinois hospitals have initiated programs advocating that medical providers wash their hands frequently to prevent spreading infection to their patients. And while this is a proven measure to stem the spread of diseases, physicians’ clothes and scrubs can still carry infection from patient to patient. Not to mention that when medical providers continue to wear their hospital clothes outside of the hospital, whether their scrubs or own clothes, then they can carry and spread infections to other areas.

The idea of clothes as a means of transferring infections is a fairly new concept, and as of yet there aren’t any definitive studies proving the extent of harm that can occur. But a recent U.S. study showed that if a hospital worker is in the same room as a patient with MRSA, then the bacteria ends up on their clothes 70% of the time, even if the employee had no physical contact with the patient. This discovery was particularly disturbing because it has been proven that bacteria and disease can live on fabrics for long periods of time.

Given the amount of interaction hospital employees have with numerous sick people throughout the course of their workday, there is an overwhelming likelihood that an employee is carrying some sort of bacteria. But what is the solution? If everyone is walking around in a hospital harboring disease in their very clothes, then how can they avoid transferring to others?

September 23, 2008

Illinois Courts: Using The Internet To Access Services and Information

by Robert Kreisman

There is a lot of information on the Internet that allows us to research everything from restaurants to shoemakers. And Illinois law is no exception. A number of free websites allow both lawyers and Illinois citizens to readily access a wide variety of legal information.

The Illinois Supreme Court and Illinois Appellate Courts can be found at a site located at http://www.state.il.us/court. The website contains past opinions and rulings of the Illinois Supreme Court, along with links to legal research and guides for lawyers. But there are also useful tools for citizens wanting to find out more about nuances of the law. Some of these include a Juror Handbook, Illinois Child Support Information, and Becoming an Adult: Legal Rights & Responsibilities at Age 18.

The Illinois Supreme Court website also has a link to any of the Illinois Circuit Courts. Currently 15 of Illinois’ 23 Circuit Courts have websites, including Cook County, Lake County, Kane County, DuPage County, McHenry County and Kankakee County.

September 22, 2008

Illinois Personal Injury Case Argument Over Medical Damages Settled by Illinois Supreme Court

by Robert Kreisman

In Illinois and other states, the collateral source rule is a much debated legal issue and deals with whether or not a plaintiff in a personal injury case can recover money for their medical bills, including those paid by their insurance. The Illinois Supreme Court’s recent decision in Wills v. Foster (2008 WL 2446696 (Ill. June 19, 2008), has not only established a clear interpretation of these issues, but also laid out how the rule applies to individual personal injury cases in Illinois.

The collateral source rule’s initial purpose was to ensure that a plaintiff’s medical bills in a personal injury case are not diminished by the court or jury because of evidence that those bills were paid by a collateral source, such as an insurance company. For example, if a person was injured and his insurance paid part of his or her bills, that information could not be presented to the jury in order to argue that the plaintiff should then receive less.

However, the rule wasn’t that simple. Questions arose, including whether a plaintiff could recover for free medical services, if Medicare and Medicaid were governed by the rule, and if the amount refers to the initial bill or only to the amount the insurance company paid.

September 18, 2008

Chicago Bar Foundation Honors US Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens: Attorney Robert Kreisman Attends

by Robert Kreisman

Last week I was privileged to attend the Ninth Annual Justice John Paul Stevens Award Luncheon on at Chicago’s Standard Club. This year the event was especially noteworthy because the awards namesake, Justice Stevens, was in attendance.

The award luncheon was started in 2000 by former law clerks to Justice Stevens. Justice Stevens has served on the Supreme Court bench for 33 years (he was nominated by then President Gerald Ford in 1975 to take the place of retiring Justice William O. Douglas), and is approaching the all-time record for service. The justice appeared well and delivered his remarks in a robust and strong-voiced delivery that could be associated with a much younger person.

The 88 year-old U.S. Supreme Court Justice spoke in depth about former Chicago Mayor Richard J. Daley and the current mayor, Richard M. Daley. Justice Stevens is a Chicago native, and after clerking for a Supreme Court Justice, Stevens returned to Chicago to practice law. Upon his return Justice Stevens paired up with Richard J. Daley, a state representative at the time, to fight for integration and civil rights within Chicago’s law societies. Justice Stevens commended both Mayor Daleys for their efforts in Chicago.

In addition, Justice Stevens spoke about the legal definitions of words like “people” and “liberty” in the written law, the constitution and in opinions found in cases. How these words are interpreted shapes our understanding of the law in different settings.

Also honored was attorney John B. Simon, United States Court of Appeals Judge Ann C. Williams and Illinois Supreme Court Chief Justice Thomas R. Fitzgerald. All of the award recipients spoke about their legal careers and honored they were to have received the award bearing Justice Stevens’s name in his presence.

September 17, 2008

Chicago Residents Size Up MRSA and Other Superbugs: What You Should Know

by Robert Kreisman

It’s becoming all too common of a tale in Chicago, Illinois and across the country- you go into your hospital for a simple procedure and end up being contaminated by an antibiotic-resistant bacteria. The prevalence of these resistant infections occurs more and more and is not going away any time soon.

Perhaps the most well-known of these is methicillin-resistant Staphylococus aureus (MRSA), a type of “staph” infection that is resistant to the broad spectrum antibiotics typically used to treat it. However, unlike many of the other superbugs coming to light, MRSA can be treated with alternate antibiotics. But the fear is that in time MRSA will also become resistant to these alternative antibiotics.

And while MRSA can still be treated by current medications, there are numerous “superbugs” out there that are virtually untreatable. One of these is Klebsiella, a bacteria similar to MRSA, except that it has an extra cellular layer that blocks out antibiotics that MRSA lets in. And strains resembling Klebsiella are becoming more prevalent, both in hospitals and within our community.

Why Are Bacteria Becoming Resistant to Antibiotics?

Since the introduction of antibiotics in the mid-twentieth century, bacterial infections were suddenly curable. Antibiotics soon became a cure-all and were prescribed to treat not only bacterial infections, but also for viral infections, even though antibiotics have no effect on them. Because of the widespread use of antibiotics, the bacteria soon began developing resistances and the common antibiotics no longer worked.

For awhile drug companies continued to develop new antibiotics to treat these mutations. Eventually, however, many of these sames pharmaceuticals withdrew from this area as the complexity of the research increased and profits decreased. So now we are not only seeing more and more bacteria that are developing resistances to common antibiotics, but we are developing fewer new treatments for these new strains. In short, we are quickly returning to the days before antibiotics were even invented- when bacterial infections were untreatable.

They’re Scary and They’re Out There- Now What?

September 16, 2008

Goodyear Tire Defect in Motorcycle Accident Case Decision Stands: Illinois Court Allows Expert Opinions Without Pinpointing Precise Cause of Crash

by Robert Kreisman

An Illinois federal judge upheld a jury verdict for a woman permanently disabled in a motorcycle crash even though her expert witness did not pinpoint the exact cause of the crash. McCloud v. Goodyear Dunlop Tires N. America, Ltd. WL 2323792 (C.D. Ill. June 2, 2008).

Trish McCloud was severely injured in 2002 when the rear tire blew out on her Honda Gold Wing motorcycle. Her expert witness narrowed down the tire defect to three possible manufacturing errors by defendant, Goodyear. Based on his testimony the jury awarded her damages under her Illinois product liability claim.

Goodyear asked for a new trial, in part because it felt that McCloud’s expert had not adequately proved that its product was defective. McCloud’s expert had testified that the blowout was the result of a nylon cord getting embedded in the tire’s innermost layer rather than the layers of rubber, which was where it belonged. This then caused a bubble to form in the sidewall layer of the tire, which eventually burst. Her expert posed three different ways this Illinois product defect could have occurred during the manufacturing process, but did not pinpoint which one specifically was the cause.

In response, Goodyear reasoned that the blowout was the result of the tire being overloaded and under-inflated. It argued that the motorcycle itself was overweight, which would have contributed to this blowout, and further cited inadequate checking of the tire pressure by the owner. Furthermore, the fact that none of its other customers had reported a similar problem was a factor to be considered.

September 12, 2008

Autism Vaccine Debate Continues: New Study Further Contests Link

by Robert Kreisman

For the past decade there has been a heated debate over the link between the Measles/Mumps/Rubella (MMR) vaccine and instances of autism. A new study adds further weight to the argument that there is no link between the two, but like all prior studies, does nothing to definitely disprove the opposing view.

The new study was done by researchers from Massachusetts General Hospital, Columbia University and the Center for Disease Control and Prevention. In it they tried to duplicate prior findings that showed the MMR vaccine caused autism, but were unable to do so. As has happened with many other medical studies, this recent one found no evidence that the MMR vaccine caused harm or was in any way linked to autism.

However, those who believe that autism is directly linked to the MMR vaccine are not convinced that the lack of a causal link in this recent study scientifically proves that they are not related. Many of the proponents of the vaccine causing theory have directly witnessed the development in autism in their child after they received the MMR vaccine. For these people nothing short of evidence that refutes the link beyond a shadow of a doubt will do.

Why Do People Think There’s A Link Between Vaccines and Autism?

Many parents began to notice that their children began to display autistic symptoms around the same time they received multiple vaccines. Additionally, a British study by Wakefield et al developed the theory that the MMR vaccine did in fact cause autism. However, it is important to note that it has seen come out that the Wakefield study could have been compromised because the lead researcher had a conflict of interest- part of the study was funding by a legal group involved in bringing cases against drug companies that distributed the MMR vaccine.

But again, while the medical community has not come up with any definitive evidence to refute this link, they have not come up with any evidence to support it. To explain why autism developments following administration of the MMR vaccine, scientists have suggested that the symptoms of autism manifest themselves around the same time that children receive these vaccines.

Regardless of which side of the debate you are on it is clear that too little is known about the cause of autism. Research should be directed at finding what leads to autism and how it can be prevented or cured.

Should My Child Receive Vaccines?

September 9, 2008

Chicago Not Liable For Fatal Crash Involving Two Children Struck By Chicago Police In Unmarked Car

by Robert Kreisman

Chicago U.S. District Court Judge granted summary judgment in favor of the City of Chicago, dismissing the case brought against two Chicago police officers who ran over two young Chicago children. When it hit the children the officers’ unmarked car was driving at high speed with no lights or flashers.

The suit claimed that the City of Chicago and its two officers violated the children’s right to substantive due process under the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The issue before the court was whether an Illinois auto accident caused by reckless driving forms the basis for constitutional liability under the substantive due process clause.

According to Judge Hibbler, the U.S. Supreme Court has held that recklessness in such a situation is not enough. The rule of thumb for establishing the threshold in a substantive due process challenge comes for the ruling in County of Sacramento v. Lewis, 523 U.S. 833 (1998): whether the behavior “is so egregious, so outrageous that it may fairly be said to shock the conscience.”
Under Hill v. Shobe, 93 F.3d 418 (7th Cir. 1996), it was held that reckless driving alone was not enough cause to impose liability under the due process clause. Furthermore, Lewis ruled that a high speed chase without the intention of causing harm does not meet the level of shocking one’s conscience.

Judge Hiller further reviewed the facts of the current case to determine whether the two police officers had intended to harm the two children. Evidence supported that the officer driving was indeed reckless when he struck the children. At the time the officers were speeding down the wrong side of the street with neither their lights or sirens on in an area near a school zone. According to the officers they were chasing a man with a gun. Yet Hiller felt that there was evidence to support the victims’ family’s claim that the officers were in fact avoiding traffic and there was no man with a gun. One of the boys struck by the police officers died, the other survived.

But while there was ample evidence to support the officers’ reckless behavior, there was no evidence that they had intended to harm the two children. Therefore Hiller reluctantly ruled in favor of the City of Chicago’s summary judgment and dismissed the case. However, Hiller did recommend to the family that they appeal to the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago for further review of the due process claim. That perhaps the Appeals Court would review whether the recklessness shown in the present case would be enough to shock the conscious and thereby violate the substantive due process clause.

September 8, 2008

Henry Cisneros and Jim Durkin Represent Obama and McCain In Debate On Future of Metropolitan Areas

by Robert Kreisman

Today I attended Metropolitan Mandate: How the Next President Will Maximize Metro Potential, which was presented by Chicago’s Metropolitan Planning Council (MPC). At least 1,000 Chicago-area civic, government, corporate and community leaders were in attendance. This event was set up to address the issues facing metropolitan areas across the U.S., including Chicago.

It was introduced that 4 of 5 Americans live in or around a metropolitan area. These metropolitan areas are responsible for producing about 85% of the gross national product each year. Each presidential candidate had a surrogate speaker that voiced how they would address metropolitan area concerns such as transportation and urban economic development when they would become president. They took questions from the moderator.

Illinois House Representative. Jim Durkin spoke for Republican Presidential Candidate John McCain. Since 2007 Durkin has been co-chairing Senator McCain’s presidential campaign in Illinois. Born and bred in Illinois Rep. Durkin’s background in both politics and the Chicago region he was selected as one who is knowledgeable of Senator McCain’s plans and goals.

September 5, 2008

Consumer Fraud Claim Against Phillip Morris In “Light” Cigarette Case: U.S. Supreme Court to Review

by Robert Kreisman

A suit was filed against Phillip Morris claiming its practice of labeling cigarettes as “Light” qualified as consumer fraud. The Appellate Court denied Phillip Morris’s argument that it was immune from such lawsuits under federal law so the company is appealing to the U.S. Supreme Court.

The plaintiffs in Altria v, Good, 501 F. 3d 29 (1st Cir. 2007) alleged that Phillip Morris violated state laws prohibiting fraudulent misrepresentation in its false promotions and advertising for Marlboro and Cambridge Lights as “Light” with “Lowered Tar and Nicotine” when in fact the “Light” cigarettes would not deliver any less tar or nicotine to the smoker.

Phillip Morris responded to plaintiff by stating that the consumer fraud claims are preempted by the Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act, and preempted implicitly in the “efforts of Congress and Federal Trade Commission for 40 years to implement a national, uniform policy of informing the public about the health risks of smoking.”
The majority of the defendant’s argument rests on its assumption that the plaintiffs are bringing a claim for a failure to warn and not for fraud. Because a failure to warn would fall under the banner of warning label regulations, which is overseen by the federal government, any such claims would need to be brought under federal, and not state, law.

However, the US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit did not see plaintiffs’ claim as dealing with a failure to warn, but rather with Phillip Morris fraudulently representing its product. And because the federal law does not deal directly with fraud there is nothing to preempt the state law from taking precedent. Therefore, Phillip Morris is not immune from litigation dealing with plaintiffs’ claim because federal law does not negate consumer fraud claims related to the sale of light cigarettes.

To reach a final conclusion, the US Supreme Court has agreed to review Phillip Morris’s argument that federal law totally immunizes it from suits regarding consumer fraud claims as to “light” cigarette labeling. The case is set for oral argument in the fall of 2008.

Chicago Personal Injury Lawyer Blog