Chicago Skyline
YOU’RE GOING THROUGH ENOUGH AND WE ARE HERE TO HELP
Law firm group photo
43 Million

Total Cases Won

3,500 +

Trusted Clients

99%

Successful cases

26 Million

Total Personal Injury Cases Won

17 Million

Total Work Injury Cases Won

by

As the warm season approaches, Illinois residents may be considering some of their favorite summer activities. Although many of us engage in things like camping, fishing, swimming, biking, and hiking, few of us realize that these activities can lead to serious and painful personal injuries. The entities that are responsible for maintaining public recreation areas can be held responsible if their failure to maintain the area in a safe and reasonable condition leads to your injury. At Therman Law Offices, our Chicago premises liability lawyers are prepared to help you evaluate your potential claim and to ensure that the responsible entities are held accountable for the financial damages that you deserve.

In a recent claim, the Illinois Court of Appeal considered whether the lower court properly dismissed the plaintiffs’ amended complaint with prejudice. The complaint alleged that a local park district willfully and wantonly caused the plaintiff’s personal injuries. A complaint dismissed with prejudice means that the parties cannot refile the claim.

In the complaint, the plaintiffs alleged that they had met with officials at the park to determine whether they would book it for their upcoming wedding. The employees described the camp rules during this meeting, took the plaintiffs on a tour, and explained that they could rent one particular campsite that featured two poles. The employees alleged that the poles could be used for the event, according to the complaint. The plaintiffs rented the campsite and attached a camping hammock to the poles. One of the poles broke and caused the plaintiff to suffer injuries.

Continue reading

by

In some personal injury accidents, it can be difficult to determine who is at fault and whether multiple parties bear responsibility for the devastating outcome. Life is complicated and many accidents often reflect this in the number of parties that are involved in the incident and who may bear liability. Just because a party was involved in an accident at some point does not mean he or she can be held responsible for the outcome. As seasoned Chicago wrongful death lawyers, we are prepared to help you ensure that you hold each potential responsible party accountable for the losses that you’ve sustained.

Recently, the Illinois Court of Appeal considered a claim in which liability was disputed for the death of an individual due to a traumatic brain injury. the decedent was consuming alcoholic beverages at an event sponsored by his employer. The employer provided free alcoholic beverages and the decedent consumed several until he became intoxicated. In the early morning hours, the employer stopped serving the defendant. He later left the premises and fell suffering a traumatic brain injury that ultimately caused his death.

His father, acting as the independent administrator of his son’s estate and as an individual, brought a claim against the employer alleging that it was responsible for his son’s death. The defendant filed a motion to dismiss and the trial court granted it. The father refiled the complaint and alleged negligence under a voluntary undertaking negligence theory. The complaint alleged that the defendant owed a duty of care to the decedent because it voluntarily undertook that duty when it ejected the intoxicated decedent from the bar.

Continue reading

by

Many people are aware that a landowner can be held liable for failing to take appropriate care and caution when ensuring that his or her property is safe for guests. This includes things like ensuring stairs are functional, electrical outlets are in good working condition, and that balconies are supported properly. Fewer people are aware, however, that a landowner can in some circumstances be held liable when a third party commits a tortious act such as an assault against a guest on his or her property. At Therman Law Offices, our Chicago premises liability attorneys are proud to serve victims of these crimes.

In a recent claim, the plaintiff was the surviving wife of a man who was stabbed in the neck and killed while eating at a restaurant and lounge in Chicago. In the wrongful death action, the wife alleged that the restaurant failed to provide adequate security at the restaurant resulting in her husband’s untimely death. In response to the complaint, the defendant filed a motion for summary judgment. It alleged that judgment in its favor was appropriate because it did not have a legal duty to prevent the decedent from being murdered in the restaurant. The lower court ultimately granted the motion finding that there was no evidence offered to show that the altercation was foreseeable.

The plaintiff appealed. On review, the court reiterated the rule that a landowner’s duty to protect guests from attacks from third parties only extends to situations where an attack would be foreseeable. If the landowner has no reason to know that a criminal act is foreseeable, then the landowner does not have a duty to protect patrons. In assessing whether an injury was foreseeable, the court must consider the likelihood of an injury stemming from a third-party attack, the magnitude of imposing a burden to guard against the injury on the landowner, and the consequences of placing that burden on the landowner.

Continue reading

by

Workers’ compensation claims can become incredibly complicated and overwhelming for the injured worker. At Therman Law Offices, our experienced Chicago workers’ compensation lawyers have guided people through the process to ensure that they receive the treatment that they should receive. A common issue that comes up in a workers’ compensation claim is whether the claimant suffered from any preexisting injury that is the primary cause of his or her injury. If a pre-existing injury is at play, then the reviewing judge will need to determine whether the work injury is the substantial cause of the injury before awarding benefits. Contact our office today to start learning more about your potential work injury claim and how we can assist you.

In a recent claim, an injured worker filed a claim seeking benefits for an injury he suffered to his right knee while working as a marine technician. He injured his knee when he lowered it onto a concrete floor to install a swim platform on the back of the boat. He received ongoing medical treatment for this injury and was required to take time off of work to heal.  Eventually, the insurance carrier for the employer approved a surgical procedure to address his ongoing pain and issues with mobility in the knee. The claimant was then told that the insurance carrier revoked authorization for the procedure due to a note found in his medical records indicating that he had a prior medical procedure on the same knee several years prior. It said in its note to the surgeon who was going to perform the procedure that additional investigation was needed.

The claimant denied receiving medical treatment for that knee and said that he received surgery on his shin and showed the scar to the presiding arbitrator. The arbitrator ultimately concluded that the surgery should be reauthorized and that there was a causal relationship between his current injury and the work injury. It noted that the insurer did not offer any evidence suggesting that the right knee pain he was experiencing was not causally related to the workplace accident. The arbitrator then awarded attorney’s fees to the claimant on the grounds that the insurer engaged in a frivolous claim that did not present a real controversy in asserting that there was a pre-existing condition with the knee in question.

Continue reading

by

When a devastating accident takes place, one of the most frustrating aspects of trying to secure the compensation that you deserve is determining which defendants are liable. There are countless different procedural rules that apply to personal injury cases and certain steps that must be taken to ensure that the right parties are in the lawsuit. Some potential defendants will try to make things as difficult as possible to avoid being named in a lawsuit or to be dismissed from the lawsuit once they are named. The dedicated Chicago personal injury lawyers of Therman Law Offices are prepared to help you assert your rights and obtain the fair treatment that you deserve.

The Illinois Court of Appeals recently issued an opinion in a case involving a plane crash that resulted in the deaths of seven men during April 2015. The estates of the decedents each filed a claim for negligence in Illinois against the maker of component parts for the aircraft and other related defendants. The manufacturer filed a motion seeking dismissal from the lawsuit claiming that the court did not have jurisdiction over the company.

The director of operations for the manufacturer described the company as a Texas limited liability partnership that engages in overhauling engines and selling aircraft parts. It advertises its services and products in several aviation magazines and is registered to do business in Texas. It performed most of its work in Texas and Illinois customers accounted for roughly 1% of its total revenues. The director admitted that the company sold component parts to an aviation company in Illinois and that between 2012 and 2016 it sold component parts to several other companies in Illinois.

Continue reading

by

Truck accidents can happen on the road, causing serious personal injuries and other damages. But they can also cause injuries when the operator or other professional attempts to use the truck. The vehicle does not always have to be in motion for there to be a risk of injury or some negligent conduct. At Therman Law Offices, our Chicago truck accident lawyers are ready to help you seek the compensation that you deserve after an unnecessary and painful truck accident.

A recent case from the Illinois Court of Appeal discusses a situation involving a dump truck. The victim worked for a trucking company as a driver. While he was working on a dump truck leased from another company that was loaded with mulch for a delivery. He climbed on top of the vehicle and lowered himself into the trailer so that he could rake the mulch and level it inside the trailer. At the time he climbed down, he noticed that surfaces of the trailer were wet. When he finished raking and leveling, he attempted to exit the trailer by using the ladder on the side of the trailer when he fell. He landed on his feet and experienced a sharp pain in his back. He informed his employer, completed the delivery, returned to the truck yard, and prepared the next day’s delivery. He used the stairs one more time without incident.

The worker and his wife filed a lawsuit against multiple parties including the trucking company and seller of the truck alleging that the defendants were strictly liable for his injuries and negligent in failing to provide safe access to and from the trailer. They also alleged that the manufacturer failed to provide adequate warnings and safety measures and failed to perform sufficient product testing to ensure the trailer’s safety.

Continue reading

by

A common issue that arises in claims involving nursing homes and other care facilities is whether an arbitration agreement is enforceable. As Chicago nursing home negligence lawyers, we have seen firsthand how an arbitration agreement’s applicability can cause serious confusion and headaches for a family who has endured the loss of their loved one due to a facility’s negligence. At Therman Law Offices, we are prepared to help you determine whether you are entitled to compensation and explore the best route for asserting your rights against the nursing home that is responsible for the harm.

Recently, the Illinois Court of Appeal decided a case involving a dispute regarding an arbitration agreement and its enforceability. A woman died while in the care of a nursing home facility, and her estate brought a claim against the facility, claiming negligence and wrongful death. The defendants responded to the action by filing a motion to compel arbitration and seeking dismissal of the civil claim.

The lower court initially granted the motion but later granted the estate’s motion to reconsider. It also allowed the estate to file an affidavit from a doctor, stating that the decedent would probably not have understood the arbitration agreement that she was required to sign upon admittance to the facility. The affidavit suggested that the decedent was under the influence of certain medications that would have made it difficult for her to understand what was happening, due to the side effects that they caused. The defendants appealed.

Continue reading

by

Uninsured motorist coverage is supposed to help us cover the unforeseen costs and expenses associated with a car accident, but receiving the benefit of your policy can be fraught with headaches. Insurance companies don’t always have your best interests in mind following an accident and when considering an insurance claim. As seasoned Chicago car accident lawyers, Therman Law Offices has substantial experience dealing with legal situations involving insurance companies. We will fight zealously to ensure that your insurer treats you fairly and that you receive the treatment that you deserve following a painful and stressful motor vehicle accident.

In a recent appellate opinion, the Illinois Court of Appeal was asked to consider a case where the plaintiff, an insurance company, sought declaratory judgment regarding whether it was required to provide uninsured motorist (UIM) coverage to the defendant, it’s insured. The defendant had a UIM policy, and she sought coverage for injuries she sustained during a motor vehicle accident that another driver who did not have an auto insurance policy caused. The policy included a provision requiring the insured to cooperate with the insurer when asked to assist in giving or securing evidence. This included providing proof of loss forms when requested. It also stated that there would be no coverage provided to the extent that it would benefit any workers’ compensation coverage.

The defendant was injured while working as a driving instructor for a trucking company. She was riding as a passenger at the time of the crash. The employer’s insurer sent a letter stating that its policy did not provide coverage for bodily injuries sustained by employees. The plaintiff concluded that coverage might not be appropriate, given the work-related implications of the crash. It later requested confirmation from the defendant that no workers’ compensation insurance was being issued for the loss. The defendant sent a letter from the employer’s insurer. The plaintiff sent another letter saying it needed to do more investigation regarding whether the other parties in the accident had insurance.

Continue reading

by

Construction workers face some of the most serious and deadly accidents in their line of work. Whether it’s dangerous machinery, faulty scaffolding, or exposure to chemicals, there are countless ways that a construction site can turn dangerous. Although many instances of construction workers becoming injured are handled in the Illinois workers’ compensation system, there are some instances where the conduct is so egregious that the injured worker may be able to file a claim in civil court. As seasoned Chicago construction accident lawyers representing Illinois victims, Therman Law Offices is prepared to assist you with evaluating your potential lawsuit.

A recent case discusses a situation where the worker was injured at a construction site. He was asked by his employer to apply sealant at the bottom of an effluent chamber settling tank. He was required to use two ladders that the team constructed to reach the bottom of the 29-foot tall tank. The ladder system required the worker to step from one ladder over to the other ladder to reach the bottom of the tank. The day before the accident happened, it rained and there was three feet of standing water at the bottom of the tank requiring the worker to wear rubber boots. When he pivoted from one ladder to the next ladder, he fell from the top of the tank 29-feet down to the bottom. He sustained severe traumatic brain injuries and broken bones.

The injured worker’s wife sued his employer on his behalf for negligence including willful and wanton misconduct, and loss of consortium. She pointed to a series of rules and regulations from the Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago, which governed the project, that dictated how worksites should be maintained and the safety provisions that should be followed. The complaint ultimately alleged that the configuration of ladders and the failure to maintain a safe, dry worksite violated the regulations and the governing documents for the project.

Continue reading

by

Arbitration agreements often come in situations involving personal injury lawsuits. Many people do not take the time to read what they are signing and, in most situations, they do not have an option to negotiate the terms of the deal. One of the most common places that arbitration agreements arise involves rehabilitation facilities or nursing homes. If you or a loved one was injured in one of these facilities and you signed an arbitration agreement, it is critical that you speak with a diligent Chicago personal injury attorney as soon as possible.

A recent case from the Illinois Court of Appeal examined an arbitration agreement signed by a person who was admitted to a rehabilitation facility. The plaintiff alleged that he fell out of bed as a result of the negligence of the facility and that he suffered injuries as a result. In response to the lawsuit, the defendant facility filed a motion to dismiss and pointed to the arbitration agreement that the plaintiff signed. The agreement stated that the parties would arbitrate any claims of negligence arising from the plaintiff’s stay at the facility. The facility also filed a motion to compel arbitration. It also provided affidavits from two employees stating that the plaintiff signed the contract and that the plaintiff appeared to be of sound mind when discussing the agreement and signing them.

In response to the motion to compel arbitration, the plaintiff alleged that the agreement was unenforceable because there was no evidence showed that the facility was a party to the arbitration agreement. The facility had undergone administrative changes and a name change since the plaintiff signed the arbitration agreement. The plaintiff also argued that it was unenforceable on the basis that it was signed under duress and due to the unfair bargaining power between the parties.

Continue reading