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

Motorcycle on RoadWhen you are injured in a serious accident, there are certain things that you must consider, including getting prompt medical attention and dealing with the inconvenience and stress that the accident causes in your life. Having a seasoned Chicago motorcycle accident attorney on your side can help you understand your legal rights and navigate the legal system efficiently and correctly. As a recent appellate opinion illustrates, failing to abide by certain rules can have devastating consequences for your right to recovery.

The plaintiff filed a complaint against the County of Winnebago, stating that he was injured in a motorcycle accident as a result of a defective roadway. The defendant moved for summary judgment, and the court entered a judgment in favor of the defendant based on this motion. The plaintiff decided to file a motion to reconsider, which would have been due on January 3, 2017, pursuant to court rules and the order entering judgment in the defendant’s favor.

The plaintiff filed a motion to reconsider that had a date stamp of January 4, 2017. The next day, the plaintiff filed a motion seeking for leave to file his motion to reconsider nunc pro tunc, which means in an effort to correct a prior action and to have the newly filed motion deemed timely. In support of this request, the plaintiff alleged that he suffered from an illness and that because of deadlines in other cases that his attorney was handling, he was unable to file by the deadline. He also cited technical difficulties with the website used to file documents. The plaintiff cited a provision in the Illinois Supreme Court Rules regarding system and user errors and attached an affidavit from the attorney’s paralegal describing her attempt to file the document two minutes before midnight on the date it was due.

Continue reading

by

Pothole in PavementTrip and fall accidents can have serious and painful consequences for the victim. Although this type of accident may seem minor, the injuries that result can leave you with a lifetime of pain and disabilities. At Therman Law Office, our seasoned team of Chicago premises liability lawyers has confidently assisted numerous victims with asserting their rights following a trip and fall injury.

As a recent appellate opinion demonstrates, many of these accidents take place on a city-owned property. The plaintiff in the action brought a negligence claim against the City of Aurora, alleging that she was injured when she tripped in a depression located in a section of asphalt in a parking lot at a train station. The jury initially returned a verdict in her favor, but the court intervened due to one of the responses that the jury provided on its special verdict form. The question asked whether the depression in the asphalt had a vertical difference of 1.5 inches or less, and the jury responded yes to this question. The court concluded that as a result of this response, the dangerous condition was de minimis and entered a judgment in favor of the defendant.

The plaintiff filed a motion to reconsider its decision, but the court denied the motion, restating that the defendant had no duty to guard against de minimis hazards. The plaintiff appealed, alleging that the lower court erred in providing the special interrogatory to the jury and that the question the court used to enter a verdict in favor of the defendants was not dispositive of the ultimate fact of whether the depression was a dangerous condition on the property. The plaintiff also argued that there were aggravating factors at play that rendered the depression a dangerous condition, even if it was 1.5 inches or less in height difference from the surrounding asphalt. More specifically, the plaintiff alleged that the aggravating factors consisted of a high-volume pedestrian area at the train station that made it more difficult to notice the depression.

Continue reading

by

insuranceLosing a loved one is a painful experience. The devastation can be even more life-changing when the victim is a baby or child. The dedicated Chicago wrongful death lawyers at Therman Law Offices have seen how a family can be forever torn apart by a doctor’s carelessness. Having to deal with insurance companies who don’t always have your best interests in mind can make this process even more burdensome. In a recent appellate case, the plaintiffs filed a lawsuit against an insurer, asserting a claim for a bad faith failure to settle a lawsuit. The jury ultimately ruled in the plaintiff’s favor and awarded them a multi-million dollar judgment. The insurer appealed, raising a number of issues.

In the underlying lawsuit, the plaintiffs brought claims against many individuals, including the doctors who provided treatment to their child. Many of the defendants were either dismissed from the action or resolved through summary judgment proceedings before the issue with the insurance company arose. The jury returned a wrongful death verdict for the parents, which was offset by various pre-trial settlement payments from the other defendants. The insurer paid the policy limits on the remaining verdict. Over $1 million remained after the insurer paid the policy limits, and the defendant physicians in the lawsuit were personally responsible for the amount. The defendant physicians signed over their right to pursue a bad faith failure to settle the claim against the insurance company in exchange for a covenant to not enforce the excess judgment against them.

The plaintiffs then filed the bad faith insurance action against the insurer, seeking compensation in the amount of the remaining verdict as well as $10 million for punitive damages, reflecting the insurer’s failure to settle or resolve the claim. The plaintiffs also requested a jury trial and requested a six-person jury pursuant to a specific Illinois code provision that allows for six-person juries in civil matters. The insurer challenged the use of a six-person jury panel, but its challenge was denied. The jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiffs and awarded the remaining judgment amount, as well as $13 million in punitive damages and attorney’s fees and costs.

Continue reading

by

Flowers At FuneralIf an accident victim loses his or her life as a result of the injuries that he or she sustains, Illinois law allows the surviving family members to bring a wrongful death claim against the wrongdoer who caused their loved one’s death. Illinois law also allows the surviving family members to file a survival action to recover damages that the decedent would have been able to seek had he or she not died as a result of the accident. The dedicated and compassionate Illinois wrongful death lawyers at Therman Law Offices have assisted numerous grieving families with navigating these laws following the unexpected loss of a loved one, and we are ready to assist you.

In a recent lawsuit involving wrongful death and survival actions, the decedent lost his life as a result of a car crash in which a truck driven by the defendant crashed into the back of the SUV in which the decedent was driving. The decedent’s son filed a wrongful death and survival action against the defendant, who eventually admitted liability and agreed to proceed with a trial as to the amount of damages that he owed. Next, a probate estate was opened for the decedent, and another individual was appointed as the special administrator. She litigated the survival claim, while the son litigated the wrongful death claim.

After the trial, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff for the wrongful death claim but returned a verdict in favor of the defendant for the survival action. The administrator for the estate died after this verdict, and the attorney filed a request for a new trial on the survival claim. The attorney failed to report her death, however, and the court denied the post-trial request. The attorney filed a notice of appeal in the administrator’s name but failed to report her death again. Next, the son moved to be named as the administrator of the estate, which the probate court authorized. The defendants moved to dismiss the appeal, which the court denied. The defendants appealed.

Continue reading

by

Horseback RiderThere are many different ways that you can be injured in an accident, including incidents caused by large animals. As dedicated Chicago personal injury attorneys, the lawyers at Therman Law Offices have handled a wide variety of accident cases, including dog bites and other injuries caused by animals. In a recent lawsuit, the plaintiff alleged that she was injured when she was kicked by a horse owned by another individual. In the complaint, she alleged that the owner violated the Illinois Animal Control Act and acted in a negligent manner at the time of the injury.

According to the complaint, the plaintiff alleged that the parties were riding horses next to each other on a public trail when the defendant’s horse kicked the plaintiff. She alleged that her injuries resulted in permanent disabilities and disfigurement. The allegations further stated that the plaintiff did not provoke the defendant’s horse and that she was conducting herself in a peaceful manner at a place where she had a right to be located. Regarding the negligence claim, the plaintiff alleged that the defendant failed to warn the plaintiff about the violent nature of the horse and its tendency to kick people, failed to train the horse properly, and was negligent in riding too close to the plaintiff when she knew that the horse had a violent nature. Finally, the plaintiff alleged that the defendant was riding the horse in a manner that went against industry norms and customs.

The defendant responded to the complaint by alleging that the injury actually occurred in Missouri and that Missouri law should govern the matter. As a result, the defendant argued that the claim based on the Illinois statute must be dismissed. Next, the defendant argued that the plaintiff had executed a Release of Liability before engaging in the horseback riding endeavor and that according to Missouri law, this absolved the defendant of liability. Based on these arguments, the defendant filed a motion to dismiss the action.

Continue reading

by

staircase and stoopSlip and fall accidents can cause serious and permanent injuries for a victim. This type of accident can occur on virtually any type of premises, including your apartment building if it is not maintained in appropriate condition. As seasoned Chicago slip and fall lawyers, the attorneys at Therman Law Offices are ready to guide you through the legal process and to help you seek the compensation that you deserve.

In a recent lawsuit, the plaintiff alleged that he slipped and fell on a staircase and stoop area outside his apartment complex, resulting in a serious injury to his left leg. The injury required multiple surgeries to address. In his complaint seeking compensation for the injuries, the plaintiff alleged that the apartment complex was owned and operated by an association of condominium owners. He also alleged that these owners had a duty to maintain the staircase and stoop area in a safe manner according to Illinois’ Condominium Property Act. The plaintiff also pointed to the bylaws and declaration of the owner group, which provided for the maintenance and repair of the so-called “Common Elements” at the premises.

The plaintiff’s allegations also stated that the owner group and the entities that it had hired to construct and maintain the location of the accident did not respond to numerous complaints regarding the slippery nature of the staircase and stoop prior to when the injury occurred.

Continue reading

by

red semi truckTruck accidents are dangerous and lead to some of the most serious accidents. At Therman Law Offices, we have guided numerous truck accident victims through the legal process, including families mourning the loss of a loved one in a fatal collision. There is no amount of compensation that can truly restore your family member to you, but it does help offset the financial burden associated with a sudden and unexpected loss.

In a recent opinion, an Illinois court discussed a situation in which a truck driver caused a multi-car accident. The owner of the semi-tractor was driving down Interstate 55 with a load of produce. She suddenly noticed that the vehicles ahead of her were not moving, and she was unable to stop the truck in time. As a result, the truck ran over multiple vehicles. Two individuals died in the accident, while a third sustained serious injuries.

All three injured parties sued the many defendants involved. First, they sued a logistics company that agreed to let the driver deliver the produce as well as a federally licensed motor carrier that had authorized the driver to book and deliver loads on her own, using its carrier authority. The driver admitted that she operated the truck negligently, and so did the motor carrier. The logistics company denied liability and sought contribution from the other two defendants in the event a judgment was entered against it. At trial, the issues primarily focused on whether there was enough evidence to show that the driver was acting as an agent of the logistics company at the time of the Illinois truck accident. Under Illinois law, the doctrine of vicarious liability allows an accident victim to hold an employer liable for the tortious acts that its employees commit in the course and scope of employment.

Continue reading

by

Clock on GrassThere is nothing more devastating than losing a loved one in a fatal auto accident. As compassionate and experienced Chicago car accident lawyers, we have seen numerous wrongful death actions arising from another individual’s carelessness. One of the most common ways that these accidents take place is motor vehicle collisions. A recent Illinois appellate opinion discusses liability in a fatal car crash, along with the importance of filing the action within the statute of limitations.

The plaintiff’s brother was killed while walking in a crosswalk when he was struck by a tow truck. The decedent’s brother contacted an attorney to bring a civil claim against the defendant. The attorney filed this lawsuit exactly two years and a day after the date of the accident. The case went through a number of other procedural issues, including a dismissal for lack of prosecution. The new attorney filed a petition for relief from the judgment based on a variety of grounds, including evidence that the prior attorney suffered a stroke while representing the plaintiff and was unable to practice law. The parties disputed whether the plaintiff actively prosecuted the claim, and the defendant argued that the claim was filed after the statute of limitations, rendering it time-barred.

The plaintiff countered the statute of limitations argument by saying that the plaintiff died the day after the accident as a result of his injuries and that the plaintiff was legally disabled from the moment of the accident until the moment he died, effectively tolling the statute of limitations. The plaintiff also wanted to add a claim for wrongful death, which had not been pled in the original complaint.

Continue reading

by

empty signature lineWhen you suffer injuries due to another person’s negligence, you may have the option of asserting several different causes of action to recover compensation. Knowing which causes of action to assert and whether you need to follow certain procedural requirements with each cause of action is a critical step in your lawsuit. As seasoned Chicago personal injury lawyers, we have substantial experience with numerous causes of action and can ensure that your rights are protected. A recent Illinois appellate case demonstrates the importance of asserting the appropriate cause of action and complying with any procedural requirements.

In 2014, the plaintiff underwent a number of plastic surgery procedures performed by the same plastic surgeon. After these procedures, the plaintiff filed a complaint alleging that the doctor owed her damages for breach of contract, medical battery, and consumer fraud. In her complaint, the plaintiff stated that she had a consultation with the doctor to learn about the procedures she wanted to have, including the removal of a breast implant. She further alleged that she and the doctor agreed that new implants would be placed below the pectoral muscle and agreed upon a price for the procedure. A formal written proposal was created in writing with an itemization of the procedures. The proposal did not discuss the placement of the new implants, but the plaintiff alleged that the parties had reached a verbal agreement. During the procedure, the doctor placed the implants above the pectoral muscle.

In response to the complaint, the defendants submitted a motion to dismiss, arguing that the complaint was one for medical negligence and that as a result, the plaintiff was required to comply with certain statutory requirements for medical malpractice in Illinois, including the submission of an affidavit from a licensed medical professional substantiating the plaintiff’s claims of medical negligence. The plaintiff rejected this characterization of her complaint as one involving medical negligence. Instead, she alleged that her consumer fraud claim did not involve medical negligence but instead deceptive business practices because he agreed to perform the surgery one way and then did it another way. It was not the standard of care used during the procedure that the plaintiff challenged, but instead the businesses practices that the defendant used before the procedure.

Continue reading

by

doctors in surgeryIn any personal injury lawsuit, understanding which evidence you and the other party can submit is a critical aspect of protecting your right to recovery. Some cases are complex and involve challenging evidentiary issues that could make or break your ability to recover damages. As seasoned Chicago personal injury lawyers, we are well versed in the rules of evidence and can use our knowledge to help you ensure that you are treated fairly. A recent appellate case demonstrates how difficult these evidentiary issues can become.

In 2012, the defendant doctor performed a procedure on the plaintiff consisting of a celiac plexus block. Following surgery, the plaintiff reported numbness in her legs. She was taken to the hospital, where it was concluded that she suffered a vasospasm and related paraplegia. The plaintiff and her husband filed a lawsuit against the doctor, asserting claims for medical negligence and loss of consortium. A few years after the claim was filed, the plaintiff died as a result of a stroke. The surviving husband amended the complaint to include a claim for the wrongful death of his wife, based on the alleged negligence of the defendant doctor. The plaintiff included many different counts of negligence regarding the celiac plexus procedure, including a failure to treat his wife’s condition with less aggressive and intensive methods. The plaintiff also alleged that the defendant lacked privileges to perform the procedure at the hospital.

Before trial, the parties filed a number of motions in limine. These are motions that seek to resolve certain evidentiary issues before trial, such as which type of evidence can be admitted or whether there are any issues that the parties wish to exclude from the trial before the proceedings. One of the motions in limine that the defendant filed sought to exclude evidence regarding the issue of whether the defendant had privileges to perform the procedure at the hospital. The plaintiff also filed a motion in limine wanting to bar any evidence regarding the decedent’s history as a smoker. The trial court granted the plaintiff’s motion barring evidence about the decedent’s smoking history while reserving a ruling on the defendant’s motion regarding the defendant’s privileges at the hospital.

Continue reading