Articles Posted in Personal Injury

by

One of the most challenging aspects of any personal injury claim is preparing for trial. This involves gathering as much evidence as possible and gaining the best understanding of the arguments and evidence that the opposing party will present. There are a number of rules that are designed to make this process as fair as possible, but sometimes disputes arise regarding how the rules should be interpreted. As seasoned Chicago personal injury lawyers, we have substantial experience in preparing for trial and will help you secure the outcome that you deserve.

The plaintiff in a recent case filed a complaint seeking compensation for injuries that she suffered while allegedly riding an elevator controlled and maintained by the defendants. The plaintiff had filed a motion attempting to bar the defendants from admitting testimony from the defendants’ examining physician on the grounds that neither the physician nor the defendants provided the plaintiff with a copy of the report that the examiner prepared after examining the plaintiff. Illinois Supreme Court Rule 215(c) sets a specific time limit for when parties must exchange this report in anticipation of presenting the examining physician for testimony at trial.

The trial court denied the plaintiff’s motion and the plaintiff filed an interlocutory request to have a higher court determine whether the trial court has the discretion to allow a medical examiner under Rule 215 to testify when the opposing party was not provided with a copy of the report that the examiner prepared within the specified timeframe.

Continue reading

by

Work-related injuries often raise complicated issues regarding liability especially when multiple insurance companies are involved. It can be incredibly difficult to know whether an insurance company has a duty to provide coverage in a lawsuit or whether you are being treated in a fair manner. The workers’ compensation and personal injury lawyers at Therman Law Offices have helped many injured workers to receive the judgment or compensation that they deserve following a work injury and we are standing by to assist you.

Recently, the Illinois Court of Appeal considered a case involving a worker who suffered injuries while working on an escalator. A construction company had hired an escalator company as a subcontractor on a project. The injured worker was an employee for the escalator company. According to the parties’ subcontract agreement, the escalator company named the general contractor and the owner of the property where the construction was taking place as additional insureds under its insurance policy.

When the man was injured, he sued the general contractor and the owner of the premises. The general contractor deferred the claim to the escalator company that employed the worker, but it denied coverage. The general contractor then filed a complaint seeking a declaratory judgment that the escalator company’s insurer had a duty to defend and indemnify the general contractor as an additional insured. It added the escalator company as an additional defendant and argued that it may have breached the subcontract agreement by failing to have adequate insurance.

Continue reading

by

Elevator accidents are incredibly dangerous, but they can be avoided if the owner and operator of the elevator performs routine maintenance and upkeep to ensure that it is working safely. When the owner and operator fails to take precautions against elevator malfunctions and an accident results, the victim can seek compensation from the owner and operator in a personal injury lawsuit. At Therman Law Offices, we have proudly served numerous victims of Illinois elevator injuries and we are standing by to help you assert your right to compensation.

Recently, a woman filed a complaint against the owners and operators of an elevator seeking compensation for injuries that she suffered while riding the elevator. During the litigation, the plaintiff filed a motion seeking to exclude the testimony of the physician that the defendant’s retained to examine the plaintiff to determine the nature and scope of her injuries and whether the injuries were caused by the elevator. The plaintiff asserted that the defendants did not provide a copy of the doctor’s report to the plaintiff within the timeframe required under Illinois statutes.

The trial court denied the motion, but later granted the plaintiff’s motion to certify a question for a higher court to answer regarding whether the trial court has discretion to allow the doctor to testify when the opposing party did not receive a copy of the examination report within the statutory timeframe.

Continue reading

by

When you suffer serious and catastrophic injuries, it is important to ensure that you seek enough compensation to cover your future medical treatment needs. There are many ways to estimate these costs, including consultation with a life care planner or medical expert. At Therman Law Offices, our Chicago personal injury attorneys are prepared to help you ensure that your future expenses associated with the injuries that you sustained are properly accounted for in the lawsuit.

Recently, a man filed a personal injury action against a steel company seeking damages for injuries that he suffered when a crane struck a lift in which he was working at the defendant’s facility. The defendant accepted liability for the accident and the matter proceeded to trial for the sole purpose of determining the amount of damages that he was entitled to receive.

The jury awarded the plaintiff $9.9 million in damages and the defendant filed a motion seeking a new trial on the basis that the lower court erred by allowing one of the plaintiff’s expert witnesses to offer an opinion indicating that the plaintiff would require surgery in the future. The expert witness was asked whether, to a reasonable degree of medical certainty, the plaintiff would need hip surgery in the future. When asked what type of hip surgery the plaintiff would require, the doctor testified that he could not answer that question because he was a medical specialist and not a surgical specialist. He indicated that he would send the plaintiff to a hip surgical specialist if the plaintiff were his patient.

Continue reading

by
funeral

Photo Credit: Syda Productions / Shutterstock.com

In addition to substantive rules that determine when someone is entitled to compensation, there are countless evidentiary and procedural rules that apply to legal proceedings. If a party fails to abide by these evidentiary and procedural rules, it can serve as the basis for a new trial. If a jury is exposed to evidence that it was not supposed to hear, it can unfairly prejudice the jury and skew its ability to apply the law to the facts of the case. As dedicated Chicago personal injury lawyers, we have substantial knowledge regarding the evidentiary and procedural rules that apply during legal proceedings and we will ensure that they are applied fairly in your case.

A recent Illinois appellate opinion provides an example of how an evidentiary rule can impact the outcome of litigation. The decedent’s wife, who was designated the independent administrator of her husband’s estate, brought a wrongful death lawsuit against the medical persons who cared for her husband up until his death, which resulted from a pulmonary embolism. A jury trial was conducted and the jury returned a verdict in favor of the defendants. The plaintiff moved for a new trial, arguing that the defendant’s lawyer ignored a pretrial motion in limine order that barred any mention of her husband’s refusal to be transferred to another hospital on the day that he died. The court found that the comments made by defense counsel in closing violated the motion in limine and were sufficiently prejudicial to warrant a new trial.

Continue reading

by
police vehicle

Photo Credit: Jaromir Chalabala / Shutterstock.com

Some personal injury accidents can be incredibly complex, especially when they involve government entities or first responders. The seasoned team of Chicago personal injury lawyers at Therman Law Offices have handled a wide variety of cases involving many different categories of defendants. We have the experience and knowledge it takes to ensure that you receive the settlement or judgment that you deserve.

A recent opinion from the Illinois Supreme Court illustrates how complex cases can become when they involve first responders. In the action, a wrongful death and survival action was filed on behalf of a deceased woman against several first responders, including various fire protection districts, ambulance crew, a 911 operator, and emergency medical dispatchers. The complaint alleged that the defendants acted negligently in rendering care to the decedent and that as a result of their negligence she lost her life.

According to the record, the decedent called 911 because she was unable to breathe and she was connected to a 911 operator. She provided her address and the 911 operator transferred her to a dispatch line. An emergency medical dispatch received the transferred call. Written procedures required the 911 operator to communicate the nature of the emergency matter to the dispatcher, but the 911 operator hung up as soon as the call was transferred. The medical dispatcher asked the decedent some questions but she did not respond, so he hung up the phone and called the number twice receiving a busy signal each time. He placed the call in line for emergency medical dispatch and listed the cause as unknown.

Continue reading

by
hazardous materials

Photo Credit: HikoPhotography / Shutterstock.com

One of the most dangerous types of injuries that an individual can face is a toxic tort. These involve exposure to harmful chemicals or substances. Because of the complexity involved in these types of cases, it is critical to consult an attorney who has experience handling cases involving dangerous substances. Our seasoned Illinois personal injury lawyers have the experience and tenacity it takes to help you and your family cope after this traumatic injury.In a recent Illinois appellate opinion, the plaintiffs were children who were born with birth defects that they asserted were caused in utero as a result of their fathers’ exposure to dangerous substances while they worked for a major auto manufacturer.  The children filed complaints against the carmaker, alleging multiple causes of action, including negligence, breach of assumed duty, strict liability, willful and wanton conduct, and loss of consortium relating to their birth defects and the resulting impairment to the parent-child relationship. The defendant moved to dismiss the action on the basis that they failed to show that they would be entitled to relief on any set of facts, and the trial court granted the motion.

The plaintiffs appealed, alleging that the lower court made a number of reversible errors. First, they alleged that the lower court was wrong in finding that workers’ compensation was the exclusive remedy for their stated harms. They also alleged that the court was wrong in finding that the defendant did not owe a duty to a not-yet-conceived baby, and in finding that the plaintiffs could not establish proximate causation because the fathers did not suffer an injury.

Continue reading

by
armed robbery

Photo Credit: Burdun Iliya / Shutterstock.com

Personal injury actions can arise in many different scenarios. Regardless of the circumstances, it is essential to consult with a seasoned Illinois personal injury lawyer to ensure that you are asserting your rights to the fullest extent possible. In a recent appellate decision, the court considered whether surviving relatives could recover compensation from a public entity based on allegations that the public entity failed to dispatch a 911 call in a timely manner.

In the case, the decedent was working at a convenience store that he owned located in an apartment building in Chicago. A number of individuals wearing ski masks and brandishing weapons entered the store. A pedestrian outside the store called 911. The Office of Emergency Management and Communications (OEMC) received the first call at 7:12 p.m. and a second call from the same pedestrian at 7:17 p.m. At 7:20 p.m., OEMC dispatched a police unit and two minutes later, additional units were dispatched. Upon arrival, the police found the decedent tied to a chair with a gunshot wound to the head. He was pronounced dead at the scene.

The plaintiffs filed a wrongful death action that proceeded through discovery until the plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the claim on the eve of trial. They refiled some years later alleging that the decedent was shot and killed two minutes before the officers arrived and that OEMC’s failure to dispatch police to an armed robbery in progress until eight minutes after receiving the first 911 call was willful and wonton and showed a reckless disregard for the decedent’s safety. The defendants moved for summary judgment on several grounds. Some of the public entity defendants claimed immunity under the Tort Immunity Act. One of the defendants argued that it did not owe the decedent a duty to protect him from a third party attack and that the decedent’s death was the proximate cause of a third party’s actions. It also argued that the earlier dispatch of a police unit would have prevented his death was entirely speculative. The trial court granted the motion for summary judgment and the plaintiffs appealed.

Continue reading

by

Some personal injury lawsuits give rise to several causes of action. This can create major complexities and procedural issues that are best handled by a seasoned Illinois personal injury lawyer. A recent wrongful death case and malicious prosecution case demonstrates the wide variety of legal actions that can arise from one incident.

A licensed physician was married to the plaintiff’s son. The son died in 2008 when he fell off a ladder outside of his residence. The wife was appointed as administrator of the estate because the son died intestate. A dispute arose between the wife and plaintiffs regarding the son’s assets. While that dispute was pending, the plaintiffs filed a wrongful death action against the wife, claiming that she prescribed the son Ambien even though a side effect of the medication was sleepwalking and the wife knew of the son’s existing propensity for sleepwalking. In sum, the complaint alleged that it was negligent and careless to prescribe the son Ambien and that doing so was the proximate cause of his death.

The wife claimed she never received service of the wrongful death complaint and only learned about its existence in 2010 when reading a newspaper article. She alleged that she was contacted to appear on the television show Dr. Phil to discuss Ambien. She also alleged that the claim was reported to her malpractice insurance carrier and other public entities. The probate dispute later resolved and the plaintiffs dismissed their wrongful death lawsuit.

Continue reading

by

There are many procedural and evidentiary rules that are specific to medical malpractice cases. If you were injured as the result of a physician’s lack of appropriate care, having a seasoned Illinois medical malpractice lawyer on your side can make all the difference. A recent appellate decision discusses how the Patient Safety and Quality Improvement Act of 2005 impacts a litigant’s ability to seek evidence from a medical provider defendant in a lawsuit.

This statute was established for the purpose of creating a voluntary reporting system regarding patient safety information by medical providers. It is designed to compile and review data to improve patient safety and the overall quality of healthcare in Illinois. The law encourages reporting by providing a privilege and confidentiality protection for patient safety information, which is referred to as patient safety work product. If one of the services that analyzes the data that medical providers report discloses patient safety work product, that provider can face a fine of up to $10,000 per disclosure.

In the lawsuit, the plaintiff alleged that the defendants failed to sufficiently monitor and treat blood glucose levels of the decedent and that the decedent lost her life as a result of this failure. The medical providers named as defendants in the action denied any negligence and filed a motion to dismiss, stating that they were not involved in the decedent’s care. During discovery, the plaintiff served discovery requests on one of the defendants, seeking information regarding whether the defendant was reported to or investigated by any agency or committee. The defendant objected on the basis that this was privileged information and provided a privilege log listing six reports. Additional discovery requests from the plaintiff sought information regarding any conversations or discussions the defendants had with any individuals regarding the incident. The defendant again refused to produce information on the basis of privilege.

Continue reading