Articles Posted in Personal Injury

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.

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.

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

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

Understanding the role that insurance policies may have in your claim can be critically important to ensuring that you receive the compensation that you deserve. Accidents can lead to considerable damages and expenses, especially when long-term injuries and permanent disabilities are involved. As Illinois personal injury lawyers, we have substantial experience dealing with insurance companies.

In a recent appellate decision, an employee filed a lawsuit against its former employer for injuries that the employee sustained as a result of long-term exposure to asbestos. The employee notified every insurance company that had sold policies to the employer during the relevant time period. One of the insurance companies contended that the policies it provided to the employer for the relevant time period should be viewed as excess insurance because the employer had agreed to a self-insured retention program as opposed to a deductible for that period of time. The employer asserted a counterclaim, seeking a judgment declaring that the insurer’s policies should be viewed as primary coverage for the relevant time period. The lower court granted the employer’s motion for summary judgment on this issue.

The insurer appealed, arguing that any policy that refers to a self-insured retention must be viewed as an excess policy according to Illinois case precedent. The appellate court rejected this, finding that Illinois courts have detailed other characteristics that will help distinguish between primary and excess insurance policies. For example, courts have ruled that excess policies do not typically require immediate notice of an accident or event, as primary policies typically do. Insurers that provide excess insurance are not concerned with every accident that happens, but only those that are severe enough to warrant excess coverage. Also, excess coverage is contingent on the insured exhausting his or her primary coverage. As a result, excess coverage providers typically do not require notification until there is a reasonable likelihood that the excess insurance policy will be necessary. As a result, courts have concluded that excess insurance policies provide the insured with some amount of discretion.

Continue reading

When it comes to personal injury law, there are many different kinds of conduct and harm that render a victim eligible for compensation. As experienced and knowledgeable Illinois personal injury lawyers, we have handled a wide variety of cases including unique and complex types of injuries. In a recent case, the plaintiff gave birth to a daughter who was stillborn. The plaintiff signed a form provided by the hospital authorizing it to dispose of the daughter’s remains. The plaintiff alleged in her complaint that the defendant’s employees told her verbally that the daughter would be buried in a short period of time. Roughly one year later, the plaintiff learned that her daughter’s remains were still in a cooler at a morgue facility that the defendant operated. She also learned that the remains were in a container that contained many other fetal remains.

In her complaint, the plaintiff also contended that the defendant voluntarily undertook burial of the deceased baby and that this created a duty to provide the child with a timely burial as promised. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant breached this duty by failing to make arrangements for the burial, by placing the baby’s remains in a container with multiple other fetal remains, by failing to report the baby’s death to the local registrar, by using the wrong burial consent form, and by failing to maintain or to follow any appropriate burial protocols. Finally, the plaintiff alleged that the defendant was negligent in supervising and monitoring its employees.

As for damages, the plaintiff alleged that she suffered severe emotional distress and depression as well as incurring burial and autopsy fees.

Continue reading