Chicago Accident and Injury Lawyer Blog

One of our Chicago personal injury and medical malpractice attorneys recently came upon a series of articles in a well-known legal publication reporting on legal news found on the internet. A close read of the articles revealed that at least one of the articles came from a legal blog entitled LegalNewsline.com. What our personal injury attorney found particularly troubling is that LegalNewsline.com is owned by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce Institute for Legal Reform. The Chamber is the largest pro-business lobby in our country and the purpose of its Institute for Legal Reform is to lobby for changes to our legal system that will create a better environment for businesses, even at the expense of consumer rights, civil liberties, and our client's cases.

The stories contained on LegalNewsline.com are not a product of unbiased journalism. Candidly, a particularly upsetting study reported on by LegalNewsline.com commissioned by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce Institute for Legal Reform purports to find that as "tort costs go down, employment goes up." Based on the agenda of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce Institute for Legal Reform, it is not surprising that the "study" found that "[t]he costs associated with the United States tort system are excessive compared to other countries" or that "stimulus resulting from improvements in an individual state with the costliest legal environment could increase employment by as much as 1.0% or even 2.8%."

Big business and insurance companies have been spending millions to convince the American public that personal injury verdicts and settlements are the reason why our economy is suffering. Sadly, they have now targeted personal injury verdicts as the newest reason for poor employment numbers. The truth is that those of us in the personal injury world have had been attacked, while fighting to protect the rights of victims of negligence. In the end, it is you, the victim, that ultimately suffers. This is especially true when jurors and/or legislatures give credence to misguided studies.

Continue reading " DON'T BELIEVE EVERYTHING YOU READ ABOUT TORT REFORM " »

This probably will not shock many, but Canadian researchers have found that "people who smoke marijuana within three hours of driving are twice as likely to cause a crash than someone who is sober," according to a story in the Chicago Tribune. Specifically, the researchers determined that individuals who drive under the influence of marijuana "are slightly more than twice as likely to be involved in a fatal crash" and "about 1.75 times as likely to cause a non-fatal collision."

As Illinois car crash attorneys, we know that individuals who drive under the influence of drugs and/or alcohol pose a serious safety hazard to themselves and to other drivers. Over the past few months, the Chicagoland area has seen a number of serious injuries and deaths due to distracted and drunk driving, particularly individuals driving the wrong-way down streets and highways. What's shocking is that people keep convincing themselves that it is somehow acceptable to drive a vehicle under the influence of drugs or alcohol. Can you believe that over 10 million people drive under the influence of illegal drugs and 30.5 million people drive under the influence of alcohol (per statistics compiled by the United States Department of Health and Human Services)? According to researchers of the Canadian study, "drivers with a blood-alcohol content of .08 are about 2.7 times as likely to be involved in a car accident as a sober person." The Center for Disease Control (CDC) found that alcohol-impaired drivers are involved in nearly 1 of every 3 crash deaths with 85% of drinking and driving episodes reported by people who also reported binge drinking (meaning 5 or more drinks for men or 4 or more drinks for women during a short period of time). Nonetheless, in the opinion our car crash attorneys, distracted driving is distracted driving, regardless of the means of distraction -- be it alcohol, drugs, or smartphone.

In essence, distracted driving refers to any activity that causes you to take your eyes off of the road, your hands off the steering wheel, or interrupts your concentration while driving. It also includes applying makeup while driving, tending to children in the back seat, or doing any other activity other than watching the road ahead of you. According to the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration (NHTSA), there are three main types of distraction: (1) manual: taking your hands off the wheel; (2) visual: taking your eyes off the road; and (3) cognitive: taking your mind off the road. In 2009, 5,474 people were killed in crashes involving driver distraction, and an estimated 448,000 were injured.

Continue reading " CHICAGO AUTO ACCIDENT ATTORNEYS: CANNABIS INTERFERES WITH SAFE DRIVING " »

The case is Toney v. Chester Co, 2011 Pa. LEXIS 3101 (2011). The Court: The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. The issue: Whether a medical malpractice cause of action alleging negligent infliction of emotional distress (NIED) exists where the emotional distress results from a negligent breach of a contractual or fiduciary duty without any evidence or allegations of physical impact or physical injury. The Court's finding: An expanded reading of NIED cases, finding that individuals (at least in Pennsylvania) who have a NIED claim -- without any allegations of physical damages -- may have a viable cause of action.

Specifically, in Toney, plaintiff-mother, who was in the late stages of pregnancy, underwent a pelvic ultrasound in March of 2003. The radiologist, who interpreted the results of the ultrasound, told plaintiff-mother that her pregnancy was normal. On July 3, 2003, however, she gave birth to a baby boy with "several profound physical abnormalities," including no arms below his elbows, no legs below his knees, an abnormally formed lower jaw, an incompletely developed tongue, a deformed penis, and an umbilical hernia. Id. at *4. Plaintiff-mother, conscious during the birth, alleged that the radiologist's negligent misinterpretation of the March 2003 ultrasound prevented her from preparing herself for the shock of witnessing her son's birth with such substantial physical deformities. She filed a lawsuit against the radiologist as well as Chester County Hospital and various other related entities (Defendants). She alleged that witnessing the birth of her physically deformed son, without prior knowledge of his deformities, caused her to suffer emotional distress due to the shock, which manifested itself in the form of nausea, headaches, insomnia, depression, nightmares, flashbacks, repeated hysterical attacks, stress, and anxiety. Id. The trial court dismissed the case. Plaintiff-mother appealed and the appellate court, which reversed the trial court, gave plaintiff-mother the go ahead to sue defendants in trial court. Defendants then appealed to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, which affirmed the appellate court's decision, finding that plaintiff-mother had stated a viable cause of action for emotional distress and resulting physical harm. The case will be returned to the trial court for further proceedings.

In Illinois, direct victims of NIED may recover damages with a showing of emotional distress as well as contemporaneous physical impact or injury. Corgan v. Muehling, 143 Ill. 2d 296, 303 (1991) (permitting patient-plaintiff to sue psychologist-defendant for negligently engaging in sexual relations with her during her course of treatment, causing her to suffer emotional injury). Whether or not the ruling in Toney will be persuasive in Illinois courts is yet to be seen. However, the fact that many courts, even the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, acknowledges that this area of the law "is somewhat complicated" (Lewis v. CITGO Petroleum Corp., 561 F.3d 698, 702 (2009)), means that this area of the law is not yet set in stone by any means.

Continue reading " CHICAGO MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ATTORNEYS DISCUSS EMOTIONAL DISTRESS IN MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CASE " »

The Illinois brain injury attorneys at the Law Offices of Jeffrey J. Kroll are interested in following the most breaking advances in the treatment of traumatic brain injury (TBI) since many of our clients suffer from TBIs. We recently read a story Army Moves To Act Fast On Battlefield Brain Injuries, which discusses how bomb blasts, leading to concussions and traumatic brain injuries, are treated in warfare settings.

One of the main problems with treating TBIs both on and off the battlefield is making the correct diagnosis. Some victims demonstrate signs of the brain injury, others do not. The military finds this particularly troubling, especially when many soldiers prefer to stay with their units at all costs. According to the Army Moves story, the Army "is trying to spot the injury close to the battlefield and get soldiers out of the fight." As a result, the Army is researching both a blood test and a brain scan that "may be able to indicate whether a soldier has TBI."

What does that mean for civilians? Despite the fact that those tests "could be years away," the fact that a major branch of the military is researching the issue will hopefully lead to better diagnostic tests for the medical community at large.

One of the other interesting segments of the Army Moves story discusses how TBI and post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) are "easily mixed up." In fact, concussions seen in battle, such as blast-related concussions, impact "the same region of the brain that is implicated in anxiety disorders and mood disorders." Just as it may take time for a victim to exhibit signs of PTSD, "some victims don't feel any effects [of TBIs] until months after their injury." The fact that researchers have begun to understand some of the nuances of these disorders is encouraging. The hope is that increased knowledge will lead to improved treatment options for those suffering from brain injuries, such as TBI, and PTSD.

Continue reading " TREATING TRAUMATIC BRAIN INJURIES ON (AND OFF) THE BATTLEFIELD " »

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has issued updated safety warnings to health care professionals and patients regarding the placement of surgical mesh through the vagina (also known as transvaginal mesh) to treat pelvic organ prolapse (POP). Surgical mesh is a medical device that is generally used to repair weakened or damaged tissue. It is made from porous absorbable or non-absorbable synthetic material or absorbable biologic material.

According to the FDA, who reviewed Medical Device Reports (adverse event reports) submitted to the FDA, evaluated published literature on the topic, and considered suggestions made at the September 2011 Obstetrics-Gynecology Devices Panel meeting, it is now considering the recommendation that transvaginal mesh be reclassified from a Class II device to a Class III device. As our Chicago Mass Tort Lawyer Blog has discussed in the past, there are various levels of federal oversight for the many medical devices available on the market depending on the risks that the devices present. Devices are categorized into three classes with Class I devices (things like elastic bandages) subject to the lowest level of oversight, Class II devices subject to additional "special controls," and Class III devices subject to the highest form of federal oversight.

Since the transvaginal mesh is currently classified as a Class II device, which allows the devices to be cleared for market pursuant to the FDA's 510(k) approval process, manufacturers were not required to conduct safety testing prior to making it available on the market. Many oppose this approval process since it allows companies to avoid conducting safety studies that could otherwise protect patients.

The FDA will now require transvaginal mesh manufacturers to submit study plans to the FDA that address specific safety and effectiveness concerns related to surgical mesh devices. These studies "will enable the agency to better understand the safety and effectiveness profiles of these devices." The FDA promises to provide additional information as it becomes available.

Close to 75,000 women a year have had transvaginal mesh devices inserted to treat POP. Since 2008, the FDA has received over a thousand reports of complications due to the devices, including injuries and death.

The products liability attorneys at the Law Offices of Jeffrey J. Kroll feel strongly that patients should not receive medical treatment or have medical devices used on them that have never undergone significant safety testing. Sadly, many women are now suffering because they received unsafe treatment. In light of this new warning, the Chicago mass tort lawyers at the Law Offices of Jeffrey J. Kroll hope that doctors and healthcare providers stop using this risky product and that the FDA reclassifies the product, requiring clinical trials.

Continue reading " FDA ISSUES UPDATED SAFETY WARNING REGARDING SURGICAL MESH " »

As Illinois accident and injury attorneys, we spend a considerable amount of time reading and writing about the risks of distracted driving. Having practiced personal injury law for over twenty years, we have sadly represented numerous victims of distracted drivers. We were encouraged by the recent news out of the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) regarding Secretary Ray LaHood's announcement of the first federally proposed guidelines encouraging automobile manufacturers to limit the distraction risk for in-vehicle electronic devices.

According to a DOT press release, the guidelines would "apply to communications, entertainment, information gathering and navigation devices or functions that are not required to safely operate the vehicle." The guidelines would also establish "specific recommended criteria for electronic devices installed in vehicles at the time they are manufactured that require visual or manual operation by drivers."

While this is only Phase I of the proposed guidelines, the DOT states that "manufacturers can use [the criteria] to ensure the systems or devices they provide in their vehicles are less likely to distract the driver with tasks not directly relevant to safely operating the vehicle, or cause undue distraction by engaging the driver’s eyes or hands for more than a very limited duration while driving." The proposed Phase I distraction guidelines include recommendations to:

Reduce complexity and task length required by the device; Limit device operation to one hand only (leaving the other hand to remain on the steering wheel to control the vehicle); Limit individual off-road glances required for device operation to no more than two seconds in duration; Limit unnecessary visual information in the driver’s field of view; Limit the amount of manual inputs required for device operation.

The proposed guidelines also recommend manufacturers design programs to disable other in-vehicle electronic devices while drivers are operating vehicles, such as:

Visual-manual text messaging; Visual-manual internet browsing; Visual-manual social media browsing; Visual-manual navigation system destination entry by address; Visual-manual 10-digit phone dialing; Displaying to the driver more than 30 characters of text unrelated to the driving task.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), the agency responsible for issuing the guidelines, is considering Phase II guidelines to address devices or systems not built into vehicles, such as navigation systems, smart phones, electronic tablets and pads, and other mobile communications devices. Phase III may address "voice-activated controls."

Continue reading " DOT PROPOSES GUIDELINES FOR MANURFACTURES TO LIMIT DISTRACTION RISK OF IN-VEHICLE ELECTRONIC DEVICES " »

As Illinois accident and injury attorneys, we spend a considerable amount of time reading and writing about the risks of distracted driving. Having practiced personal injury law for over twenty years, we have sadly represented numerous victims of distracted drivers. We were encouraged by the recent news out of the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) regarding Secretary Ray LaHood's announcement of the first federally proposed guidelines encouraging automobile manufacturers to limit the distraction risk for in-vehicle electronic devices.

According to a DOT press release, the guidelines would "apply to communications, entertainment, information gathering and navigation devices or functions that are not required to safely operate the vehicle." The guidelines would also establish "specific recommended criteria for electronic devices installed in vehicles at the time they are manufactured that require visual or manual operation by drivers."

While this is only Phase I of the proposed guidelines, the DOT states that "manufacturers can use [the criteria] to ensure the systems or devices they provide in their vehicles are less likely to distract the driver with tasks not directly relevant to safely operating the vehicle, or cause undue distraction by engaging the driver’s eyes or hands for more than a very limited duration while driving." The proposed Phase I distraction guidelines include recommendations to:

Reduce complexity and task length required by the device; Limit device operation to one hand only (leaving the other hand to remain on the steering wheel to control the vehicle); Limit individual off-road glances required for device operation to no more than two seconds in duration; Limit unnecessary visual information in the driver’s field of view; Limit the amount of manual inputs required for device operation.

The proposed guidelines also recommend manufacturers design programs to disable other in-vehicle electronic devices while drivers are operating vehicles, such as:

Visual-manual text messaging; Visual-manual internet browsing; Visual-manual social media browsing; Visual-manual navigation system destination entry by address; Visual-manual 10-digit phone dialing; Displaying to the driver more than 30 characters of text unrelated to the driving task.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), the agency responsible for issuing the guidelines, is considering Phase II guidelines to address devices or systems not built into vehicles, such as navigation systems, smart phones, electronic tablets and pads, and other mobile communications devices. Phase III may address "voice-activated controls."

Continue reading " DOT PROPOSES GUIDELINES FOR MANURFACTURES TO LIMIT DISTRACTION RISK OF IN-VEHICLE ELECTRONIC DEVICES " »

The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) recently declared U & D Service, Inc. of Indianapolis, Indiana, an imminent hazard and ordered it to immediately cease all operations for violating numerous federal commercial driver's license (CDL) and English proficiency requirements.

FMCSA conducted an extensive review of the company's operations and found "the company was using drivers who did not possess valid CDLs, or read and speak the English language sufficiently to safely operate a commercial vehicle on our nation's roads." According to a FMCSA press release it may take further "enforcement action against the non-CDL-holding drivers, including civil penalties and/or driver disqualifications." A copy of the imminent hazard out-of-service order can be viewed at FMCSA's website.

U & D Service, Inc. is a motor carrier engaged in interstate commerce and is therefore subject to the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations ("FMCSRs"), 49 C.F.R. Parts 350-399, as well as the Orders of the United States Department of Transportation and FMCSA. (See 49 U.S.C. §§ 506, 507, 13501,31133 and 31136). At all times, U & D Service, Inc. was required to comply, and to ensure its drivers complied, with the FMCSRs. 49 C.F.R. § 390.11. The term "interstate commerce" means that U & D Service, Inc. engaged in trade, traffic or transportation that took its operators out of the state of Indiana. As a result, drivers in many States, including Illinois, may have been put at risk by U & D Service, Inc.'s hazardous behavior.

Per federal law, commercial and semi-truck drivers must have a valid commercial driver's license, and meet specific standards of English proficiency so that they can operate safely on roads throughout the United States.

Victims and their families may sue a truck driver and/or the commercial trucking company for damages, including pain and suffering, medical costs, loss of income, disability and disfigurement. Cases involving trucking accidents are often very complex; therefore, victims and their families should contact an experienced trucking accident attorney http://www.kroll-lawfirm.com/ before making any serious decisions. There are many factors that may contribute to accidents with semi trucks and tractor-trailers, including driver fatigue, unqualified drivers, under-ride problems, speeding and missed inspections.

Those injured in a trucking incident must hire a trucking accident attorney who is familiar with litigating trucking cases -- one with proven results, experienced at choosing the right experts, and with knowledge of this area of the law. Jeffrey J. Kroll has lectured on the topic of fatigued truck drivers. He addressed The Association of Plaintiff Interstate Trucking Lawyers of American (APITLA) and presented his paper, "Deposing the Fatigued Trucker,” in Las Vegas, Nevada, in 2009.

Continue reading " INDIANA TRUCKING COMPANY FOUND TO BE IMMINENT HAZARD " »

On June 19, 2009, a freight train derailment in Cherry Valley, Illinois, killed a Rockford woman and her unborn grandchild. According to recent reports from the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), Canadian National Railway (CN) discovered a railroad track washout "about an hour before the train's arrival"; however, CN's "inadequate emergency communication procedures prevented timely notification" to the oncoming train. Several others suffered injuries as a result of the derailment, and nearly 600 area homes had to be evacuated. (FYI: A washout is the sudden erosion of soil or support surfaces by water, usually occurring as a result of heavy rains or flooding. In a railroad setting, a washout will erode rail bed and destroy a railroad's right-of-way. At the time of the Cherry Valley derailment, flooding had damaged the rail bed and tracks.)

According to a February 14, 2012 NTSB press release the NTSB determined that CN failed to notify the oncoming train of the washout in time, causing the derailment of 19 cars. The eastbound CN freight train was travelling 36 mph, consisting of two locomotives and 114 tank cars, many of which were carrying the flammable liquid ethanol. "Thirteen of the derailed tank cars were breached or lost product and caught fire." Also at that time, "several motor vehicles were stopped on either side of the grade crossing waiting for the train to pass. As a result of the fire that erupted after the derailment, a passenger in one of the stopped vehicles was fatally injured, two passengers in the same car received serious injuries, and five occupants of the other cars waiting at the highway-rail crossing were injured."

NTSB attributed the incident to "missteps and miscommunications, procedures not followed and poor decisions," as well as "CN's failure to work with Winnebago County to develop a comprehensive storm water management design to address previous washouts in 2006 and 2007;" its "failure to issue a flash-flood warning to the train crew and the inadequate design of the tank cars, which made the cars subject to damage and catastrophic loss of hazardous materials during the derailment."

According to the Chicago Tribune, CN "has agreed to pay a total of $36.2 million to the Jose Tellez family, who sued the railroad. Tellez’ wife and unborn grandchild were killed."

If you have been involved in a train accident in any way, you may be eligible for compensation, even if you were not on the train. Jeffrey J. Kroll has successfully represented individuals injured in train derailments in the past. In fact, his verdict for a man who sustained injuries (including Post Traumatic Stress Disorder) in a July 11, 2006 Chicago Transit Authority (CTA) subway train derailment was featured in the "2010-2011 Illinois Jury Verdicts" magazine published by the Law Bulletin Publishing Company.

Continue reading " NTSB DETERMINES CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAY FAILED TO NOTIFY ONCOMING TRAIN OF WASHOUT " »

Over the past month and a half, Chicago has seen numerous injuries and deaths caused by wrong-way crashes on Illinois roadways. A wrong-way crash happens when an individual drives his or her motor vehicle in the wrong direction down a road. The results can be frightening for other drivers on the road, and they often end in multiple injuries or death to drivers and passengers. According to NBC Chicago, every year there are between 30 to 40 wrong-way crashes, but lately, there have been an increased number of fatalities. How do they happen? Wrong-way crashes are often attributed to distracted driving, particularly driving under the influence of alcohol.

As Illinois auto injury and wrongful death attorneys, we are encouraged to learn that the Illinois Department of Transportation (IDOT) as well as the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) has been researching this issue and looking at ways to prevent wrong-way crashes above and beyond the placement of "Do Not Enter" and "Wrong Way" signs on highways and toll ways. IDOT has recognized that wrong-way driving has recently become a big safety issue, and has so far "determined crashes involving drivers zooming against traffic usually occur at night and involve alcohol. IDOT has also determined that most crashes occur in urban areas." The Chicago Tribune reported that IDOT and NTSB expect to complete their research into preventing wrong-way crashes by the end of this year.

At this point,

IDOT posts four large, red signs on every ramp in the state to alert drivers going the wrong direction. State transportation officials are looking at engineering — such as turning radius and median use — that could deter or make it even more obvious to a driver that he or she is going the wrong way….

Other States have addressed this issue and installed devices to prevent and detect drivers going the wrong way. In the end, however, it comes down to self control. Individuals who are intoxicated should not get behind the wheel for any reason. In Illinois, a person may be convicted for “driving under the influence” if the person is operating a motor vehicle while impaired by alcohol or other drugs or intoxicating compounds. An Illinois driver is legally considered to be under the influence if he/she has a blood-alcohol concentration (BAC) of .08 or more, has used any illegal substance, or is impaired by medication. A driver’s BAC is based on the ratio of alcohol to blood or breath. However, an individual with a BAC between .05 and .08 may be convicted of DUI if additional evidence determines that the driver was impaired. See 625 ILCS 5/11-501 (2012); see also Illinois DUI Fact Book 2012.

Continue reading " PREVENTING WRONG-WAY CRASHES " »

You see it all the time, especially on the streets of Chicago: groups of school-aged children crossing the streets, with or without the assistance of a parent or teacher. If you are an attentive and careful driver, you slow down and stop until every last child has safely crossed the street. Unfortunately, not every driver is attentive; many are distracted by the use of cell phones and fail to pay proper attention to their surroundings. The Chicago Tribune recently ran an article about a tragic 2006 incident, where a hit-and-run driver killed a 4-year-old girl and injured her mother and 6-year-old brother as they were crossing the street in Chicago's Lincoln Park area. After six years, the case may be set for trial soon. The family of the deceased little girl has sued the hit-run-driver and the City of Chicago. The suit against the City of Chicago alleges the City contributed to the child's death "by improperly placing traffic signs at the busy pedestrian crossing and failing to maintain visible pavement markings." According to the Tribune, the lawsuit specifically alleges:

the stop signs were placed too low, mounted to the side on light poles and failed to meet federal traffic engineering standards; no-parking signs were placed too close to the intersection, causing parked cars to block drivers' views of the stop sign and crosswalk; and pavement markings were worn and undetectable to drivers. All of these problems culminated in the failure of the traffic control devices to "command the attention of drivers."

Apparently, just days after the tragedy, the City repainted crosswalks and markings and installed new traffic signs. There is evidence that the area had not been repainted since 2000, and that the paint previously used only "had a service life of one year." Since 2006, the City also made many other subsequent remedial measures to improve that particular Lincoln Park intersection; however, faded and worn crosswalk lines and markings can still be seen throughout the City of Chicago, posing dangers to pedestrians.

The Chicago Accident and Injury Lawyers blog often discusses issues related to pedestrian crossings and crosswalks. The Chicago pedestrian injury attorneys at the Law Offices of Jeffrey J. Kroll support Chicago's goal to eliminate all pedestrian deaths by 2020. However, there is still a ways to go: according to the Illinois Department of Transportation, in 2010, "32 pedestrians were killed and about 3,000 were injured in vehicle-related accidents in the city." That is 32 too many.

Our experienced pedestrian injury attorneys know firsthand that pedestrian accidents often cause serious injuries to pedestrians -- simply put, pedestrians are no match against a large, fast-moving vehicle. As a result, many pedestrian/vehicle accidents result in very serious injuries or death. Additionally, pedestrians who are injured as well as the surviving family members of victims may suffer serious and long lasting physical and mental injuries, including post traumatic stress disorder, which may make the simple act of crossing a street a barrier to leading a normal, productive life.

Continue reading " PEDESTRIAN SAFETY ON TRIAL " »

Every month, Chicago personal injury lawyer Jeffrey J. Kroll contributes to the Chicago Daily Law Bulletin in his column Balancing Life and the Law.

In last month's article, "Don't bring past mistakes with you into the new year", Jeff discussed how attorneys can focus on obtaining substantial verdicts and settlements for clients. Here is an excerpt from his article:

Now that the Christmas decorations have been packed away and the noisemakers and party hats have been smashed and trashed, it is once again time to get down to business. I always thought that the holiday season was a time to relax, refresh, even recharge the batteries for the upcoming year. I don't know if it is because we have young children, or the parties that we attended, but I felt anything but recharged. Now, I'm just happy to return to a somewhat normal work schedule.

One of my personal resolutions this year is to exercise more. I have probably worked out more in 2012 than I had over the entire 2011. Obviously, that is not a testament to me being a physical specimen. So far so, good.

Another one of my resolutions was to enjoy the practice of law and have a less stressful year. I really thought (hoped) I could succeed here. When I laid my head on my pillow on the evening of Jan. 1, 2012, I was excited … I thought no more stress. Of course, reality struck me on Jan. 2, when I walked into my office and looked at the "month at a glance." I thought, "This can't be right, could it?" I have three mediations and three jury trials set within the next 90 days? I also have two out-of-state speeches during that time period? My familiar friend, the accelerated heart beat, reared its ugly head. Here we go again. Looks like 2012 will be just like 2011, or will it?

The life of a trial lawyer is a busy one. Even though I somewhat lament all that I have to do, I am reminded why I do it. I will never forget the injured children from a fireworks accident. Viewing the children's charred bodies has been forever etched in my mind. I will never forget the young man who lost his eye in a work accident, forever changing the course of his life. In cases like these and many others that I have taken to trial, the challenge is always deciding how to articulate someone else's noneconomic injuries to a jury. Thankfully, we have case law to guide us.

I have created a system for categorizing and updating case law over the last 21 years. I have often represented clients who have suffered grotesque injuries. I often go to case law binders and look under "gruesome evidence." The first two cases I have listed are: Herndobler v. Goodwin, 310 Ill. App. 267, 273 (1st Dist. 1941), and Burnett v. Caho, 7 Ill. App. 3d 266 (3rd Dist. 1972). In Herndobler, there was a photograph of a young boy, rather helplessly lying in bed with his head down and his feet up at a 45-degree angle secured by a weight and pulley contraption. The boy spent at least one month in this position while recovering from an accident. The trial court opined the photograph was proper as it showed that the child's injuries were "painful and serious" and since his treatment was discussed at trial, the introduction of the photograph was appropriate.

In Burnett, the plaintiff was injured in a work accident. He removed his artificial eye while on the witness stand. The appellate court affirmed the trial court in permitting the plaintiff to remove the eye at trial and noted — "just because the demonstration is gruesome or stirring to the sensibilities and apt to produce prejudice in the minds of the jury, is no reason to exclude it." 7 Ill. App. 3d at 272.

When photographs of "gruesome" injuries are depicted, the photographs will be admitted if they legitimately assist the jury in understanding a material issue. Eckley v. St. Therese Hospital, 62 Ill. App. 3d 299 (2d Dist. 1978) (Photographs of injuries are permitted in evidence when they might be helpful to an understanding of the facts, are material, accurate and correctly portray that which they purport to show).

Similarly, in Carter v. Indiana Harbor Belt Railroad, 190 Ill. App. 3d 1052 488 (1st Dist.1989), the appellate court held that photographs depicting the plaintiff's injury were admissible although the photographs were gruesome. The Carter court reaffirmed the general rule that photographs "may be used to depict the existence, nature, severity and location of injuries and to show resultant of pain and suffering." More importantly, the photographs were accurate and properly identified and "the fact that [they were] gruesome does not require the trial court to exclude them from evidence." Carter, 190 Ill. App. 3d at 1060, 474 N.E. 2d at 494.

To read the entire article, click here.

Continue reading " BALANCING LIFE AND THE LAW " »

Chicagoans, like everyone else in the world, love a good jaunt in Las Vegas. The Chicago personal injury attorneys at the Law Offices of Jeffrey J. Kroll recently read the news that an alleged outbreak of Legionnaires ' disease has plagued at least one Las Vegas hotel, The Luxor. As reported by www.ktnv.com, the "Southern Nevada Health District has received reports that three guests that stayed at the Luxor have been diagnosed with Legionnaires ' disease." The first two cases were reported in the spring of 2011; both individuals recovered. Then, a third case was reported in January of 2012; unfortunately, that individual died. Testing confirmed the individual died of the bacteria.

Legionnaires' disease is bacterial in nature. It is associated with water-based aerosols found in warm water sources. It can result from poorly maintained cooling towers and potable water systems. Symptoms of Legionnaires' disease include high fever, chills, cough, muscle aches and headaches. Symptoms may present themselves within two to fourteen days after being exposed to the bacteria. The ktnv.com article states why Legionnaire's disease may show up in places like Las Vegas hotel rooms: "[faucets and showers] sit unused for a certain amount of time [then] you turn [them] on and it kicks this stuff up into the air."

The Chicago personal injury and wrongful death attorneys at the Law Offices of Jeffrey J. Kroll have fought to protect the rights of victims of negligence for over twenty years, achieving many multimillion dollar verdicts and settlements throughout the State of Illinois and nationally in a wide variety of practice areas including premises liability accidents, trucking accidents, auto crashes, medical malpractice, school bus accidents, workplace injuries, train accidents, barge accidents and bus and taxi cab collisions.

Continue reading " WHAT HAPPENS IN VEGAS… " »

Have you ever had the feeling that your doctor may not be helping you, but actually hurting you? The Chicago medical malpractice attorneys at the Law Offices of Jeffrey J. Kroll just read an interesting article, "How doctors do harm," written by Dr. Otis Webb Brawley, the chief medical officer of the American Cancer Society, cancer expert and practicing oncologist. For decades, Dr. Brawley has studied "disparities in health outcomes and the inconsistencies in how medicine is practiced."

In the past, the Chicago Accident and Injury Lawyer blog has discussed how some areas of medicine, specifically the treatment of traumatic brain injuries, lack specific guidelines for establishing courses of treatment. The lack of guidelines, selective reading of science by treating doctors, and doctors or hospitals that advocate unproven screening and treatment, may disserve many patients. Dr. Brawley states that "a large number of our fellow Americans are suffering and dying avoidable deaths, because of lack of quality health care." In fact, you might be surprised to find out that America actually ranks 50th in life expectancy and life expectancy is on track to decrease further. Since the American medical community seems to be focused "on treating people after they get sick instead of preventing disease" things will only get worse.

And it is not just un- or under-insured individuals that suffer. Doctors commonly "prescribe treatments they believe to be appropriate as opposed to therapies that are known to be appropriate based on objective scientific evidence." Dr. Brawley states further:

"I see hospitals advocating unproven screening and treatment while advertising for business. There are patient advocacy groups often funded by hospitals and medical manufacturers, who also advocate the unproven and instill in patients that they need what may be unnecessary and can be harmful."

What is the solution in Dr. Brawley's opinion? Greater commitment to the practice of evidence-based medicine, for one. Additionally, he states, "Americans need to better understand the science of medicine and the scientific method, be true to science and support evidence-based medicine… to embrace an interest in public health and adopt preventive strategies."

Continue reading " HOW YOUR DOCTOR CAN CAUSE YOU HARM " »

An Amtrak passenger train bound for Chicago, Illinois, derailed this morning after hitting a semi truck at a highway crossing in southern Michigan. According to the Chicago Tribune, the crash occurred after 8 a.m., near the town of Jackson, Michigan. The train started its service into Chicago from Pontiac, Michigan. In the derailment, the train's "engine came to rest on its side and the first two cars of the train were knocked off the rails." Several passengers and crew members were injured and treated at nearby hospitals. The driver of the semi truck was also treated at a local hospital.

The Chicago personal injury attorneys at the Law Offices of Jeffrey J. Kroll wish all involved a speedy recovery.

If you have been involved in a train accident in any way, you may be eligible for compensation, even if you were not on the train. Jeffrey J. Kroll has successfully represented individuals injured in train derailments in the past. In fact, his verdict for a man who sustained injuries (including Post Traumatic Stress Disorder) in a July 11, 2006 Chicago Transit Authority (CTA) subway train derailment was featured in the "2010-2011 Illinois Jury Verdicts" magazine published by the Law Bulletin Publishing Company.

Continue reading " MICHIGAN TO CHICAGO AMTRAK TRAIN DERAILS, SEVERAL PASSENGERS AND CREW MEMBERS INJURED " »