Chicago Accident and Injury Lawyer Blog

As Illinois personal injury attorneys, we must stay up to date on new laws at all times. Effective January 2012, Illinois legislatures have added over 200 new laws affecting Illinois citizens. WSILTV.com published a list of the new laws. Here are a few that could impact the rights of personal injury victims:

Motorcycle Red Lights (HB 2860/PA 97-0627): This new law permits motorcyclists, who are stopped at a red light, "to proceed through the light if, after waiting a reasonable length of time, the red light fails to change to green."

Seat Belts (HB 219/PA 97-0016): The Chicago Accident and Injury Lawyer Blog reported on this one in July of 2011. Illinois's new seatbelt law requires even adult passengers sitting in the back seat of a moving vehicle to wear a seat belt. The law also requires individuals 18 and younger, who happen to be riding in a taxi cab for school-related purposes, to wear a seat belt.

Smoke Detectors (HB 1398/PA 97-0447): This law requires "hotels to be equipped with at least one smoke detector within 15 feet of every room that is used for sleeping purposes." Hopefully, this law will help prevent fires that cause serious burn injuries and wrongful death.

Uninsured Driving (HB 2267/PA 97-0407): This law fixes a $2,500 fine, plus any applicable jail time, for individuals "convicted of driving an uninsured vehicle that results in bodily harm to another person," if the individual has "two or more convictions for driving an uninsured vehicle." A person convicted of third violation will be required to pay a $1000 fine, if the person has not caused bodily harm to another person.

Vehicle Occupancy Restrictions (HB 1315/PA 97-0017): The Chicago Accident and Injury Lawyer Blog also commented on this law back in July of 2011. The Vehicle Occupancy Restrictions law makes it illegal for passengers to ride in trailers, wagons and other vehicles while they are being towed on highways, with the exemption of farm-related activities and parades.

Medical Malpractice (HB 1476/PA 97-0449): This law permits the Illinois Department of Financial and Professional Regulation (IDFPR) to provide information to the public concerning complaints against doctors or medical professionals. The law will help patients more thoroughly research the doctors and medical professionals who treat them.

Continue reading "OVER 200 NEW LAWS ADDED TO ILLINOIS'S BOOKS" »

Our Chicago personal injury attorneys just read an Illinois First District Appellate Court decision, affirming a $4.75 million dollar judgment in favor of the estate of a legally-blind man, who was killed by a Metra train at a Metra Station in Berwyn, Illinois. The case is Eskew v. Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway Company.

The most interesting issues on appeal involved alleged jury misconduct and one juror's blog, describing her experiences while serving on the jury. According to the opinion, here is one of her entries:

"But I can tell you some stuff. At one point on Friday, in the privacy of the jury room, one of the jurors said, 'Well, all's that left now is deciding how much.' I looked at her in disbelief. 'Lalalalalalala!" I singsonged, holding my fingers in my ears. 'You cannot talk that way, Juror L,' I said, 'You have to wait until ALL the evidence is in and we've heard from ALL the witnesses." 'How come?' she said, *** 'It's clear to me who is at fault.' 'You don't know that," chimed in my buddy, Juror F. 'What if they show us a suicide letter?' 'There's a suicide letter?' 'No, no, no!' we said in unison, and then JF continued, 'but you don't know what else they might tell us or show us. You have to wait to make up your mind!"

The defense claimed that this blog entry and others showed that the verdict was the result of bias. The court disagreed, finding the blog entries did not show that the jurors were exposed to any improper extraneous information from an outside source. Also, while the blog entry showed that the jurors had discussed the case prior to hearing all of the evidence (which juror's are specifically instructed not to do during pretrial instructions), the Court found that the blog entries actually showed that the jurors were committed to keeping an open mind until all of the evidence had been presented. The court noted,

"The important question in this regard is not whether the jurors kept silent with each other about the case, but whether each juror kept an open mind until the case was submitted to them."

Although seemingly innocent in this case, juror's use of the internet during a trial could adversely affect the litigating parties, and should be discouraged. Judges should emphasize the preliminary cautionary jury instruction specifically prohibiting jurors from commenting on social media websites or conducting internet research during the jury process. Jeffrey J. Kroll has written and spoken about how disruptive jurors' internet use has proven to be during trials. Last October, his article "Jury Trials in the Digital World" was featured in the Chicago Daily Law Bulletin.

Continue reading "JUROR BLOGGING DURING TRIAL FOUND NOT TO HAVE AFFECTED VERDICT" »

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 this month's article, "Cross-examining defense experts requires a plan," Jeff discussed tips that every plaintiff's lawyer should consider before taking the deposition of a defense medical expert.

Jeffrey J. Kroll has practiced personal injury law for over twenty years. He is known by his peers to be a leader in the areas of personal injury and wrongful death. As a guest columnist for the Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, he writes about balancing the demands of the practice of law with the demands of personal life.

The Illinois Supreme Court recently reviewed Illinois Pattern Jury Instruction (IPI), Civil No. 105.01 (2006), and concluded that it does not accurately state Illinois law. Studt v. Sherman Health Systems, Docket No. 108182 (June 16, 2011). There, plaintiff visited the Sherman Hospital emergency room with abdominal pain. The emergency room doctors failed to diagnose her pain as appendicitis and sent her home. Two days later, the plaintiff's general physician ordered a surgical consult, where it was discovered that plaintiff's appendix ruptured and became gangrene, requiring surgical removal. Thereafter, plaintiff underwent multiple hospitalizations and surgeries due to infections and peritonitis.

Plaintiff filed a medical malpractice lawsuit, alleging that the hospital was responsible and also vicariously liable (for the alleged professional negligence of its emergency room doctors). In Illinois, institutional negligence (hospital negligence) differs from professional negligence. Institutional negligence may be established via a wide array of evidence due to "the inherent diversity in hospital administration." Studt, citing Advicula v. United Blood Services, 176 Ill. 2d 1, 33 (1996). As a result, evidence in institutional negligence cases may include administrative rules, its own bylaws, regulations, and/or internal or external policies and procedures. In professional negligence cases, on the other hand, "plaintiff bears a burden to establish the standard of care through expert witness testimony." Studt, citing Advicula, 176 Ill. 2d at 24. Without expert testimony, courts have concluded that jurors would not have the knowledge necessary to judge the professional's conduct.

Ultimately, the Illinois Supreme Court found that IPI Civil No. 105.01 (2006) incorrectly stated Illinois law on professional negligence as to the evidence the jury may consider in determining whether the doctor complied with the standard of care. Further, it found that IPI Civil No. 105.01 (2006) also failed to accurately state Illinois law as to the standard of care applicable in professional negligence actions because it contained no reference to the professional's knowledge, skill, and care (or ability).

Pertinent to the Studt claim, the Illinois Supreme Court did not find reversal warranted because the Hospital was defending against a professional negligence claim and an institutional negligence claim, plaintiff presented evidence of the standard of care on both theories of recovery though expert testimony, and the jury was adequately educated as to the standard of care of emergency room doctors. However, the Court recognized that had the case been different, serious prejudice could have occurred.

Going forward, jury instructions in this area must be tailored by the trial attorney or the judge presiding over the trial to comply with the Studt case. Many judges in Cook County already have their own version of IPI Civil 105.01 available. Now that the Supreme Court has addressed the issue, victims of a doctor's or hospital's negligence will benefit from this clearer statement of the law.

Continue reading "ILLINOIS SUPREME COURT ADDRESSES TYPE OF EVIDENCE, STANDARD OF CARE IN PROFESSIONAL NEGLIGENCE CASES" »

On June 28, 2011, Governor Pat Quinn signed a bill that has reformed the Illinois Workers' Compensation Act. Many of the reforms are aimed at easing the cost of workers' compensation premiums paid by Illinois companies. The amendments include cutting payments to doctors and hospitals that treat injured workers as well as new treatment guidelines for injured workers. The amendments also place a cap on awards available for carpal tunnel syndrome.

When an employee is injured on the job, the employer’s workers’ compensation insurance often pays for items such as medical bills and wage loss, if the injured employee follows the proper guidelines for reporting the accident.

However, people who are victims of workplace accidents also may be able to file a workplace injury lawsuit. Damages in a workplace injury suit can help compensate a victim for his or her physical pain, mental suffering, emotional distress, disability and disfigurement, in addition to the medical costs and wage loss which may be covered by workers’ compensation. The Law Offices of Jeffrey J. Kroll has handled many workplace injury cases and recovered million-dollar settlements and verdicts for injured workers.

Continue reading "ILLINOIS WORKERS COMPENSATION REFORM" »

Lawmakers were busy this week. On Monday, June 27, 2011, Illinois Governor Quinn signed a law that will require backseat passengers to wear seatbelts. Police officers will have the authority to stop vehicles if they notice a passenger isn't wearing his or her seatbelt in the back seat. A fine, starting at $25.00, may be issued.

There are a few exemptions for individuals riding in taxi cabs, police cars and ambulances.
Governor Quinn also signed a law making it illegal for passengers to ride in trailers, wagons and other vehicles while they are being towed on highways, with the exemption of farm-related activities and parades.

Illinois has strong seat belt laws, requiring drivers, front seat passengers and anyone under the age of 19 to wear safety belts. With the 4th of July upon us next week, it is imperative that everyone on the road take safety precautions to prevent car accidents and wear their seatbelts at all times. Parents of teen drivers should set strict driving rules and enforce them. Teen drivers must be reminded to wear their seat belts at all times and in the proper manner. Wearing a seat belt incorrectly can cause serious injury or death in the event of a crash.

Continue reading "BACKSEAT PASSENGERS MUST WEAR SEATBELTS IN ILLINOIS" »

A British juror, who had contacted an acquitted defendant using Facebook, has recently been convicted to eight months in prison.

Jeffrey J. Kroll has written and spoken about how disruptive jurors' internet use has proven to be in the United States. Here is an excerpt of his October 2010 article, which was featured in the Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, entitled "Jury Trials in the Digital World":

The New York Times-coined term "Google Mistrial" surfaced a serious discussion regarding the 6th Amendment’s right to an impartial jury and the use of the internet. In that publicized case, a judge found curious jurors Googling information in a Florida drug case. John Schwarz, As Jurors Turn to Web, Mistrials Are Popping Up, N.Y. Times, Mar. 18, 2009. This seems to be just the beginning of a potential trend of juror misconduct. Recently, a Detroit-area judge removed a juror who posted to her Facebook page that the defendant was guilty. Seemingly innocent, but the scary truth was that the trial was still pending. The punishment for this action: A finding of contempt of court, a $250 fine and an essay on the Sixth Amendment. This is just one of many examples available by simply Googling “jurors, internet, news.

In England, the Judge who sentenced the juror stated:

Her conduct in visiting the internet repeatedly was directly contrary to her oath as a juror, and her contact with the acquitted defendant, as well as her repeated searches on the internet, constituted flagrant breaches of the orders made by the judge for the proper conduct of the trial.

Here, back home in the United States, not unlike everywhere else around the world, the internet is widely available and a seemingly all-encompassing resource. Instructing jurors to avoid internet activity relevant to a case is probably only mildly effective. But, it is a start. The internet is simply too tempting and convenient. In Illinois, jurors have a duty to resolve cases based on the evidence presented in court and their reasonable inferences drawn from that evidence. See I.P.I. 1.01. At the end of the day, however, the juror's oath is all we have. It is our duty to reinforce the importance of that oath in light of the breadth of information available on the internet.

This is a quote from the trailer of "Hot Coffee," a new HBO documentary that ventures into the U.S. justice system. No doubt, the phrase "hot coffee" now conjures up thoughts of the woman that sued McDonalds and won $2.9 million dollars. The case is now a part of our pop culture, as it has been the topic of many jokes and causes many to passionately decry personal injury suits, calling for tort reform. Of course, those who know the facts of the "hot coffee" case, are not laughing.

Ms. Liebeck, the plaintiff, suffered third degree burns after she spilled coffee on herself when -- as a passenger in a stopped car -- she attempted to add cream and sugar to her coffee. Initially, she attempted to settle the case with McDonalds to cover the cost of her medical bills, which included the costs associated with spending eight days in a hospital and undergoing skin grafting and debridement procedures. She suffered permanent disfigurement. Now, the documentary "Hot Coffee" (disclaimer: I have not seen the movie yet) promises to expose the facts of the McDonalds case, and those of other ordinary Americans, who have fought against big business, public relations firms that have attempted to make a mockery out of plaintiffs like Ms. Liebeck.

For years, large corporations and insurance companies have been spending millions to convince the public that personal injury verdicts and settlements are the reason why our economy is suffering. They are wrong. They have painted attorneys as greedy and untrustworthy. Those of us in the personal injury world have been attacked, while most of us truly fight to protect the rights of victims of negligence.

I am anxious to see the documentary “Hot Coffee.” I hope that it makes audiences aware of the pain and suffering that may personal injury victims suffer everyday and that it is as successful about prying into big business’s effect on the legal system as the recent documentary “Food, Inc.” was in terms of the food industry.

“Hot Coffee" will air on June 25 on HBO.

On May 20, 2011, the Illinois Supreme Court Rules Committee will discuss whether or not to codify a new Illinois Supreme Court Rule which would change juror participation by permitting jurors to question witnesses during the trial process.

The proposed Rule would look like this (according to the Illinois Supreme Court website):

(a) Questions Permitted. The court may permit jurors in civil cases to submit to the court written questions to be posed to witnesses.

(b) Objections. Out of the presence of the jury but on the record, the court will read, or
provide a copy of the questions to all counsel and give counsel an opportunity to object to the question. If any objections are made, the court will rule upon the objections at that time and the question submitted by the juror will be either allowed to be read as written, allowed to be read as modified, or excluded.

(c) Questioning the Witness. If the question is allowed as written or as modified, the court or counsel will read the juror’s question to the witness in the jury’s presence, and the witness will answer the question. The court will then provide all counsel with an opportunity to ask follow-up questions limited to the scope of the new testimony.

(d) Admonishment to Jurors. At times before or during the trial that the court deems
appropriate, the court shall advise the jurors that they shall not concern themselves with the reason for the exclusion or modification of any question submitted and that such measures are taken by the court in accordance with the rules of evidence that govern the case.

Having tried cases for over twenty years, I believe that Illinois attorneys should tread carefully in this area as the proposed rule could shatter the principle of juror neutrality. If codified, it will effectively inject jurors into the position of advocate versus a neutral fact-finder. From a practical standpoint, it also invites jurors to deliberate prematurely. For these reasons, the Law Offices of Jeffrey J. Kroll disapproves of the proposed rule.

The economic crisis has hit legal aid funding. Jeff Kroll authored an article for the May 2011 issue of the DCBA Brief, which is the journal of the DuPage County Bar Association. Jeff's article, entitled, "The Realities of Pro Bono Work and the Legal Aid Funding Crisis," explains how the poor economic climate is affecting legal aid organizations. For example, there has been a significant reduction in interest payments to IOLTA accounts as a result of the economic crisis. IOLTA (Interest on Lawyers Trust Accounts) was created by Congress in 1980 as a means to provide civil legal aid to the poor and support other justice system improvements. Interest earned in client trust accounts is allocated to programs providing legal services to the indigent. However, the program is in peril as interest rates have falled from 5.25% in September 2007 to .25% and lower.

Now is the time for lawyers to step up and do more. Although so many attorneys do provide pro bono work for those unable to afford representation, the time has come to step it up to help others.

In a matter of first impression, the First District Appellate Court of Appeals recently decided that an expert doctor's written medical report prepared pursuant to 735 ILCS 5/2-622 (Section 2-622) could be used against the expert as a prior inconsistent statement for impeachment purposes. Iaccino v. Anderson, 940 N.E.2d 742 (1st Dist. 2010).

In Iaccino, plaintiffs brought a medical malpractice action for injuries sustained by a minor plaintiff during labor, claiming that defendant doctor negligently administered the drug Pitocin to the mother, causing hyperstimulation to her uterus and resulting in minor plaintiff's oxygen deprivation. Defendants' theory of the case was that the proximate cause of minor plaintiff's injury was an infection in the placenta that traveled to the fetal brain, causing brain damage before any alleged malpractice by defendants. The trial court permitted defendants to cross-examine and impeach plaintiff's expert with inconsistencies between some of the opinions contained in his written Section 2-622 medical report and his trial testimony. The jury returned a verdict for defendants. Plaintiffs appealed, arguing that the Section 2-622 report is "only a threshold opinion usually prepared at a point before all the facts are fully developed in discovery;" therefore, defendants should not have been permitted to cross-examine and impeach plaintiff's expert witness with the document. 940 N.E.2d at *9-*10.

The First District Appellate Court disagreed with plaintiffs, affirming the trial court and finding that an expert's 2-622 report could be used as a prior inconsistent statement for impeachment purposes.

In a medical malpractice case, the plaintiff must establish the standards of care against which the physician conduct is measured by the use of expert testimony. 940 N.E. 2d at 7. Section 2-622 does not prescribe the form that a written medical report must take and there is nothing in the statute that prevents the author of such a report from qualifying his opinions to make clear that they are preliminary opinions subject to amendment or supplementation upon the acquisition of additional information such as additional medical records or deposition testimony. Id. at *10.

My advice: If your expert's reasons for the breach of standard of care changes by the time the trial of your client's medical malpractice case arrives, make sure that you have thoroughly prepared the expert to explain any inconsistencies that may exist between his report and his trial testimony. This is a credibility issue that medical experts must be prepared to address.

As a Chicago personal injury attorney who handles litigation against the CTA, I am pleased with the Illinois Appellate Court's opinion in the matter of Torf v. Chicago Transit Authority, No. 1-09-1710. The court reversed the circuit court's entry of summary judgment in favor of the CTA. The circuit court found the CTA immune from liability under the Metropolitan Transit Authority Act, 70 ILCS 3605/27 (2008).

Plaintiff, Torf, alleged that the CTA owed a duty to exercise the highest degree of care in operating a train and that defendant breached that duty in four ways: (1) the CTA failed to maintain the train so as to avoid discontinuation of service between the platforms; (2) failed to provide a safe means of egress for passengers to evacuate; (3) failed to provide clear instructions dictating safe evacuation to avoid chaos and (4) failed to provide assistance to passengers evacuating the train to avoid injury.

One enormous benefit of litigation to society is the opportunity for change that it provides to corporations and municipalities. I have represented numerous injured plaintiffs in litigation against the CTA. In the CTA Blue Line derailment, there were complaints of the poor manner in which the CTA handled the evacuation of the train. According to the court's opinion in Torf, approximately an hour-and-a-half passed between the time that the train stopped on the tracks and the time that a voice came over the speaker to tell the individuals in Torf's train car to evacuate. The transportation manager for the CTA who gave a discovery deposition testified regarding policies in place for the evacuation of trains, but did not know if the CTA had employees at each car helping people to evacuate. Could more have been done to create order during the evacuation to avoid Torf getting pushed off the train car causing her to fall?

Public transportation is a wonderful asset to our community. The CTA has a history of derailments and emergencies. Safe egress from a stopped or derailed train is a CTA policy that should be followed by CTA management and employees.

As a trial attorney in Chicago, I am interested in researching the factors that jurors take into consideration in deciding their verdict. A recent Cornell University study, “When Emotionality Trumps Reason,” has found that in criminal cases, unattractive defendants are 22% more likely to be convicted than good-looking ones. Unattractive defendants also get slapped with harsher sentences. I wonder how the results of this study would play out in a civil matter, such as a car accident or a medical malpractice matter. Do "better looking" plaintiffs receive higher verdicts or are unattractive defendants more likely to get hit with a verdict?

The study examines how jurors make decisions rationally, based on facts and logic while others do not use reason. Jurors will often decide on emotions, taking into consideration factors unrelated to the case - looks being one of them.

As a Chicago attorney who handles slip and fall cases involving serious injuries, I was pleased with the recent opinion from the Illinois Appellate Court in Alqadhi v. Standard Parking, Inc., et al. No. 1-08-3554. The plaintiff's premises liability complaint alleged she tripped and fell over raised concrete while leaving defendant's parking garage and suffered injury to her knees. Plaintiff contends that defendant failed to mark a 3/4-inch rise in concrete of a wheelchair-accessible ramp near the second-floor to defendant's garage.

Defendants argued that there was no foreseeable risk created by the raised concrete and that the condition was open and obvious. Plaintiff testified that the raised concrete created an optical illusion of a flat walking surface because it was a new building and the concrete had not been painted yellow yet. Plaintiff's expert found that the "lack of contract between the surface of the parking lot and the curb ramp... disguised the abrupt change in vertical elevation between the parking level and those surfaces.. and was not obvious."

Defendant brought a motion for summary judgment, which the circuit court granted on the basis that the concrete's condition was open and obvious. The Plaintiff appealed the court's order and the case has been remanded back the circuit court because the appellate court disagreed with the court's finding that the concrete's condition was open and obvious.

Ultimately, it should be up to the members of the jury to decide whether the parking garage is liable for this plaintiff's injuries. Fortunately, this woman will have her day in court.

We are deeply saddened by the sudden loss of our friend, John T. Karnezis, who passed away at the young age of 44 on October 24, 2010. John was the husband of Dena Turnquist Karnezis, Jeff’s legal assistant for 14 years, and a great friend. John is survived by his wife and two beautiful, healthy 11-month old twin boys. John was a partner at the personal injury law firm, Pullano & Karnezis, P.C. Jeff, Heather, Denise Maske and Denise Giuntoli worked with John at Clifford Law Offices. We have many happy memories of this wonderful person who was smart, generous, talented and had an incredible wit. We will miss you, John. Our thoughts and prayers go out to Dena and their families.

In a first for the Illinois Supreme Court, a committee formed to create the Illinois Rules of Evidence, has officially agreed on their codification. We in the legal world hope that that these rules will expedite the trial process and improve the administration of justice in Illinois courts.

As a Chicago personal injury attorney, I have had an opportunity to write about interesting legal news in many legal magazines and newspapers. Earlier this summer, I wrote an article that was featured in the Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, discussing the absence of the phrase "to a reasonable degree of medical certainty" in both the Federal Rules of Evidence and -- at the time -- the budding Illinois Rules of Evidence. The main forcus of my article was that the phrase "to a reasonable degree of medical certainty" is nowhere to be found in either form of the rules.

Here is an excerpt from my June 2010 article, entitled Rethinking to a Reasonable Degree:

"Since Illinois has been one of the few states without codified rules of evidence, we still follow the standard set forth in Frye v. U.S., 293 F. 1013 (D.C. Cir. 1923). The use of the Frye test as the Illinois standard was reaffirmed by the Illinois Supreme Court in Donaldson v. Central Illinois Public Service Co., 199 Ill.2d 63 (2002)."

"The Frye standard, or "general acceptance" test, states: "scientific evidence is only admissible at trial if the methodology or scientific principle upon which the opinion is based is 'sufficiently established to have gained general acceptance in the particular field in which it belongs.'" Donaldson, 199 Ill.2d at 77. Thus, while in federal court the trial judge serves as gatekeeper when it comes to expert testimony, Illinois has rejected that position for judges. Id. at 78-79."

"Instead, the Illinois state court trial judge's role is more limited, applying Frye only if the scientific principle, technique or test offered by the expert to support his or her conclusion is "new" or "novel." Id. As a consequence, judges liberally allow the admission of "pure opinion testimony" based upon an expert's personal experience and training developed via clinical experiences. Noakes v. AMTRAK, 363 Ill. App.3d 851, 858 (1st Dist. 2006). With the potential adoption of an evidence rule similar to Federal Rule 702 in Illinois, it will be interesting to see if and how the manner in which expert testimony is admitted will be affected. I am more curious, however, to know what it will it take for Illinois lawyers to abandon the phrase altogether."

We now know that the Illinois Rule of Evidence regarding expert testimony will continue to adhere to the core principle set forth in Frye -- and "to a reasonable degree of medical certainty" remains unaccounted for in any actual rule. In fact, here is a peek the new rule involving expert testimony (all of which can be found at the Illinois Supreme Court's website):

Rule 702. TESTIMONY BY EXPERTS
"If scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education, may testify thereto in the form of an opinion or otherwise."

As an Illinois personal injury attorney, I have no doubt that this new era that we are about to dawn on in the practice of Illinois law will prove interesting. The new rules go into effect January 1, 2011. I am eager to see them in action.

Chicago wrongful death attorney, Jeffrey J. Kroll, founder of the Law Offices of Jeffrey J. Kroll, has been invited to speak at the annual "Update and Review Seminar," sponsored by the Illinois Trial Lawyers Association. The program, which will be held on October 1, 2010 at the Westin Hotel on Michigan Avenue in Chicago, is a day-long program covering new topics in Tort and Trial Practice. Jeffrey J. Kroll will speak on how Social Media is impacting jury selection. Mr. Kroll has been recognized by many peer review organizations over his seventeen years in practice. This year he was selected by Best Lawyers, Super Lawyers and Leading Lawyers magazines as being one of the leaders in plaintiff's personal injury law in Illinois.

A study released by the Center for Studying Health System Change found that tort reforms such as capping non-economic damages are only modestly associated with the level of physicians' malpractice concern and their practice of defensive medicine, according to the Chicago Daily Law Bulletin. The authors of the study suggest that malpractice claims could be better addressed by alternatives to litigation that emphasize early disclosure of physician fault and provide a way to settle claims in a less adversarial process. The conclusions are based on a 2008 survey that includes responses from 4,720 physicians who provide at least 20 hours of direct patient care each week.

The study found that the type of reform that was adopted in Illinois in 2005 (a cap on pain and suffering damages only) did not significantly reduce the levels of physician concern when compared to states that do not have a similar law in place. The findings of the study tend to refute other research that demonstrates that damage caps are associated with reduced defensive medicine practices. As a result, it suggests that a doctor's fear of being sued does not necessarily drive up the cost of health care.

For more on the study, read the article in the Chicago Daily Law Bulletin.

The State of Illinois has released mortality data for hospitals, which can be found online at the healthcarereportcard.illinois.gov/

While some hospitals were critical of the statistics arguing that the health condition of the patients treated was not considered, the head of patient safety at the Illinois Department of Public Health, said the methodology was developed by the federal Agency for Health Care Research and Quality where it underwent significant testing and evaluation.

The Illinois Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) is an Illinois state statute designed to provide Illinois residents the right to access government documents and records. Everyone has the right to file a FOIA request to any state or local entity, including any city, township, village or county office. On January 1, 2010, the Illinois legislature strengthened FOIA to provide the public with increased access to government information.

In contrast to the previous version of the statute, which gave government entities seven business days to respond to a request, now governments must respond to requests within 5 business days after receiving any request. If the entity fails to respond to a request, their inaction is considered a denial. Thereafter, the person making the request can either file a Request for Review with the Attorney General or file a case in court. The Attorney General's Public Access Counsel will review rejected FOIA requests and issue rulings in FOIA disputes.

Additional changes to FOIA give courts the authority to impose fines of $2,500 to $5,000 on government entities that "willfully and intentionally" violate the statute. Also, the fee for FOIA requests has been regulated: government bodies must provide the first 50 black-and-white pages of a response free of charge and additional pages cannot cost more than 15 cents per page. Although governments may charge more for color or oversized copies, they cannot price them beyond the cost of production.

For additional questions regarding how to make a FOIA request, visit the Illinois Attorney General's website.

With double digit unemployment rates, some courts are finding it more difficult to select jurors for trials running more than a couple of days. A recent story in the LA Times on the topic of recession woes affecting jurors has shown that in extreme cases, this reluctance to serve has escalated into rebellion.

In the past, financial woes have allowed for hardship exceptions allowing jurors to be relieved from jury service. This was especially true for those called to serve in long cases, the self employed wage earner or if the juror was a single, working parent. In today’s troubling environment, the difficult balance between economic hardship and a parties right to a jury trial is challenging lawyers.

The economic situation has put lawyers and judges in a very awkward situation as many potential jurors will not get paid if they are forced to serve. No pay could equal no future job. What many counties or cities are doing is raising the daily jury compensation to assist unemployed or financially strapped jurors. For example, in the City of Dallas, jurors are more willing to serve as their daily compensation has been raised from $6 to $40. Without financial incentives, it may be difficult to force people into jury service when it would deeply impact their ability to earn a living. The disgruntled jurors on your panel will only cause problems. A disgruntled juror can harbor resentment towards one or both parties and deliver injustice to a case.

What could possibly happen during this economic downfall is to make it more difficult for injured parties to recover full and fair compensation. While corporate America may not be sympathetic with victims bringing lawsuits, the working class sector of society does tend to understand and empathize with injured victims. Excluding those potential jurors due to financial hardship, can disadvantage injured parties seeking compensation.

The Illinois Supreme Court ruled Thursday, February 4th, that caps on awards in medical malpractice cases violate the Illinois Constitution. This is the third time that the Court has rejected legislatures' attempts to impose such caps.

The case, Lebron v. Gottlieb Hospital target= "_blank", involves a girl who suffered a brain injury during delivery at Gottlieb Hospital. The law that the Court deemed unconstitutional capped the maximum non-economic damages that could be awarded in a medical malpractice case against a single doctor at $500,000. The law also set a $1 million limit on damages against hospitals and staff.

The court was not persuaded by medical malpractice caps in place in other states. Justice Fitzgerald, writing for the court, stated: "That 'everybody is doing it' is hardly a litmus test for the constitutionality of the statute." Justices Freeman, Kilbride and Burke joined the decision.

The February 2, 2010 primary election is nearly upon us and many of you may be asking yourself the same question family and friends ask me: "For whom should I vote?" For Cook County residents, I refer them to the guide created by the Chicago Bar Association's Judicial Evaluation Committee (JEC). The "pocket guide" is a summary of the JEC's recommendations and is small enough to print and bring into the polling booth. The JEC was created to inform the public and the courts of the "qualifications, independence and integrity of judicial candidates."

Judge Robert Dow in the U.S. District Court of the Northern District of Illinois denied dismissal of a complaint against the Window Covering Manufacturers Association (WCMA) and the Window Covering Safety Council (WCSC). The action, Padilla v. Hunter Douglas Window Coverings, Inc., et al., No. 09 C 1222, was brought by the father of a 3-year old boy who was strangled by the pull cord on mini-blinds in his home. The complaint alleges that WCMA and WCSC failed to conduct a retrofit program. Judge Dow days it is possible, under the allegations of the complaint, that WCMA and WCSA owed a duty of care to Padilla's son.

Beginning January 1st, several new traffic laws will become effective in Illinois, including a ban on texting while driving. The ban prohibits composing, sending or reading text messages, instant messages or email on a cell phone or other personal digital assistant or computer. Under the new law, police will have the power to subpoena phone records after a serious accident to determine whether text messages were being sent or received at the time of the crash.

Also taking effect is a new law increasing the penalty for causing an accident while driving without insurance. Starting this Friday, drivers without insurance who cause bodily injury in an accident will be charged with a Class A misdemeanor instead of a traffic citation.

Another law going into effect prohibits drivers from talking on hand-held phones while driving through construction zones and school zones. Hands-free devices are still allowed.

Whether the new laws ultimately succeed in deterring distracted driving behavior will depend not only on how well the police enforce these new laws, but also on the public's awareness of the dangers related with distracted driving. Do your part to keep the roads safe and keep your cell phone out of reach while you drive.

Click here to see a complete listing of laws in effect for 2010.

Last week, Illinois Governor Pat Quinn enacted a new law that increases the speed limit for large trucks to 65 miles per hour in Illinois outside the six-county Chicago area. The increase applies to trucks carrying a gross weight of 8,001 pounds or more on interstates and other highways with at least four lanes and dividing medians.

Officials believe the speed increase may have a safety benefit by easing congestion. Officials explain that traffic jams result when big trucks are limited to 55mph while everyone else travels at 65mph. The different speeds can also cause problems during lane merges and lane change and can sometimes lead to accidents. One way to combat traffic fatalities is to have all of the vehicles on the freeway traveling at a relatively same maximum speed. This allows for traffic to flow in a more orderly fashion, especially across state lines where other states have had traditionally higher speed limits than Illinois.

The change will take effect on January 1, 2010.

Operation Teen Safe Driving is a statewide initiative spearheaded by the Illinois Department of Transportation's Division of Traffic Safety. The groundbreaking effort was designed to reduce teen crashes and save lives on Illinois' roadways. On Friday, officials from the IDOT and representatives from the Secretary of State, the Illinois State Police, and corporate sponsors including the Ford Motor Company Fund and the Allstate Foundation kicked off the third year of the program.

Operation Teen Safe Drive enlists young people to teach safe driving skills to their peers and engages high school students in a competition to design community-based driver safety programs targeted at teens. The program has helped Illinois achieve a dramatic 10 percent reduction in teen road fatalities in the first seven months of 2009; teen fatalities dropped from 50 in the first seven months to 2008, to 45 during the same time period this year.

Public and private high schools around the state are encouraged to identify the major teen traffic safety problems in their communities, and to propose creative solutions to those problems. High schools that come up with the most creative solutions will be invited to participate in the Ford Motor Company Fund's Driving Skills for Life "Ride and Drive" safe-driving clinics at the end of the school year. These "Ride and Drive" events feature professional drivers giving young drivers rigorous behind-the-wheel driving exercises.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) recently issued stringent new braking standards that will save lives by improving large truck stopping distance by 30 percent. Ray LaHood, Secretary of the U.S. Department of Transporation, said of the new standards, "Motorists deserve to know they are sharing the road with large trucks that are up tot he safest possible standards, so they can get home alive to their families."

The NHTSA estimates that the new braking requiement will save 227 lives annually as well as prevent 300 serious injuries and reduce property damage by more than $169 million.

The new standard requires that a tractor-trailer traveling at 60 miles per hour come to a complete stop in 250 feet. By contrast, the old standard required a complete stop within 355 feet. The new regulation will be phased in over four years beginning with 2012 models.

In 2008, 4,229 people were killed in crashes involving large trucks. This represents a 12 percent decline in the number of fatalities recorded in 2007.

Governor Quinn approved legislation on Friday that will impose stiffer penalties for uninsured drivers who cause in car accidents. While the current law subjects uninsured motorists to a measly $500 fine, the new law, inspired by the death of a 25 year old teacher, could mean up to either one year of jail time or a $2500 fine.

The new law, which amends the Illinois Vehicle Code, will go into effect on January 1, 2010. Under the new law, uninsured drivers who cause an accident will be charged with a Class A misdemeanor.

Illinois State Senator Gary Forby, one of the bill's sponsors, called the existing law a "slap on the wrist," and called for a "stronger response for this offense." He noted that, "the state requires insurance to help redress just this kind of situation. If there is no real penalty for breaking the law, what good does it do?"

Uninsured drivers who cause accidents need to be held accountable for their actions. I think this new law is a step in the right direction. It will not only penalize these drivers in a more appropriate fashion, but it will hopefully also act as an incentive to all drivers in Illinois to get car insurance.

Illinois Governor Pat Quinn will sign an amendment to the Illinois Vehicle Code today that will prohibit writing, sending or receiving text messages while driving. The law extends to not just text messaging, but other types of "electronic messages," such as emails or instant messages. The law makes exceptions for drivers pulled over, parked or stopped in traffic. The enactment of this amendment makes Illinois the 17th state in the country to outlaw texting while driving.

The Governor's Highway Safety Association acknowledges that passing laws banning texting while driving is not the solution, but is rather only part of it. Barbara Harsah, executive director of the GHSA noted, "The laws won't really have any effect unless they're enforced and the public knows about it and it's properly adjudicated."

Studies have repeatedly shown that those who text while driving have an exponentially greater risk of an accident.

I am pleased that Illinois is helping lead the way to target and punish drivers distracted by this dangerous behavior.

From July 30th through August 4th, the American Bar Association (ABA) is holding its annual meeting here in Chicago. On Saturday evening, Retired Supreme Court Justice David H. Souter gave the keynote address at the opening assembly. As part of his address, Justice Souter urged America's lawyers to help revitalize civic education. Justice Souter warned that the failure of many Americans to understand how the government works poses a serious threat to our nation. "There is a danger to judicial independence when people have no understanding of how the judiciary fits into the constitutional scheme," Souter said.

I have gathered here a few websites for kids, which I believe are instructional and provide the fundamentals of our great nation's government. The White House has a great site regarding how the government works and the State of Illinois offers a site as well to demonstrate its system. PBS Kids offers a site as well to increase kids' interest in learning about the government.

Additionally, the White House has set up a flickr.com account to give a glimpse into the daily events at the White House. This site may interest children in civics as well!

Continue reading "RETIRED JUSTICE SOUTER SPEAKS REGARDING THE NEED TO TEACH AMERICA'S YOUTH ABOUT CIVICS AT AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION'S ANNUAL MEETING" »

The Michigan Supreme Court has paved the way for other state court systems by banning all electronic communications for jurors on duty. The new rule, announced on Tuesday, extends to modern electronic communication devices, such as iPhones or Blackberrys, and includes text messages, Google searches and Twitter feeds.

The order takes effect September 1, 2009 and requires judges to instruct jurors that they shall not "use a computer, cellular phone or other electronic device with communication capabilities while in attendance at trial or during deliberation. These devices may be used during breaks or recesses but may not be used to obtain or disclose information." Jurors will be further instructed that they "shall not use a computer, cellular phone or other electronic device with communication capabilities, or any other method, to obtain or disclose information about the case when they are not in court..." to obtain "information about a party, witness, attorney or court officer; news accounts of the case; information collected through juror research on any topics raised or testimony offered by any witness; information collected through juror research on any other topic the juror might think would be helpful in deciding the case."

These rules complement an older, standard instruction that jurors shouldn't discuss the case with others or read or listen to news reports about the case.

The rule was inspired by prosecutors' complaints that jurors were getting distracted during trials by their cell phones, smart phones and PDAs. Jurors have been reported to be texting during the trial and even digging up their own information about a case and potentially tainting the judicial process.

Charles Koop, the immediate past president of the Prosecuting Attorneys Association of Michigan, believes the new rule will make clear to conscientious jurors that researching the case on their own is not something they should do. Indeed, in fulfilling their service, jurors must deliberate only with the evidence received in open court, not from outside sources or through extraneous communications with outside parties. A federal circuit court held that a presumption of prejudice arises where a juror speaks with a third party about the case or communicates with any person who is associated with, or has an interest in, the outcome of the case.

Josh Marquis of the Board of Directors for the National District Attorney's Association, believes technology is "wreaking havoc" on the justice system and hopes that more states follow Michigan's example. Marquis, a district attorney in Clatsop, Oregon has seen text messages and Google searches by jurors taint his cases. Evidence that would otherwise not be allowed in the trial is being found by jurors who perform simple Facebook or Google searches. These sites "almost invites people to do extrinsic research," says Marquis. Advocates of the new rule, like Marquis, believe that the problem boils down to technology far outpacing the court rules.

Jurors' undivided attention during a trial is of utmost importance. The verdict is, after all, in the hands of the twelve people chosen to serve. In order to come to a just resolution, jurors cannot be distracted by the "noise" from the outside world. There is no question we have a shorter attention span these days, but when serving your civic duty as a juror, the stakes are too high to be inattentive. Some jurors may not realize they are actually doing the justice system a disservice when researching the subject matter, the parties or the attorneys on their own. It seems like this would be a conscientious and proactive thing to do to better understand the case, but in reality, such "research" taints the judicial process. Certain evidence is not supposed to be known by the jurors because of its prejudicial nature. So even if you think you are fulfilling your duty by researching, you are actually creating problems and may even be engaging in activity that could very well be the grounds for a mistrial.

Should you be chosen to serve on a jury, please keep in mind that both parties, in both civil and criminal trials, are entitled to due process of law and a fair and impartial jury. Uphold these constitutional rights by putting your phone away, following the judge's directives, and paying attention.

A study that will be published in the August issue of the American Journal of Medicine indicates that bankruptcies due to medical bills have increased by nearly fifty percent in a six-year period. This year, it is estimated that 1.5 million people will be declaring for bankruptcy. Many people may chalk that up to over-spending or lavish lifestyles, however, this new study suggests that close to sixty percent of people who go bankrupt are actually overwhelmed by medical bills.

The sad part of this study is that seventy-eight percent of the people with a medically-related bankruptcy actually had health insurance. Many of these people that are declaring bankruptcy actually have gaps in their coverage like co-payments, deductibles and uncovered services. Similarly, some people that had private insurance became so sick that they lost their jobs and insurance.

Obviously, this is a big concern. The Law Offices of Jeffrey J. Kroll see this happening frequently when innocent victims are the result of medical malpractice or a trucking accident that causes someone to become disabled and unable to work. When that occurs, the medical bills continue to rise and people become overwhelmed. Our offices have experience in addressing these situations. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact us.

I have found mediation to be a successful method for resolving personal injury and wrongful death cases. Although some cases do necessitate a trial to get resolved, mediation is a beneficial process and, in my mind, certainly worth a try. Using mediation, I recently received a $2,800,000 settlement on behalf of a 22-year-old female who was rear-ended and killed in Kendall County, Illinois. She was survived by her mother, her father and her brother.

Mediation is a structured process in which a mediator meets with the involved parties to assist them in reaching a solution that is acceptable to everyone involved. Unlike a jury trial, the decision-making authority ultimately belongs to the parties. The process encourages the parties to explore creative options and to discuss difficult situations.

Mediation saves time and money. In addition, it promotes communication and empowers the parties to make their own decisions while often breaking the impasse that cases sometimes reach.

Continue reading "MEDIATION IS A SUCCESSFUL METHOD FOR CONFLICT RESOLUTION" »

Illinois is one step closer to prohibiting text messaging while driving. The Illinois House approved the measure yesterday with a 92-25 vote. The measure now moves on to Governor Pat Quinn for final approval and enactment.

The law will prohibit drivers from texting while driving, but makes exceptions for drivers pulled over to the side of the road or drivers stopped in traffic. Some legislators, concerned that law enforcement officers would have another reason to pull over drivers of a particular race, voted against the measure. Despite these concerns, the bill passed the House with overwhelming support. The support is well-earned. Texting while driving is one of the most dangerous behaviors in which a driver can engage.

As I have previously mentioned, studies suggest that texting while driving is more dangerous than driving drunk. The attention given to the phone keypad is attention that should be paid to the road. A split-second distraction can have catastrophic consequences. People are dying because of the inattentiveness of drivers who are busy reading or writing a text instead of focusing on their surroundings. While I can acknowledge the concerns cited by the legislators opposed to this law, I think the benefits of outlawing texting while driving far outweigh any potential police abuse. I think this ban is long overdue and hope Governor Quinn wastes no time enacting this bill into law.

Continue reading "BAN ON TEXTING WHILE DRIVING IN ILLINOIS NEARING REALITY" »

The Illinois Senate approved a ban on text messaging while driving 45-6 on Tuesday. Approval came only after lawmakers ironed out concerns regarding whether drivers could text while pulled over to the side of the road. The legislation was modified to allow drivers to text while pulled over or if their vehicle is stopped due to traffic, an accident or a train crossing. Due to these modifications, the bill will now head back to the Illinois House for another vote.

Should the bill become law, police officers will have authority to pull over violators and fine them anywhere from $75 to $500.

Seven states currently ban texting while driving. Despite these laws and an increase in accidents caused by inattentive drivers who were texting, a recent study reports that 1 in 4 Americans continue to text while driving. Nevertheless, a whopping 83% of 5,000 respondents said they thought texting while driving should be illegal. The report also found that some of the worst driving-while-texting offenders live in states where the practice is already banned or where legislation is pending.

Texting has become such a common practice in our everyday lives. It is a simple and efficient way to communicate, but we must heed the cautionary tales and stop texting while driving. Even brief inattentiveness to the road can have catastrophic results. Remember that the next time you reach for your phone while driving.

An 18-month old girl suffering from an ear infection later died after hospital personnel from St. Francis Hospital and Heather Center in Blue Island administered penicillin to the child despite suspicions that the child was allergic. The lawsuit alleged that hospital administrators obstructed efforts to investigate the girl's death. Indeed, syringes, IV tubing and other medical materials were thrown out minutes after she died. The nurse who administered the medication stated that she wasn't certain about the medication given tot he child and that she couldn't get an IV pump to work, so she directly injected an "excessive amount" into the child's body. This same nurse later recanted these statements.

Her parents filed a wrongful-death lawsuit six years ago which was finally resolved in April when the family reached a $3 million settlement with the hospital and medical staff. As noted by the family's attorney, "A child shouldn't die while she's being treated for an ear infection."

My deepest condolences to this family.

The Chicago City Council voted Wednesday to ban the dangerous chemical, bisphenol A (BPA), in baby bottles and sippy cups. The chemical has been linked to cancer, diabetes and other ailments. Chicago is now the first city in the United States to ban the sale of products made with BPA. The Chicago ordinance will go into effect in 2010 and will ban the sale of any empty food or drink container containing BPA that is intended for use by children less than 3 years old.

BPA was developed as a synthetic hormone more than 100 years ago. Starting in the 1950s, manufacturers began to use it to make hard, clear plastic. The U.S Food and Drug Administration (FDA) ruled that it was safe for use in food and drink containers. Even now, the FDA continues to insist that the small amount of BPA in containers isn't dangerous. Industry officials pointed to the FDA's position when they tried to block the city's measure this week, stating "We have and will continue to develop scientific data to inform credible, transparent scientific assessments of BPA so that the public can have the confidence it deserves in the safety of these products." Nevertheless, scientists are increasingly concerned that constant exposure to the chemical is harmful, even at low doses leaching from plastic. Indeed, hundreds of studies have linked the chemical to breast and prostate cancer, diabetes, heart disease and other health problems.

Many retailers, including Wal-Mart, CVS and Toys "R" Us, have already decided to stop selling bottles and containers made with BPA. Some manufacturers have also begun marketing "BPA-free" products. With retailers and manufacturers already pro-actively phasing out the use of BPA, the Chicago ordinance, which passed by a unanimous vote, is largely symbolic. The message, however, is clear: We don't want your BPA in Chicago!

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued a warning letter to General Mills, the manufacturer of the popular cereal, Cheerios, on May 5, 2009. The letter advised General Mills that the FDA has reviewed the label and labeling of cheerios and found "serious violations of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act."

Cheerios claims on its label that "you can lower your cholesterol 4% in 6 weeks," and that "Cheerios...is clinically proven to lower cholesterol." According to the FDA, these claims indicate that Cheerios is intended for use in lowering cholesterol and in preventing, mitigating and treating high cholesterol. Because of these intended uses, Cheerios is a "drug" within the meaning of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act. Cheerios is also a "new drug" pursuant to the Act because it is not generally recognized as safe and effective for use in preventing or treating high cholesterol. The FDA warned General Mills that Cheerios may not be legally marketed with the above claims without an approved new drug application.

Moreover, the FDA found that Cheerios is misbranded within the meaning of the Act because it bears unauthorized health claims in its labeling. The FDA considers Cheerios' website to be misleading because it bears an unauthorized health claim, stating, "Hearth-healthy diets rich in whole grain foods, can reduce the risk of heart disease." Although the FDA has issued a regulation authorizing a health claim associating fiber-containing grain products with a reduced risk of coronary heart disease, the FDA has concluded that the claim on the Cheerios website does not meet the requirements for this claim. The claim must state that diets low in saturated fat and cholesterol and high in fiber-containing fruit, vegetable, and grain products may reduce the risk of heart disease. The Cheerios website, however, makes no mention of fruits and vegetables and does not reference fiber content or the importance of keeping saturated fat and cholesterol levels low.

The FDA further warned that failure to promptly correct the labeling violations may result in enforcement action, which may include seizure of violative products and/or injunction against the manufacturers and distributors of the violative products.

General Mills defended its heart health claim saying that its have been FDA-approved for 12 years and the message about lowering cholesterol has appeared on Cheerios boxes for more than two years.

Stephenson Service Co., based in Freeport, Illinois, has been ordered to pay a civil penalty of $10,421 and purchase four safety suits and gloves, valued at $10,000, for the Stephenson and Jo Davies county fire departments.

The case, brought by the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 5, involved a hazardous chemical release of anhydrous ammonia, which is commonly used in commercial refrigeration systems and as fertilizer. Stephenson Service failed to immediately notify the National Response Center and state emergency response commissions after unintentionally releasing 2,797 pounds of the chemical during a truck accident. Anhydrous ammonia causes burns to the skin and irritation to the eyes, nose and throat, and my be fatal if inhaled for long periods of time.

Failure to report the release can lead to civil penalties because the National Response Center activates the appropriate response authorities. According to the EPA, the responders need to know what they're dealing with so they can take steps to protect people living and working in the area.

http://Today, state health officials confirmed that nine people have probable cases of swine flu in Illinois. As a result of the possible outbreak in Chicagoland, three schools have closed. Kilmer Elementary in Chicago's Rogers Park neighborhood was one of the schools to close. The other two schools are in Kane County.

It is imperative that the flu be taken seriously as it has lead to death in other parts of the world. Schools closures are done in an effort to stop the transmission of the flu from student to student.

Chicago Public Schools CEO Ron Huberman says Kilmer Elementary will be closed for at least 48 hours, possibly more, after a student of the school is considered to have one of the probable cases. The student is a 12-year-old girl who is hospitalized, but her condition appears to be improving according to Illinois Department of Public Health Director Dr. Damon T. Arnold.

Swine flu cases are erupting worldwide. The World Health Organization (WHO) raised the alert level to a phase 4, two levels short of declaring a full pandemic.

The other probable cases in Chicagoland include: a 25-year-old Lake View man, a 36-year-old Woodlawn woman; a 20-year-old of undisclosed gender from Roger's Park; and a 35-year-old Hegewisch woman. The suburban cases are a 27-year-old Elmhurst man, a 12-year-old Kane County girl, an 18-year-old Geneva man, and a 6-year-old Lake County girl.

By "probable," Arnold said the state means the person exhibits the symptoms of the flu, and preliminary testing has ruled out other known flu viruses -- but the actual swine flu virus has not yet been confirmed. However, Arnold said these cases are 99 percent likely to be actual swine flu.

I was happy to read in today's Chicago Sun-times that Mr. T proudly served jury duty this week. I have heard of people complaining when the jury summons arrives in the mail, but it truly is an important service and our civic duty. Americans should be proud to serve on a jury and not take the constitutional right of a jury trial for granted. Much of the world does not have the right to have a group of your peers consider your case.

The Sun-times reported that there was no bad attitude on the part of the actor regarding jury duty.
"If you're innocent, I'm your best man," he said. "But if you're guilty, I pity that fool." Mr. T was called for jury duty at the Cook County Criminal Court where he signed autographs and took pictures with fans. The "Rocky III" and "A-Team" star told stories during down time, autographed books and posed for pictures with other potential jurors, county employees -- and the family of the defendant in the case he could have ended up hearing.

"I enjoy doing my civic duty along with my friends I've met," said the Chicago-born actor, 56, motioning to the 20-plus potential jurors who'd been in the room with him for about five hours. "I enjoyed the people that were around me. It's not about 'The A-Team;' it's the J-Team -- the jury team."

The United States is bracing itself for a swine flu outbreak as the government declares a public emergency. There are twenty (20) confirmed cases of swine flu in five states as of noon today, Sunday, April 26, 2009. Eight of the confirmed cases involved students at a preparatory school in New York. Another seven cases were confirmed in California, two each in Kansas and Texas and one in Ohio, said Dr. Richard Besser, the acting director of the Center for Disease Control (CDC).

Symptoms of swine flu include fever, lethargy, lack of appetite, coughing, runny nose, sore throat, nausea, vomiting and diarrhea according to the CDC.

It is that time of the year. Graduation parties, proms and a host of other gatherings where teenagers and individuals under the age of 21 partake in the age old tradition of “celebrating” their conclusion of high school, community college or like events. For years, when a parent hosted a party, they could not be responsible for the injuries sustained by an underage drinker. At the time, the Illinois Dram Shop Act, 235 ILCS 5/6-21 would not permit a cause of action against a non-commercial supplier of alcohol.

Recently, however, a new law regarding the civil liability of providing alcohol to minors was enacted. The Drug or Alcohol Impaired Minor Responsibility Act, 740 ILCS 58/1 provides for damages against a person who willfully supplies alcohol or illegal drugs to one under the age of 18. Now, any person over the age of 18 who willfully supplies alcohol or drugs to any person under the age of 18 and the supplying of alcohol or drugs causes the impairment of that person will be liable for their death or injuries to individuals caused by the impairment of that person.

There are a couple of interesting side notes to this newly enacted statute. For example:

1. The economic damages that are permitted include, but are not limited to, the cost of treatment and rehabilitation, medical expenses, loss of economic or educational potential, loss of productivity, absenteeism, support expenses, accident or injury or any other pecuniary loss proximately caused by the impairment of the person under the age of 18. (740 ILCS 58/10 (1)).

2. Similarly, non-economic damages can be recovered, including but not limited to, physical pain, mental suffering, physical impairment, emotional distress, mental anguish, disfigurement, loss of enjoyment of life, loss of companionship, services and consortium and other non-pecuniary losses proximately caused by the impairment of the person under the age of 18. (740 ILCS 58/10 (2)).

3. The reasonable attorneys’ fees are also allowed to be recovered. (740 ILCS 58/10 (3)).

4. The cost of suit, including the reasonable expenses for expert testimony are allowed to recovered. (740 ILCS 58/10 (4)).

5. Finally, the injured party can seek punitive damages against the person who willfully supplied the alcohol or illegal drugs to the person under the age of 18. (740 ILCS 58/10 (5)).

Another interesting nuance of this statute is that neither contributory negligence nor contributory willful and wanton conduct shall apply to any injured party claiming damages under this act.

Parents, take heed of this legislation. This is a dramatic departure from the Illinois Dram Shop Act. Under the old legislation, if a minor was served alcohol at your home and then later died in a drunk driving accident, you would not face liability. The Illinois General Assembly changed all of that with the enactment of the Drug or Alcohol Impaired Minor Responsibility Act. Be aware, should you allow teenagers to drink on your property and those teenagers later get injured, you will be on the hook. And rightfully so. So think before you allow your kids (and their friends) to drink. And if you do decide to let them imbibe in the bubbly, please do so responsibly: TAKE THE KEYS.

April 6-10 is National Work Zone Safety Awareness Week and the Illinois Department of Transportation is warning drivers to SLOW DOWN in work zones. I-DOT officials report that work zone deaths are down nearly 30% since 2003 and they credit this success to both aggressive law enfrocemet and safety campaigns. Nevertheless, the DOT wants to remind motorists that there is an average of over 7,000 crashes in higway work zones every year in Illinois. In 2007 alone there were 21 motorist and 2 worker fatalities in Illinois work zones; this is down from 44 motorist and 5 worker fatalities in 2003.

In an effort to reduce deaths in work zones, the Illinois State Legislature passed legislation in 2004 increasing fines for speeding in a work zone. The Illinois State Police has a Zero Tolerance policy and first time offenders will be fined $375 for speeding in a work zone. Each subsequent offense comes with a hefty $1000 price tage and the possibility of a 90-day license suspension. The Illinois State Police is also targeting speeders with cameras in work zones that photograph front and rear license plates as well as the driver. Offenders will receive speeding tickets in the mail.

The I-DOT suggests these tips to motorists driving in a construction zone:

* Slow Down. Posted speed limits throughout work zones are not a suggestion - they are the law! There is a Zero Tolerance policy agaisnt violators in work zones and the fines are big!

* Follow the Signs. Arrow boards and flaggers are not there to make your life more difficult, they are there to help guide you safely through the work zone.

* Don't Follow Too Closely. One of the most common crashes in a work zone is a rear-end collision. Drivers should make sure they can safely stop their vehicle if traffic backs up.

* Be Patient. Most of the time work zones require lane closures. Remain alert in case you need to slow down or stop due to traffic or construction work.

* Turn on your Headlights. Workers and other motorists driving through the work zone need to see your vehicle. Large truck operators should use emergency flashers to warn trailing
motortists that they are slowing down.

The Illinois Senate rejected a law today that would have required all motorcycle riders and passengers to wear a helmet. The measure failed 14-42. Illinois remains one of only three states in the entire country that does not require motorcyclists to wear a helmet.

Efforts to require helmets have stalled in the past, in part because of strong lobbying by motorcycle advocate groups that argue wearing a helmet is an individual's choice, not the government's.

It is shocking to me that this measure failed by such an overwhelming amount. The statistics regarding helmet use are grim and it is disgraceful that our state senate would not do something to proactively reduce the number of motorcyle-related deaths in our state.

According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Illinois reported 142 motorcyle riders killed in 2007 alone. More than 80% of these people were not wearing a helmet. By contrast, Missouri, which requires riders to wear helmets, reported only 84 motorcycle deaths in 2007; only 21% of these riders were without a helmet. The NHTSA estimated that helmets saved nearly 1800 motorcyclists' lives in 2007 and that 800 more lives could have been saved if all motorcyclists had worn a helmet. Moreover, the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) concluded in a study that states with full helmet-use laws had consistently lower head injury-associated death rates than states without such laws, even when stratified by region.

I think the statistics are clear: helmets save lives. If the Illinois government won't force you to wear a helmet, I sincerely hope you will choose to wear one anyway. It could be the difference between life and death.

Continue reading "ILLINOIS SENATE REJECTS MANDATORY MOTORCYCLE HELMET LAW" »

The Illinois House voted 89-27 to approve a bill that would make it illegal to text message while driving. The bill now moves to the Senate. If the bill passes and is signed into law, it will become effective on July 1, 2009.

Rep. John D'Amico, D-Chicago, the legislation's sponsor, advocates to stop texting while driving because of the distraction it creates for drivers. He believes that when people text while driving, they are literally taking the lives of others into their hands. Opponents, however, point out that all sorts of things can distract drivers and that it doesn't make sense to single one of them out. Opponents are also concerned about how the potential law would be enforced.

I am surprised there are opponents to this legislation. New studies are reporting that texting while driving is almost as dangerous as driving while intoxicated. There is no question that texting while driving is rampant and incredibly dangerous. Drivers need to keep their eyes on the road, not on the phone. I hope that this legislation will sweep through the Senate with the same overwhelming support it received in the House. There is no argument that opponents can make that can outweigh the propriety and necessity for this legislation.

A tragic car accident on January 14, 2006 left Aaron Bachman, 21, and D.J. Bachman, 15, dead. The two were killed when their vehicle was struck by a Winnebago Sheriff's Deputy responding to a domestic disturbance call. The deputy, Joseph Boomer, was traveling more than 100 miles per hour at the time and had neither his emergency lights nor his sirens on when the crash occurred.

In response to this horrific tragedy, State Representative Ron Wait (R-Belvidere) has sponsored a new bill known as "Bachman's Law," which will require police officers to activate both their lights and sirens whenever they go faster than the speed limit on their way to a call. Current state law does not require officers to do so. Rep. Wait calls the bill "common sense legislation" that will protect citizens and law enforcement officers alike.

The Illinois House passed the bill on March 25, 2009 after receiving overwhelming support. Rep. Wait is confident it will pass the Senate and become law.

The Illinois General Assembly is considering legislation which would permit county or city governments in Cook, DuPage, Lake, McHenry, Kendall, Will in the Chicagoland area and Madison and St. Clair counties in metro St. Louis to install camera-radar mechanisms on heavily-trafficked and accident-prone streets. Motorists exceeding the speed limit and caught on camera would get a $100 ticket in the mail. The infraction would not count against the number of moving violations necessary to suspend a driver's license.

Rep. Joseph Lyons, D-Chicago, co-sponsoring the proposal with Sen. Terry Link, D-Waukegan, proposed the bill because "people are driving just too darned fast." Lyons and Link pointed to federal statistics showing that in Illinois in 2007 there were 520 speed-related deaths. They also cited statistics that suggest that cameras have reduced accidents in El Paso, Texas by 80%; annual crashes in Dayton, Ohio by 37%; and that cameras monitoring red-light runners in Chicago since 2003 have reduced that problem by 55%.

Critics of the legislation allege that it's an effort by municipalities to pad their treasuries. Link countered that lives will be saved as a result and also noted that if you're not speeding, you've got nothing to worry about.

I think this is great legislation. Speed is a primary factor in the majority of fatal car accidents. This is one more incentive to encourage drivers to slow down and drive more safely.

The Chicago Sun-times recently reported that jurors are sending Twitter messages from courthouses across the country about their service. Experts said Tuesday that most messages posted to the social networking site are innocuous, perhaps expressing boredom.

But at least a few jurors have gone online to discuss cases they are helping decide.

In Philadelphia this week, a juror in a high-profile public corruption case told Facebook friends to “Stay tuned for a big announcement on Monday” — forecasting that a verdict was near.

Jurors are instructed by the judge presiding over their case that they are not to discuss the cases with anyone until they are dismissed upon the conclusion of the case. They are to judge the evidence in the case without outside influences. I support updating jury instructions to clarify that online communications about a case, via email, Facebook, Twitter, or otherwise are prohibited.

President Obama is nominating Indiana judge, David F. Hamilton, for an opening on the federal appeals court in Chicago. Hamilton is currently a federal district judge in Indianapolis. He previously served as counsel to U.S. Sen. Evan Bayh (D-Ind.) when Bayh was governor of Indiana.

The 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals is the federal appellate court based in Chicago that covers Illinois, Indiana and Wisconsin.

Last week, President Barack Obama’s Chief of Staff, Rahm Emanuel, issued a memorandum to all federal agencies to halt any pending regulations until the new administration can review them. The stay affects 23 pending rules that directly affect consumers.

The Chief of Staff' memorandum is a huge step for the protection of consumer's rights. Many of the pending regulations contain preemption language. Preemption is a legal doctrine that essentially states that when federal and state law are at odds, federal law takes precedence. Under the memorandum, the Obama Administration will have the option not to finalize any proposed rule or final rule which has not yet become effective and to ensure that any final version of a pending rule does not contain preemption language. Preemption is dangerous for consumers because it obliviates their right to redress in state court.

A preemption issue was recently argued before the U.S. Supreme Court in the Wyeth v. Levine case. The patient was injured and had to have her arm amputated when a drug - administered through an IV push, which was placed in an artery instead of a vein - caused gangrene due to the drug touching arterial blood.

The New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) has commented that tort litigation in state court is an effective means of protecting consumers from dangerous products. Consumers put a lot of faith in the FDA approval process, but the NEJM article highlights the reasons that approval is not a guarantee of a drug's safety: lack of resources; FDA approval is usually based on short-term efficacy studies, not long-term safety studies and the FDA has no subpoena power, thus it only knows only what manufacturers reveal.

The Obama Administration is certainly taking a step in the right direction for consumers.

Continue reading "PRESIDENT'S CHIEF OF STAFF STAYS PENDING REGULATIONS" »