The patient sued both the surgeon individually and the hospital where the procedure was performed. However, after the hospital settled out of court the surgeon requested summary judgment based on his opinion that he had satisfied the standard of care by relying on information he received from the nurses. After a surgical procedure the circulating nurse and scrub nurse are responsible for accounting for all surgical materials. In this case they had told the surgeon that the sponges were all accounted for, at which point the surgeon proceeded to stitch the patient up.

Typically the plaintiff in an Illinois medical malpractice case has the burden to prove that the defendant doctor breached the standard of care, which is usually done by providing expert testimony. However, in Illinois expert testimony is not required to establish the relevant standard of care “where the common knowledge of laymen is sufficient to recognize or infer negligence.” Walski v. Tiesenga, 72 Ill.2d 249 (1978). In the present case the court held that medical expert testimony was not necessary because it is common knowledge that sponges should not be left behind in a patient after a surgery.

While the man was working for the IDOT the incident actually occurred in Indiana, just over the Illinois-Indian border. Because the injury took place in Indiana the defendant attorneys asked the Circuit Court of Cook County to apply Indiana law instead of Illinois law, specifically where it relates to a $300,000 cap on recoveries. However, the Cook County judge denied the defendants’ motion and Illinois law was applied.

The decedent’s family claimed that the subcontractor, Edward E. Gillen Co., was negligent for its failure to warn and remove workers from the area where the occurrence took place. They further claimed that the crane operator who was employed by Gillen was negligent in failing to warn and handle the crane’s load he was operating.

The case was resolved in a mediation setting by a former Cook County associate judge.

Ms. Strong filed a Florida medical malpractice lawsuit against various physicians whom she alleged caused her injuries and resulting amputations. The physicians all seemed to agree that there were profound medical errors that caused Ms. Strong's injuries, but apportioned blame on each other.

However, the jury did not seem to agree that there was medical malpractice and returned a verdict of not guilty against all of the defendant doctors. There were numerous mistakes made by the various hospital doctors, which combined with the finger pointing by all the physicians during the trial made for a very confusing case. Lawyers involved in the case believe the not guilty verdict was a result of the jury being confused by the case facts and unable to correctly determine who was at fault.

In a rare move the trial judge threw out the jury's verdict, concluding that the verdict was "contrary to the law and manifest weight of the evidence." It is very rare for a trial judge to reverse a jury's verdict with only 1/2 to 1% of verdicts being set aside in this manner. Most jury verdicts are left undisturbed by trial judges who prefer to let any issue of law be decided by the appeals process. A new trial has been ordered, which will give Ms. Strong another chance at pleading her case against the negligent physicians.

Under the old requirement, any cause of action against the CTA had to submit a written notice to the CTA within six months of the relevant incident that advised the CTA of a potential cause of action. Failure to provide this notice barred the case from being brought. The formal notice required very specific facts regarding the action and essentially preserved the case for a later filing.

Under the newly passed law there is now no longer any required notice. However, a one year statute of limitations still stands for any and all CTA cases. This means that even though the required six-month notice has been repealed that an individual or party must still bring a cause of action against the CTA within one year after the incident occurred.

Yet these success stories often fail to recognize the families who suffered so much and rose to new heights in their devotion to correct the wrongdoing. For example, in the medical malpractice case of Mary Smith I represented the family members who were aggrieved to have lost a loved one in a tragic and unnecessary manner.

Mary Smith was diagnosed with a benign brain tumor in September 2003. However, soon thereafter her condition worsened resulting in the unexpected death of the 50 year-old mother of four, a recent grandmother, and a wife for over 30 years.

From the very first contact I had with the Smith family they were focused on setting up a foundation to educate people about brain tumors. They have fulfilled this dream in the form of the Mary E. Smith Foundation, a not-for-profit organization set up to alert the public about brain tumors, advances in medicine, and health tips for those in need. In addition to providing information the foundation also provides financial assistance for medical screening, grants for research in the field of brain tumors, and scholarships for students excelling in math and science.

Since 2007 Chicago trucking companies have been going out of business or consolidating since 2007. However, Chicago commuters and drivers might not be able to tell given the high levels of road traffic and congestion that remain. Because of the high demand in the Chicago area, transportation assets have been stripped down and led to congestion, delays and calls for major public and private investments in the region’s capacity to move people and goods effectively.

Because U.S. exports are down by 24.3% since July 2008 and imports are off by 1/3, traffic volume in Chicago’s transportation industry is also down. The transportation industry was already heading down last year when oil prices spiked coupled with the Wall Street meltdown which dried up credit and further hampered freight traffic going into 2009.

Starting in the 1990s insurance companies began taking advantage of baby boomers by scooping up thousands of individual long-term care insurance policies. It seems that the expectation by the insurance companies was that the buyers would eventually give up paying the annual premiums and close out the files by taking the collected premium.

However, instead more and more claims are being made on an increasing basis. So more and more the long-term care insurers are unable to meet their legal obligations and are denying claims for illegal reasons in an attempt to avoid payment.

In essence the insurance companies were taking advantage of the elderly insureds by denying their claims for long-term care insurance. This left many people without any resources to pay for their nursing home care or other long-term care needs. This dishonesty on the part of insurance companies has resulted in a jump in lawsuits filed against insurance companies, many of which have been successful at thwarting the insurance company's attempts to avoid payment of the long-term care.

However, a recent settlement in a Chicago construction injury case highlights that not only drivers and commuters need to be more careful, but that co-workers also need to practice on the job safety. The case in question involved a 21 year-old construction employee who had been assigned to dig trenches. After completing one trench and preparing to dig a second one, the worker was crushed when a truck driven by a fellow construction worker backed into him.

The decedent's surviving family members claimed that the driver of the construction truck was negligent and had received inadequate training for the specialized truck he was driving, which was a combination back hoe and end-loader. Furthermore, the family claimed that the construction company was also negligent for the work-related injury because they had not carefully supervised this driver to ensure that he operated the truck in a safe and proper manner.

The defendant, employer of the construction truck operator, claimed that the decedent was negligent in failing to keep a proper lookout for his safety. The decedent was survived by his wife and a two-month old son. The case was settled for $4.5 million after a mediation with a former Cook County Circuit judge.

In order to increase the safety of its highways Illinois adopted portions of the CMVSA. However, despite these measures trucking accidents continue to occur. After a trucking crash takes place it is imperative to investigate the accident to determine its cause. A key part of this investigation involves preserving information and evidence that could provide helpful clues in evaluating the occurrence.

The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSR) § 395.8 requires the driver to keep a complete record of his or her on/off-duty status at all times. And when a trucking accident has occurred, FMCSR § 395.8(k)(2) requires that truck drivers retain a copy of the on/off-duty status for the seven consecutive days prior to the accident.

In addition, the trucking companies are required by federal regulations to maintain all records and supporting documents regarding the status of each of its drivers for at least a six month period. In the case of an Illinois trucking accident these records can be obtained by making a written request.

The lawsuit against Tyson alleged that the company had inflated the weight of its poultry products between 1997 and 2003. The claimants alleged that Tyson participated in a process of chilling the chickens which resulted in the absorption and retention of water under the poultry's skin and muscle tissues and thereby increased the bird's weight.

When questioned about the settlement Tyson spokespersons stated that while Tyson denies the allegations, its aim was to avoid additional costly litigation. That they were able to help feed thousands of Illinois residents in need was an added bonus.

And according to spokespeople at Feeding Illinois, a coalition of food banks that distributes food throughout all of Illinois's counties, the Tyson donations could not have come at a better time. The need for food at U.S. and Illinois food banks has increased almost 20%.

I remember the first conversation I had with the decedent's husband, which took place shortly after her sudden death. During that conversation we discussed whether or not an autopsy should have been ordered. In my opinion whenever the cause of death seems unclear or suspicious it is wise to have an autopsy performed. However, in this case the woman's surviving family members opted not to get an autopsy done.

Sadly, in this young woman's case the real cause of death was never determined. While the medical records were reviewed by both a pathology expert and an infectious disease physician, neither were able to point to a definitive cause of death without an autopsy report. However, both physicians ruled out the causes of death listed on her death certificate, making the case even more of a mystery. Yet without any clear evidence there was nothing that could be done from a medical malpractice standpoint.

Would an autopsy have revealed the true cause of her death? Would it have shown something the doctors overlooked? Could the doctors have done something to prevent her untimely death?

Chicago and Illinois residents have reported symptoms of adverse affects from taking Hydroxycut, which range from stomach and abdominal pain, excessive fatigue, recurring headaches, excessive weakness, vomiting, loss of appetite, to kidney failure and liver damage severe enough to require a liver transplant.

Hydroxycut products are dietary supplements that were marketed for weight loss as fat burners, energy-enhancers, low carbohydrate diet aides, and for water loss. The brand names are marketed by Iovate Health Sciences, Inc., Iovate Health Sciences USA, Inc., Muscle Tech, among other brand names.

The FDA has asked that healthcare professionals and consumers report any serious adverse or side effects from the taking of these products.

Because of the confusion that exists around who treating physicians and staff are actually working for, medical malpractice cases often involve an issue of apparent authority. The general rule is that if a patient believes that his or her doctor is employed by the hospital where he or she received treatment and can prove that it was reasonable for them to think so, then the hospital is liable for any negligence by that physician.

A recent decision by the Illinois Appellate Court further clarifies the apparent authority rule. In Wallace v. Alexian Brothers Medical Center, No. 1-08-2852, the Illinois Appellate Court ruled that a hospital was not liable for negligence by its independent contractor doctors because the plaintiff had signed several consent forms which clearly stated that the doctors treating her injured daughter were independent contractors and were not in fact hospital employees. By doing so they affirmed the partial summary judgment granted by the trial court in favor of the defendant.

Over the last year, more than 3,000 trucking companies went out of business, which translates to about 7 out of every 100 trucks that were taken off of the road. And while economic analysts assure us that the economy is slowly recovering this trend is not apparent when we look at the frequent closing of trucking companies in Illinois, Chicago, and nationwide.

In just the first quarter of 2009 about 480 trucking companies closed nationwide. While this only impacts less than 1% of our nation's total freight capacity it still leaves too many trucks competing for too few shipments.

If the economy continues to be weak, more trucking companies could go out of business. Experts predict that the pace of closures will continue to increase until supply is more aligned with demand. However, when trucking business begins to increase again this trend should be mimicked in the rise of other economic factors, such as employment rates and gross domestic product.

After the new law goes into effect on July 1, 2009, state citizens can learn which doctors have been paid by manufacturers of brand-named drugs that they have been prescribing their patients, or how much money surgeons have received from the makers of stents, pacemakers, artificial knees, and other implant devices. The law is designed to provide a window into the considerable efforts and spending by device and drug makers to influence doctors.

This law, and others like it, is in response to concerns that drug and medical device manufacturers exert too much influence over doctors and their practice. For more information on this debate, please see our March 2009 blog "Do Drug Companies Really Influence Doctor’s Decisions Regarding Dispensing Drugs to Illinois’ Residents?".