Chicago Personal Injury Lawyer Blog

A jury in a Southern Illinois federal district court entered a $95 million jury verdict in a sexual harassment lawsuit brought against a retail store and one of its managers by a female employee. Ashley Alford v. Aaron's Rents, Inc., Richard Moore, et al., 08 cv 00683, included widespread claims of sexual harassment by the store manager and allegations of inaction on behalf of the company itself.

Twenty year-old Ashley Alford worked at Aaron's, Inc., a nationwide chain that offers rent-to-own appliances and furniture. Alford's lawsuit claimed that in November 2005 her store manager began calling her degrading pet names, accompanied by inappropriate touching, groping, and pinching. In addition, the store manager, Richard Moore, began giving her gifts, which were accompanied by him stating that he expected some form of sexual acts in return.

After six months of this behavior, Ashley took action by calling the company's sexual harassment hotline. However, while this did result in the regional supervisor coming to her local store, he failed to take any action against the supervisor. And even worse, the regional supervisor discussed Ashley's sexual harassment allegations in front of the very supervisor she had filed a complaint against.

Continue reading "Illinois Jury Returns $95 Million Verdict for Workers' Rights Violations" »

Given the state of today's economy, it has become commonplace to hear about companies trying to cut corners, to stretch every dollar, and maximize their workers' responsibilities. However, UPS workers are raising questions about what cost these continual raised expectations have on workplace safety and employee health.

Like many companies across America, UPS employees are under pressure to increase productivity; however, at the same time UPS is pushing employees to reduce workplace injuries and workers' compensation claims. These two goals seem contradictory, a point that is being made by both UPS employees and union officials who affirm that the longer hours and increased expectations has in fact resulted in more workplace injuries.

The local Chicago union is making a point to emphasize that their request to reduce employee workloads does not come from a desire to shirk their duties; rather, many UPS employees are committed to the company and applaud it as a good place to work. Take for example 45 year-old Joe Korziuk - he's worked for UPS for over 20 years, performing a wide range of jobs, including driving tractor trailers, delivering packages, and even washing trucks. However, even this model employee has suffered work injuries, sustaining a concussion after a heavy box fell on him, and is experiencing the wear and tear of twenty years on the job in the form of knee and back pain.

Continue reading "Chicago UPS Workers Pushed Too Far: Demand Reduced Workloads for Health and Safety" »

A former railroad worker found not able to pursue his Illinois railroad litigation case because his testifying medical experts were unable to identify the specific cause of the his injuries. The Illinois railroad litigation case was dismissed by the district court, a decision that was then affirmed at the appellate level in the case of Myers v. Illinois Central Railroad Co., d/b/a Canadian National/Illinois Central Railroad Co., No. 10-1279.

Timothy Myers, the 50 year-old plaintiff, had worked for the Illinois Central Railroad for 30 years as a brakeman, switchman, and conductor before retiring. He brought the Federal Employers' Liability Act (FELA) lawsuit to recover damages for injuries he suffered from cumulative trauma sustained by his elbow, knee, neck and back.

Myers based his FELA lawsuit on reports from three doctors and an ergonomist that opined that his injuries were caused by the railroad's negligence. However, the court did not consider any of this expert testimony when ruling on the railroad's motion to dismiss the case. As a result, the court granted a summary judgment in favor of the Illinois Central Railroad, a decision which Myers sought to have appealed by the U.S. Court of Appeals.

Continue reading "Illinois Railroad Worker's Medical Experts Unable To Connect Cumulative Trauma Injury - Myers v. Illinois Central Railroad Co." »

An Illinois chemical plant is denying allegations that toxins it dumped into the groundwater in the 1960s and 1970s is linked to a cancer cluster. Rohm & Haas Chemical Co. insists that the several brain cancer cases occurring among current or former residents near their Illinois plant are an unfortunate coincidence. However, the numerous plaintiffs, some with wrongful death claims, in Branham v. Rohm & Haas Co. disagree. The case is set for trial in Philadelphia and is anticipated to be an eight to 10 week trial.

In addition to the negligence claims against the Illinois plant, the plaintiffs have also accused the company of fraud and covering up the potential dangers of their dumping practices. The lawsuit involves an eight-acre sludge pond located about 50 miles northwest of Chicago that was the dumping site of the plant's chemicals. The sludge pond was constructed without any liner to prevent these chemicals from leaking into the groundwater. Nearby residents used well water, or groundwater, on a daily basis for everything from drinking to showering and cleaning.

According to the plaintiff's lawsuit, the toxins in the contaminated water eventually broke down into vinyl chloride, a carcinogen, which was then released into the air whenever the contaminated water was used. While over 30 plaintiffs have individual claims filed against Rohm & Haas, each relies on the same theory of negligence - that their cancers were caused by exposure to groundwater that was contaminated by toxins dumped by the chemical plant into the unlined sludge pond.

Continue reading "Illinois Chemical Plant on Trial for Potential Brain Cancer Clusters Caused By Leaking Chemicals - Branham v. Rohm & Haas Co." »

A recent Illinois personal injury lawsuit received a large verdict award, granting $30.4 million to the plaintiff in Solis v. BASF Corp., No. 06 L 12105. Several other parties to the Illinois work place injury lawsuit had settled with the plaintiff prior to trial for undisclosed amounts, but BASF Corp. opted to take the case to trial rather than settling. The supply company's gamble failed, as evidenced by the positive plaintiff verdict.

In Solis, the plaintiff developed bronchiolitis obliterans, or 'popcorn lung disease', after 18 years of working in various factories. Bronchiolitis obliterans has been linked to exposure to substances used to make microwave popcorn, such as diacetyl.

After being diagnosed with the life-threatening disease, Solis now has a reduced lung capacity of only 25 percent. This means that without a lung transplant the life-long nonsmoker and unmarried father of three could die if he develops the flu or other respiratory diseases. The 45 year-old Illinois resident brought a Cook County workplace injury lawsuit against several parties alleging that his current condition was a result of his exposure to fumes and dust particles while working with artificial butter flavoring.

Continue reading "Illinois 'Popcorn Lung' Case Receives $30.4 Million From Cook County Jury - Solis v. BASF Corp." »

A recent Cook County work site injury lawsuit was settled for $3.375 million; Ortiz v. Cato Karabegovic, et al., No. 06 L 006651. Contributing to the settlement were two trucking companies, a truck driver, and a railroad company.

The plaintiff, Ortiz, was a mechanic working at a railroad yard on Chicago's South Side. While working on the defendant Karabegovic's truck, Ortiz was severely injured after being dragged for 30 feet underneath the moving truck. As a result of this incident, Ortiz sustained multiple fractures and severe nerve damage to his leg, which left him with a permanent foot drop. The 33 year-old Ortiz is no longer able to work as a mechanic as a result of the injury

However, there was some debate regarding who was liable for the plaintiff's injury and to what degree the plaintiff contributed to his own accident. Issues of contributory fault are important in Illinois personal injury lawsuits because if the defense can prove that the plaintiff was more than 50% at fault then any judgment entered against the defense is reduced by the degree of plaintiff's negligence. For example, if a jury returned a $100,000 verdict but found that the plaintiff was 40% negligent, then the jury award would be reduced by 40%, leaving the plaintiff with $60,000.

Continue reading "Truck Mechanic Settles Lawsuit Against Trucking Companies and Railroad" »

An Illinois worker sued his employer for negligent spoliation of evidence, claiming that it had breached its duty to preserve evidence from a work site forklift accident in Gerard v. ConAgra Foods, Inc., No. 06 C 6163 (April 28, 2010). The plaintiff's lawsuit was based on his claim that his employer's negligence in preserving evidence from the accident prevented him from winning an Illinois product defect lawsuit against the forklift manufacturer. Based on its review of the case facts and relevant case law, the court held that plaintiff did not demonstrate that ConAgra Foods had breached its supposed duty to preserve evidence.

While working at one of ConAgra's warehouses a forklift hit the plaintiff from behind. The force of the impact knocked the plaintiff to the ground, where the forklift ran over his right leg. The forklift in question was one of four machines that ConAgra had rented for use at its St. Charles, Illinois warehouse.

In order to make a viable Illinois product defect case against the forklift manufacturer the plaintiff needed to know which of the four forklifts had hit him. Without being sure which forklift was involved in the accident it would be difficult for the plaintiff to claim that the accident was caused by the forklift's malfunction as a result of a product defect.

However, while ConAgra did make an investigation into the accident it never document which forklift was responsible. Furthermore, ConAgra had already returned at least on of the forklifts to the leasing company by the time the plaintiff began to investigate the workplace accident on his own. Therefore, the plaintiff was never able to discover which forklift ran him over and consequently was unable to prove his product defect case against the forklift manufacturer.

The plaintiff sought restitution from his employer on spoliation of evidence claims. In response, the defendant ConAgra filed a motion for summary judgment stating that given the relevant facts that it owed no duty the plaintiff on the spoliation issue.

Continue reading "Illinois Worker’s Claim Against Employer for Spoliation in Product Liability Claim Denied - Gerard v. ConAgra Foods, Inc." »

A recent Illinois Appellate Court case has clarified the duty an employer owes to not only its employees, but also to the employee's family. Simpkins v. CSX Corp, et al., No. 5-07-0346, involves a claim brought by the ex-wife of a former railroad worker regarding asbestos exposure she experienced as a result of her ex-husband's employment.

The plaintiff's ex-husband had worked at B&O Railroad as a steelworker, welder, railroad firefighter and laborer from 1951 to 1965. During the majority of his employment he was exposed to asbestos in his work environment. The plaintiff's lawsuit alleged that she had contracted mesothelioma after being exposed to asbestos on her husband's work clothes and asserted that the railroad had negligently failed to take proper precautions to protect its employees' families from "take-home" asbestos.

The railroad filed a motion to dismiss that stated that there no Illinois case set out that an employer owed a duty to its employee's family members who had been exposed to asbestos. Therefore, any ruling on the employer's duty would create a new cause of action. The railroad then went on to state that this was not an issue for the trial court, but should be decided by either the legislature or an appellate court. The trial court agreed and dismissed the case, leaving the burden on the plaintiff to appeal if she felt there was reason to create a new cause of action.

Continue reading "Asbestos Dangers to Illinois Employees' Family Members Falls Under Duty of Employer Upheld By Illinois Appellate Court - Simpkins v. CSX Corp" »

A recent Illinois workers' compensation decision, Interstate Scaffolding, Inc. v. Illinois Workers’ Compensation Commission, No. 107852, 2010 WL 199914 (Ill.Sup.Ct.), examined whether a worker was entitled to temporary total disability (TTD) benefits following his termination. The Illinois Supreme Court reversed the Illinois Appellate Court's decision, thus siding with the Illinois Workers' Compensation Commission's assessment.

The facts of the case involved a union carpenter who suffered serious injuries to his head, neck, and back when he fell on his head en route to the hospital after suffering heatstroke on the job. Over the next two years, the Illinois carpenter was unable to return to his normal duties at Interstate Scaffolding, Inc. During this period he fluctuated between not working at all and times of working light duty per his doctor's instructions.

Under Illinois workers' compensation law, the injured worker received TTD workers' compensation benefits from Interstate Scaffolding, Inc. when he was not working at all. Yet when he was working light-duty, the employee was eligible for an Illinois workers' compensation maintenance benefit to account for the difference in his pay as a carpenter and his light-duty wage.

Continue reading "Illinois Temporary Total Disability (TTD) Benefits Reviewed By Illinois Supreme Court: Affirm Illinois Workers Entitled to TTD Benefits Until Condition Stabilizes" »

In a case before the Seventh Circuit United States Court of Appeals in Chicago, it was held that a general contractor can be held liable for injuries to an employee of a sub-contractor where it is shown that the general contractor has assumed a degree of the responsibility for his safety with which sub-contractors do their work. Jose Aguirre v. Turner Construction Company, et al., No. 08-3999.

The Illinois construction site accident occurred when the worker fell from a scaffold while working on the renovation of Soldier Field in Chicago. The Appellate Court reversed the decision for summary judgment in favor of the defendant. The lower court had ruled that the defendant did not owe any duty to the plaintiff because he was an employee of the subcontractor and that any negligence by the defendant was not relevant because it did not have exclusive control of the scaffold from which plaintiff fell.

Continue reading "Illinois Construction Accident General Contractor Held Responsible For Injury To Employee Of Sub-Contractor" »

An Illinois worker was crushed by a tractor-trailer at a loading dock while working for his employer. He collected Illinois workers’ compensation benefits from his employer, Ensign, and then he and his wife sued three companies in strict tort liability. Baltzell v. R&R Trucking Co., 554 F.3d 1124 (7th Cir. 2009).

The three defendants were R&R Trucking Company, owner of the tractor-trailer; Freightliner Corp., the tractor manufacturer, and Lufkin Industries, which was the trailer manufacturer. All of the defendants in the Illinois liability case filed third party contribution claims against the employer, Ensign, which means that Ensign could be held liable for the injury, too.

Ensign became involved because the other defendants were acting on the theory of joint and several liability, which states that a defendant who has paid more than its share of damages may seek contribution from other parties. The idea behind joint and several liability is that those parties who are most at fault should pay their share, regardless of whether they had settled prior to the verdict, or if they were not named in the lawsuit.

After a Chicago federal district court jury trial, a verdict in favor of the plaintiffs was entered in the total sum of $13,980,120. The jury apportioned fault as follows: The plaintiff was not at fault; Freightliner was liable for 20% of the fault; Lufkin 10%; R&R 40%; and Ensign 30%. Under this verdict Ensign would be liable for $4,194,036.

However, Ensign attempted to reduce this amount by presenting evidence that its cap as set out according to a precedent set in Kotecki v. Cyclops Welding Corp. was $4,085,571.21 and that it had paid $873,953.31 already under the Illinois worker's compensation claim. Under Illinois law an employer’s contribution liability is capped to an amount not greater than the employer’s workers’ compensation liability. This value which is generally referred to as the ‘Kotecki cap’ represents the maximum amount that an employer has to pay in contribution.

Ensign moved to waive its workers’ compensation lien seeking dismissal of the third-party contribution claims. The district court denied Ensign’s motion. The district court then reduced the judgment by Ensign’s Kotecki cap of $4,085,471.21 which left $9,894,548 shared by the liability defendants according to their percentages at fault.

Continue reading "Illinois’ Contribution Act Interpreted by Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals" »

Chicago area Metra worker Leonard Brzinski was denied recovery for injuries he suffered after falling into a sinkhole while working. Under the Federal Employers' Liability Act (FELA), a train company employee can bring suit for injuries suffered on the job due to the employer's negligence.

Brzinski arrived at work in Orland Park, Illinois, to investigate an accident. He was walking along the service road that ran parallel to the railroad tracks for the purpose of taking photographs. While he was walking, the ground gave way and Mr. Brzinski stepped into an 18-inch sinkhole with his left foot and injured himself.

Brzinski filed suit against Metra seeking recovery for his injuries. The defendant, Metra, filed a motion for summary judgment stating (1) Leonard was not one of the employees statutorily allowed to recover under FELA and (2) that Metra had no actual or constructive notice of the sinkhole that caused the injury.

The trial court granted Metra's motion on the second argument- that Leonard failed to establish that Metra was or should have been on notice of the sinkhole defect. Therefore Metra was not responsible for Brzinski's injuries.

Brzinski appealed to the Illinois Appellate Court, who affirmed the decision of the trial court. The appeals court further stated that their decision was partly because of the consequences that would occur if they did side with the plaintiff despite his lack of proof. Namely, that every railroad would be liable for damages to an employee who was injured while working for them whether it was due to the railroad's negligence or not. The court did not feel this was the intention of the FELA statute.

Continue reading "Chicago Metra Worker Denied FELA Recovery For Injuries Due to Lack Of Notice" »

In a turn by the Supreme Court of the United States, the court handed down its ruling June 19, 2008 in favor of workers suing Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory for age discrimination. Notable in this decision is the fact that under Chief Justice John Roberts the Supreme Court repeatedly sided with business. Some critics even voiced concerns that the Roberts court went out of its way to side with big business, particularly in employment cases. This decision stands as a kind of reversal of that implied policy.

In Meacham v. Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory, the National Government ordered its contractor, Knolls, to reduce its work force. As a result Knolls had its managers score their subordinates on "performance", "flexibility", and "critical skills". These scores, along with points for years of service, were to used to determine who would be laid off.

30 of the 31 employees let go were at least 40-years-old. Meacham was one of those 30. The lawsuit was initiated claiming disparate-impact under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967. Disparate-impact is when an employment practice has a greater impact on one group over another. These "employment practices" can be anything from written tests, height and weight requirements, educational requirements, and subjective procedures, such as interviews. Under disparate-impact one doesn't have to prove that there was an intent to discriminate against a certain group, but just that the result is discrimination.

In this case the key issue was whether or not Knolls's basis for lay-offs was skewed according to age. The managers all scored these employees and thus used their own discretion to come up with their decisions.

Continue reading "Age Discrimination Claim Upheld by U.S. Supreme Court In Meacham v. Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory" »