Ethylene Oxide/Sterigenics Updates

Articles Posted in Personal Injury

hospice-1794351_1920.jpgAmong all the issues plaguing the state of Illinois, one very important issue has not gotten much press coverage until recently.

In February, the Chicago Tribune published an expose on Illinois’ troubled group homes for disabled adults and their failure to reduce abuse and neglect rates. In fact, the Tribune’s research found that, despite promises of reform, allegations of abuse and neglect reached a new high in 2017 of more than 3600 cases, according to Illinois’ Auditor General. Think about that: 3600 vulnerable, disabled adults suffering from abuse or neglect in group homes that we, the taxpayers, are paying for. It is unconscionable.

The Illinois Department of Human Services, which oversees the state’s group homes, does not dispute the findings of the Auditor General but says new reforms are planned which will address some of the issues. “For the first time, group homes will be ranked in a web-based scorecard, which includes inspection results and links to online copies of investigative findings involving abuse, neglect, or financial exploitation.”1 The state has also hired more investigators and plans to implement a system where families of group home residents automatically receive a copy of state investigations. We hope that, this time, they follow through on these proposed reforms, but why has it taken so long?

Local press coverage of our most recent lawsuit. In this case, The Collins Law Firm is representing the family of a developmentally disabled teenage girl who was sexually assaulted after being led away from Chaddock, a supposedly secure facility in Quincy, IL. The family is suing Chaddock for emotional distress and negligent supervision.

See the WGEM news coverage here:

http://www.wgem.com/story/37449215/2018/02/07/family-sues-chaddock-claims-negligence-in-daughters-sex-assault

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:

Chaddock sign.jpg
Quincy, Illinois- The sexual assault of a 15-year-old Chaddock resident is now an issue for the courts. The minor, Jane Doe, was snuck out of Chaddock’s supposedly secure facility on August 26, 2017 by two girls known to DCFS as troublemakers. Jane Doe was then taken to a party, where she was drugged, beaten, and sexually assaulted. Now her family is suing Chaddock for emotional distress and negligent supervision.

Chaddock is a DCFS licensed facility in Quincy, IL that is known nationally for its care of developmentally disabled and emotionally distressed patients, but is known locally to Quincy Police as a facility that lets its residents escape. Quincy Police have responded to Chaddock’s calls reporting that its residents have “run” more than 100 times in the past year.

Attorneys Jeffrey Cisowski, Shawn Collins, Edward Manzke, John Risvold, and John Sopuch III of The Collins Law Firm were named to this year’s Super Lawyers list.

The Collins Law Firm based in Naperville, Illinois, is pleased to announce the following attorneys have been included in the 2018 Super Lawyers list for Illinois. This honor is only granted to the top five percent of lawyers in the state based on performance and peer recognition. Attorneys are selected from over 70 recognized practice areas after a rigorous selection process conducted through independent investigation, peer nomination, and evaluation. Selections are made on an annual basis.

Jeffrey Cisowski represents bankers, finance clients, and commercial litigation cases. He graduated summa cum laude with majors in finance, economics, and German from North Central College in Naperville. Jeff was involved in many activities, but his passion for finance led him to volunteer for World Relief and teach classes in financial literacy. Jeff went on to earn his J.D. and graduate with honors from Chicago-Kent College of Law. While at Chicago-Kent, Jeff was recognized as the highest performer for legal writing and research, Trial Advocacy, and other key areas of litigation and won the CALI Award. Jeff focuses his law practice on representing banks, manufacturers, and other types of businesses.

courtroom-898931_1920.jpgOne of the surest topics on which to get agreement is that we should punish the filing of “frivolous” lawsuits. There are legitimate debates to be had over the definition of “frivolous”, who decides what is “frivolous”, and what the punishment (usually called a “sanction”) should be. For years, and for very good reason, there has been wide agreement that it’s best to leave these decisions to the judge on the case. Because he/she is in the best position to know whether a lawsuit is so lacking in merit (so “frivolous”) that it does not deserve to be in a courtroom, and if so, what the sanction should be for the party and/or lawyer who filed it.

As a lawyer who mostly files (rather than defends) lawsuits, I completely agree with the sanctioning of those who bring frivolous cases to court. Why? Because they not only bring discredit to my profession, but they occupy the taxpayer-funded resources of the court with cases that don’t deserve them, thereby making those resources unavailable (or less available) for those cases that do deserve them.

And I also agree that it must be the judge on the case who decides what is “frivolous”, whether there should be a sanction, and, if so, and what the sanction should be. This does not work perfectly, of course-nothing does-but I don’t believe there can be any responsible doubt that the judge is in the best position to make these decisions. That judge is in the best position, for example, to decide whether the lawsuit stretching the legal precedent is just a meritless money grab by an unscrupulous lawyer–who should be sanctioned– or a good faith effort by the lawyer to try to expand the law to help the powerless in society. In which case, no sanction should be imposed. Because some of the most important legal cases in our history started out with good faith efforts like this.

Could the airbag in the automobile you drive, that is supposed to protect you in the event of an accident, seriously harm or even kill you instead?

For millions of drivers in the U.S., the unfortunate answer is yes. And many of these people are still unaware of the danger.

Millions of Takata airbags, in dozens of car models and brands, have a defect that could cause them to explode when deployed, sending metal shrapnel into the driver and passengers. Current airbag recalls in the U.S could eventually include as many as 42 million vehicles with the potentially lethal Takata airbags, but the word has not gotten out to everyone about the danger. So far, only 12.5 million of these faulty airbags have been replaced, and that leaves millions of people at risk. 1

Every year, the General Assembly of Illinois passes new state laws which the Governor signs and approves. This year Illinois will have approximately 200 new laws on the books that could affect a wide range of citizens. A few of the most interesting and important new laws of 2017 are described below.

H.B. 6083, H.B. 4715 – These two laws are known collectively as “Molly’s Law”. The laws arise from the facts surrounding the death of 21-year-old Molly Young. Molly’s father attempted to file a wrongful death suit against Molly’s boyfriend, but the case was dismissed because the statute of limitations, two years, had passed. H.B. 6083 extends the statute of limitations for a wrongful death suit from two years to five years after the date of death of the individual. The second bill, H.B. 4715, creates much stronger penalties for public bodies who fail to properly comply with Freedom of Information Act Requests. The law will increase fines to $10,000 plus $1,000 for each day that the information is withheld. Molly’s father was unable to get the proper information from the police department regarding his daughter’s death and investigation in order to timely file his suit. Both of these new laws will hopefully assist plaintiffs in bringing claims against those who have injured loved ones and further remove roadblocks in retrieving useful and pertinent information from the government.

H.B. 6006 – Similar to the law requiring a vehicle to change lanes away from emergency vehicles who are pulled over with their lights on, this law requires vehicles to do the same for non-emergency vehicles who have stopped on the side of the road and have their flashing hazard lights on. The new law states that, when on a four-lane highway, a vehicle must change lanes into a lane not adjacent to that of the “disabled” vehicle. This law will protect those who are stranded on the side of the highway changing a tire or waiting for a tow truck.

Ice and Snow Injuries and the Partial Immunity of Land Owners

The Illinois Supreme Court has recently ruled on a case that could shed some light on the duties and responsibilities of landowners during this frigid weather and the recent snowfall. The case, Murphy-Hylton v. Lieberman Management Services, Inc., distinguishes the duties of landlords for snow and ice removal. Historically, landowners have no duty to remove natural accumulations of snow and ice. However, landowners do owe a duty of reasonable care to prevent unnatural accumulations of ice and snow on their premises where they have actual or constructive knowledge of the dangerous condition.

Normally, plaintiffs had brought these negligence claims under two different theories. The first being when there was a defective condition of the property or negligent maintenance of that property, and the second being when the landowner voluntarily undertook efforts to remove snow or ice, and due to this effort an injury occurred. However, being that one could be sued for taking action and causing an injury, the fear of litigation led many landowners and landlords to refrain from attempting to remove snow or ice from their property. This inactivity led to the Snow and Ice Removal Act of 1979.

(1) Insurance adjusters are paid employees of the insurance company. They are skilled at negotiation and are advised by experienced insurance company lawyers who know the law. Together, they know all the strategies to keep you from hiring a lawyer and to get you to settle your claim quickly for as little money as possible. They are not your friend. They are working against you, actively trying to see if they can get you to accept little to no money at all to settle your claim. They may tell you things that are not true, and even pretend that you are not entitled to compensation, to see if you will fall for it. You should not be talking to them.

(2) Insurance companies hope that you do not hire an experienced attorney. Because they know that, if you do, they are almost certainly going to have to pay you more money. They will tell you that you do not need an attorney. And they will lose no sleep at night over the fact that they are a billion-dollar company with an army of lawyers on retainer to protect their rights (and money), but will tell a single mom with no legal training, who has just been in a serious car accident, that she shouldn’t get a lawyer to protect herself. They prey on accident victims who need the money quickly–which, truthfully, is most of us–by making a lowball offer that they hope you will accept without hiring an attorney who will tell you how terrible their offer is. An experienced attorney will know how much your case is worth and will help you get the compensation you deserve. The insurance company has a lawyer to look out for it. You deserve the same protection.

(3) Do not give the insurance adjuster a recorded statement. A common trick of insurance adjusters is to try to get a recorded statement from you that will damage the value of your claim. They may try this when you are still in shock from the accident. They may–in a very friendly way–ask you to guess about facts relating to the accident, when your guesses may hurt you. The bottom line is that they know what they are doing, because they do it all day long. But you don’t. Most people who’ve been in an accident and wind up on the phone with an insurance adjuster have never been through that kind of thing before. And their instinct is to want to be nice and helpful to the adjuster, never believing that the adjuster is trying to trap them into giving damaging answers. Stay off the phone with them. Don’t let them record you.

The Illinois Supreme Court recently decided a case that directly affects the amount of time a plaintiff has to file a wrongful death suit after the death occurs. Prior to the case, the statute of limitations proscribed a two-year window for the filing of a lawsuit after a death caused by negligence. After the Supreme Court’s decision in Moon v. Rhode, plaintiffs now have two years after discovering that the death was wrongfully caused to file suit. This distinction could be the difference between having your case dismissed for being untimely and being able to successfully prosecute a claim for damages.

The Moon decision incorporates the discovery rule, a rule often used in personal injury cases. The rule states that the statute of limitations only begins to run once the injured party “discovers” their injury and the cause of that injury. A classic example would be cancer caused from exposure to chemicals in the workplace that are only discovered years after being exposed to the chemicals. Because the injured party did not “discover” the injury (cancer) until later in life, the two-year statute of limitations did not begin to run until this discovery. The same is now true for wrongful death cases. The statute of limitations does not begin to run until the plaintiff “knows or reasonably should have known” that the death was wrongfully caused. Typically, this will apply to medical malpractice cases where a layperson may not immediately understand that the death of a loved one was caused or contributed to by negligent medical care.

While this new holding will be extremely helpful to those plaintiffs who do not know that their loved one’s death was wrongfully caused, those who believe there was an issue of medical malpractice should not wait to talk to an attorney. The statute of limitations applies to those who should have known that the death was wrongfully caused and any time spent waiting could compromise your case. Hopefully, this new rule will benefit those families who have lost a loved one only to find out later that their death was wrongfully caused. Now, that discovery can be used to restore their family and hold those responsible for the death accountable.

Contact Information