Illinois Injury Lawyer Blog

Just this week, a jury awarded a $170 million judgment against an HCA-Healthcare-owned hospital and a doctor accused of medical negligence in a case involving botched weight-loss surgery.

The Hospital Corporation of America, or HCA is the largest private operator of health care facilities in the world. HCA boasts 273 facility locations across the United States, and, in 2010, reported revenue of just over $33 billion.

According to The Tennesseean, the victim, a former sheriff’s deputy, sued the doctor and hospital more than two years ago after complications from weight-loss surgery that weren’t diagnosed or treated in a timely manner left the man wheelchair-bound, nearly blind, and unable to speak.

The man had allegedly gone into the hospital for gastric bypass surgery – a surgical procedure that divides the stomach into two smaller sections as a treatment for obesity. Nevertheless, though a group of surgeons at the hospital, including the defendant in this case, marketed themselves as a team that performed gastric bypass surgeries, as it turned out, “the doctor in this case shouldn’t have been doing the surgery and should not have been managing this patient because he did not have proper credentials to do this surgery,” reported The Tennesseean.

Illinois medical malpractice lawsuits arise when people are injured by careless or intentional acts on the part of a doctor, nurse, hospital, or other healthcare provider. Healthcare professionals owe a duty of care to their patients, and when that duty is breached – such as in situations where the provider fails to diagnose an illness – the failure is said to be a "tort," or civil wrong, which can provide the basis for a lawsuit. As a result, the healthcare professional or institution may be made to pay damages to put the injured person back in the position he or she was in prior to being injured.

As a facility that holds itself out to be a provider of professional health care services, HCA is also legally responsible for the actions of their doctors, nurses, and other health care professionals. When these employees are negligent the company may be liable for either failing to properly train their staff, or failing to ensure that properly trained staff were hired to fill the positions.

In the end, the jury found that the HCA-run hospital and the doctor were medically negligent, and found that the hospital had committed fraud and made misrepresentations about the doctor’s surgical qualifications. As a result, the jury found the defendants liable for compensatory damages of $168, and awarded an additional $10 million in punitive damages in the case.

When healthcare providers are held legally responsible for harm caused to their patients in Illinois medical malpractice cases, they may be made to pay compensatory damages, which attempt to put an injured person back in the position he or she was in before being injured, such as compensation for medical and hospital expenses, and the loss of a normal life following the injury. Additionally, in some cases, punitive damages may also be awarded; punitive damages are intended to punish wrongdoers and send a message to the responsible healthcare professional and other providers to be more careful in the future.

Though Illinois medical malpractice lawsuits can’t always undo the harm done, they are an enormous step toward helping victims achieve justice, and preventing future medical negligence.

Not long ago, our Chicago personal injury attorneys reflected on the potential hazard posed by a food recall of Kraft’s microwavable Velveeta Shells & Cheese. It seems now that our fears have come to light, after it was recently reported that a couple has filed a personal injury lawsuit against Kraft Foods, alleging the husband sustained a perforated bowel and peritonitis from a piece of metal he ingested when he ate the microwaveable meal.

According to the Kentucky Herald-Leader, the victim underwent surgery for the injuries caused by the metal inclusions one day before Kraft Foods Global recalled the microwavable dish.

Three varieties of Kraft Velveeta Shells & Cheese Microwaveable cups were voluntarily recalled from the market after it was discovered that approximately 137,000 cases of products that contained wire bristles were distributed to retail stores across the United States. The lawsuit alleges the shells and cheese "contained pieces of metal which caused the product to be hazardous and dangerous if ingested."

Kraft Foods, Inc. is an American food and beverage conglomerate, headquartered in the Chicago suburb of Northfield, Illinois. Kraft Foods is the third largest food and beverage manufacturer in the world, and markets its products in more than 170 countries. Nevertheless, Illinoisans are at perhaps the greatest risk for harm: the recalled products were manufactured in Champaign, Illinois, and distributed to retail stores across Illinois.

The personal injury lawsuit in this case asserts that the man bought the product from a local Sam’s Club and ate it on September 21, 2011. He was admitted to the hospital 8 days later, and, according to the Kentucky Herald-Leader "a CT scan was performed which revealed 'a linear metallic foreign body within the small bowel in the mid abdomen.' Further, the injury caused peritonitis, which can be a life-threatening inflammation.

Ultimately the man had to have a significant portion of his small bowel resectioned to remove both "the metallic body" and the portion of the bowel that had been damaged by the ingested metal, said the Kentucky Herald-Leader.

Products liability is an area of Illinois personal injury law that focuses on dangerous and defective products. "Products," in this instance covers a wide range of categories, including foods merchandised to the public. As a general rule, corporations are responsible for ensuring that the products they manufacture and sell are safe for human use and consumption. When the merchandise is unsafe and causes harm to customers, the company may be held liable for damages caused by the injuries from the dangerous or defective products.

Food manufacturers owe a duty of care to consumers. When foreign objects or contagions make their way into foods that are distributed to the public, and consumers are injured because of the dangerous products, the situation may give rise to an Illinois products liability lawsuit such as the one in this case.

If you purchased any of the affected batches of Kraft’s microwavable Velveeta Shells & Cheese, do not eat them. Either throw them away or return them to your local retail store for a full refund. Additionally, if you or a loved one have been injured by a food product, seek medical attention immediately. You may also be entitled to compensation for your injury and an attorney may be able to apprise you of your rights under the law

In the words of Illinois Supreme Court Chief Justice Thomas L. Kilbride, "this is another step to bring more transparency and more accountability to the Illinois court system."

Our Chicago personal injury attorneys were interested to hear that, starting this year, video cameras will be used to record proceedings in select civil trial courts across Illinois. The new policy, implemented this month, allows cameras in Illinois trial courts on an experimental basis; according to NBC Chicago, the pilot project authorizes coverage in circuit courts that have applied for approval from the Illinois Supreme Court.

Prior to this month, Illinois was one of only 14 states that either didn't allow cameras in trial courts or allowed them on a very restrictive basis, said NBC Chicago. Now, the pilot project, effective immediately, permits cameras in all courtrooms with some exceptions specifically listed in the order: videotaping will not be allowed for jury selection or of jurors at all, to ensure that the jury cannot be unduly influenced. The presiding judge can also choose not to have his or her face shown on camera, and videotaping will not be permitted in cases involving juveniles, adoption, child custody, evidence suppression or trade secret cases. Additionally, there will be no videotaping of testimony by a sexual assault victim unless the testifying victim consents.
Said, Killbride, "the provisions of this new policy keep discretion in the chief circuit judge and the trial judge to assure that a fair and impartial trial is not compromised, yet affords a closer look at the workings of our court system to the public through the eyes of the electronic news media and news photographers."

Once the trial has been recorded, the videotapes will be saved and uploaded to a local server, where they will later be uploaded to the Northern District’s website for public viewing. However, before being made available to the public, the judge may order the tape to be edited to remove parts inappropriate for public viewing.

At this point of the policy’s implementation, the cameras are only being employed to record civil cases. Our Chicago personal injury attorneys are encouraged by the fact that the public will be afforded access to the inner workings of a courtroom. Unfortunately when most laypersons hear about Illinois personal injury lawsuits, they only catch distorted headlines that portray victims as people trying to make a quick buck.

Nevertheless, that isn’t the truth. Illinois personal injury claims arise when people are injured by careless or intentional acts of others, or injured by products that are defective in some way. When someone is determined to be legally responsible for injuring someone else, they are liable for the injury, and may be made to pay the injured person compensatory damages.

When people are legitimately hurt by negligent or intentional acts of others, the law provides a fair forum for those harmed to achieve justice. Hopefully, allowing access inside courtrooms will be a step in the right direction for changing these incorrect beliefs by allowing people to hear the story from start to finish, and allowing the public an unbiased view into the reality of how decisions are reached.

It seems almost too appalling to be true, but a health professional was recently indicted for using office supplies – instead of legitimate sanitary medical devices – to treat patients.

Any Chicago personal injury attorney can attest that Illinois medical malpractice lawsuits arise all too often when practitioners’ intentionally harmful acts harm patients. Doctors, dentists, and other healthcare professionals owe a duty of care to their patients. Part of that duty includes providing the best care, and ensuring that their actions don’t unreasonably put their patients at risk.

But that unnecessary risk is exactly what has happened in a recent case where a former dentist has pleaded guilty to Medicaid fraud after using paper clips instead of stainless steel posts when performing post-buildups following root canal procedures. According to a report published by MSNBC, the reason the dentist had used the paperclips was because they were significantly cheaper than the requisite steel posts. Prosecutors say that the Medicaid fraud totaled $130,000 from the scheme.

Says MSNBC, the 53 year-old dentist used sections of paper clips from his office, instead of the professionally-accepted stainless steel posts.

A “root canal” procedure is the colloquial term for an endodontic dental operation; the inner pulp of an infected tooth is removed, the duct of the tooth is cleaned out and disinfected, and then the space is packed with an inert filling material. If the tooth is weak and cannot sustain pressure on its own, a dentist will perform a post & core build-up, removing some of the filling material and implementing a stainless steel post to give the crown (the fabrication that replaces the visible tooth) some stability. When paperclip pieces are used instead of the sterile steel posts, the risks of infection are high.

Illinois medical malpractice lawsuits arise when people are injured by careless or intentional acts on the part of a doctor, nurse, hospital, or other healthcare provider. Healthcare professionals owe a duty of care to their patients, and when that duty is breached – such as in situations where the provider fails to diagnose an illness – the failure is said to be a "tort," or civil wrong, which can provide the basis for a lawsuit. As a result, the healthcare professional or institution may be made to pay damages to put the injured person back in the position he or she was in prior to being injured.

Though at this point the dentist is only facing criminal charges for the alleged malpractice and harm to his patients, victims of his injurious procedure who were harmed by his paper-fastener proclivity may have grounds to file lawsuits against the dentist. The paperclip parts – and the resulting contamination – can cause infection and enormous discomfort; if personal injury lawsuits are indeed brought against the dentist, he could be made to pay his victims monetary damages for pain and suffering, as well as for the necessity of future medical and dental work. Additionally, a court may find that the dentist is liable for punitive damages, which are implemented in Illinois personal injury lawsuits to punish the wrongdoer for his or her egregious bad actions. Punitive damages also serve to send a message to others in similar positions to the defendant party such as other dentists, urging them not to act in the same harmful way.

Special laws are in place to protect patients from negligent or intentionally harmful health care professionals, and an attorney may be able to advise you of your rights under the law.

Our Chicago personal injury attorneys spoke too soon when we postulated last week that it was already a busy time of year for automobile recalls.

Following retractions by both Ford and BMW, Kia Motors is the latest automaker to have products join the list of retracted cars, after it was found that both Kia Optima sedans and Kia Rondo crossover vehicles have potentially faulty driver airbags.

Kia Motors America is the American branch of sales, marketing, and distribution of Kia Motors Corporation, a multinational car-manufacturing conglomerate that reported sales of over 1.4 million vehicles in 2010. Kia Motors America first began producing automobiles in the United States in 2009, and it is this plant at which the Optima sedan and other crossover vehicles are manufactured.

According to a report issued this week by MSNBC, Kia is recalling 145,755 vehicles across the United States because the clock-spring contact assembly for the driver's-side air bag supplemental restraint system may become damaged over time, potentially causing the driver's air bag not to deploy.

In 1984, the United States government amended the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety standard to require that cars produced after 1989 be equipped with either airbags or an automatic seatbelt. In the years since, statistics have shown the enormous benefits of airbags, and federal safety standards have increased to necessitate airbags in all passenger vehicles.

For most recently produced cars, a central Airbag Control Unit (ACS) monitors sensors within the vehicle to determine pressure on the car, impact to the automobile, and/or brake pressure. When the threshold on one of the sensors is reached, the ACS directs the airbag to deploy, which rapidly inflates a nylon fabric bag. The bag is slightly porous, and when the vehicle’s occupant collides with the airbag, it releases the inflating gas through small holes in the bag; in doing so, (and in addition to restraint provided by a seatbelt,) it precludes the passenger from colliding with the much harder inside wall of the automobile, preventing more serious injuries. If an airbag does not deploy as intended, the risks arise of the passenger either colliding with the car itself or with the still-inflating airbag.

Corporations owe a duty of care to consumers. When their products ultimately harm consumers, those companies may be held legally responsible for damages from those injuries. In this case, if a Kia owner’s airbag does not inflate properly upon impact, the driver of the vehicle could suffer more serious injuries than if the airbag had been working properly. Although Kia Motors would not be liable for causing the crash, they could potentially be responsible for causing circumstances that made resulting injuries worse.

Though to date, Kia Motors is not aware of any injuries caused by the faulty airbags, if a car accident occurred and the airbags failed to deploy, Kia could be held legally responsible for the monetary damages required to compensate the consumer if it can be shown that his or her injuries are worse as a result of Kia’s defective product.

When consumers are harmed because products are unsafe, an Illinois personal injury lawsuit may arise, and the corporations responsible for production may be made to pay compensatory damages to put the consumer back in the position they were in before the injury occurred. This includes covering medical and hospital expenses, and in more serious cases, compensating the victim for a loss of normal life or lost wages. In some cases when the companies’ errors are egregious, they may also be made to pay punitive damages which serve to punish the company and to send a message to others in the same position to be more careful in the future.

For this particular recall, the models affected are 9 5,569 2006-2008 Optimas and 50,186 2007-2008 Rondos. Our Chicago personal injury attorneys want consumers to be careful; if you have one of these cars, do not drive it until it has been examined by a licensed Kia dealer.

Illinois premises liability law is a significant branch of Illinois personal injury law that allows victims to recover after they have been injured on another person’s property and the negligence of the property owner was the cause of that harm.

That’s exactly what’s being alleged in a recently filed Chicago wrongful death lawsuit. The mother of a woman who was killed in a fire in high-rise apartment building on Lake Shore Drive earlier this month brought the claim. According to the Chicago Sun-Times, the lawsuit alleges that the companies responsible for managing the building, 3130 N. Lake Shore LLC and Planned Property Management Inc., are legally liable, and that the 32 year-old woman would otherwise be alive, had there been a sprinkler system in place to put out the fire.

Additionally, the claim asserts that that the two management companies failed to warn the woman of the fire in the building, and permitted her to use the elevators when they "should have known if was not safe to do so."

The Chicago Sun-Times reports that the woman died from carbon monoxide intoxication, and inhalation of smoke and soot after she took the elevator to the 12th floor of the building. The tenants of the apartment in which the fire started had left their door open so a pet could escape; nevertheless, the toxic fumes seeped out as well, leading to the woman’s death.

When an accident or injury occurs to a an individual who – at the time of the injury – is on another person's property, the owner or manager of the property may be liable if it can be proved that their negligence led to the injury.

In cases such as this, Illinois premises liability law may be triggered if it can be shown that the property owners or managers either failed to maintain the property, created unsafe conditions that caused the injury, or knew about the unsafe hazard but didn't alert visitors or tenants to this fact.

In this particular situation, legal responsibility could potentially arise from two issues: initially, the fact that the building owners failed to install sufficient sprinklers to extinguish a fire is a prime example of failing to maintain the property, and even created a situation where a potentially dangerous set of circumstances could arise. Moreover, the fact that the woman was allowed to use the elevator and was never warned of the fire in the building is epitomical of failing to alert individuals of dangerous circumstances.

If the property managers are indeed held liable for having been negligent, and it can be shown that their negligence caused or contributed to cause the woman’s death, they may be on the hook for a lot of money.

In Illinois wrongful death cases, relatives and loved ones may be able to receive compensation for their loss; this often comes in the form of damages for loss of companionship, or damages for lost wages that the individual would have otherwise contributed to supporting his or her family. Though a lawsuit can never bring a loved one back to life, it is a step in the right direction, both for achieving justice, and making those at fault pay for their careless actions.

A devastating tragedy reported by the Chicago Tribune has people wondering who’s to blame.

This week, the heartbreaking death of a five year-old child occurred after police in Chicago Heights, Illinois, handed car keys to an intoxicated adult.

According to the Chicago Tribune, after a 23 year-old woman was pulled over and taken into custody for driving with a suspended license, police gave the keys to the 1998 Chevy Cavalier to the woman’s boyfriend; her five year-old son was strapped in a car seat in the back seat.

The woman’s boyfriend spent much of the evening drinking with friends, reported the Chicago Tribune. At some point during the evening, the woman and her son joined him, and, because she wasn’t drinking, she was supposed to drive them back to the man’s house. Instead, she was stopped at 2:35 a.m. by Chicago Heights police for making an improper turn without a signal, reports show. An officer arrested her and handed the vehicle and her son over to her boyfriend.

According to authorities, the boyfriend “didn’t seem drunk.” Nevertheless, less than 40 minutes after the traffic stop, the man veered off the road and the car slammed into a tree. The young boy was killed at the scene, but the driver was unhurt.

Apparently the man’s blood-alcohol level was more than three times the legal limit, and he had marijuana in his system; he has since been charged with felony driving under the influence of alcohol and reckless homicide in the single-car accident, reported the Chicago Tribune. However, the issue remains that the municipal police not only permitted, but also encouraged the man to drive.

Police have a duty of care to the people they protect. Chicago personal injury law principles hold that when people take a particular job in which they undertake to provide services needed for the safety of others, they assume a duty to carry out this promise and are required to use reasonable care in performing their duties.

When the person offering to provide those services fails to use reasonable care in carrying out the job, and his or her negligence causes injury to another person, the negligent person is responsible for the injuries caused, and may be made to answer to an Illinois personal injury lawsuit.

In this particular case, the Chicago Heights police undertook to provide safety to their constituents. They failed to use reasonable care because they didn’t ensure that the man was able to safely operate the car, and this failure ultimately was a cause of the little boy’s death.

Even though the driver has been indicted, the charges understandably provide little consolation to the boy’s family. Illinois personal injury lawsuits attempt to put people back in the position they were in prior to the injury or accident occurring by covering medical expenses, lost wages, or by compensating people for pain and suffering or the loss of a loved one.

Though they cannot bring back lost life, Chicago personal injury lawsuits are vital in the pursuit of justice.

Arguably sponge cake isn’t particularly healthy in any case, but given the FDA’s latest recall, this particular fare could be especially dangerous.

This latest food recall is for Rich Products Corporation’s 1/4 Sheet Artificially-Flavored Vanilla Pre-Soaked Sponge Cake. According to the report issued by the United States Food & Drug Administration, small plastic fragments ranging from 1/4 inch to 3/4 inches, from the pastry’s packaging were found in and on the cakes. As with any foreign object, ingesting these plastic pieces can be potentially dangerous.

Rich Products Corporation is a multinational food-manufacturing corporation headquartered in the United States. The company currently ranks number 161 on Forbes’ list of America’s Largest Private Companies, and sells more than 2,000 different types of products in 73 countries to retailers, in-store bakeries, and other foodservice distributers.

An investigation conducted by Rich Products revealed that the problem was caused by a change in the resin used by the supplier of the plastic packaging. The FDA stated that company is now working with the packaging’s supplier to ensure that defective containers are removed from distribution and that monitoring systems are in place to prevent this problem from happening again in the future.

Although no injuries have yet been reported, the potential for harm is significant enough that the corporation issued a voluntary recall as a precautionary measure. When foreign objects are swallowed, they can cause irritation, inflammation, and scarring to the digestive track. Additionally, they can obstruct passageways either by the size of the object or because of the scarring that is caused from the irritation.

In order to remove a foreign object – such as one of these plastic pieces – after it has been swallowed, a person may need to undergo either surgery or endoscopic foreign body retrieval, which is a collection of techniques in which a gastroscope is used to locate the item and remove it via manipulation.

Illinois product liability law holds that food distributers have a duty to sell reasonably safe food, and are responsible for products they disseminate to the public. When those products cause illness, injury, or death to consumers, the companies are liable for the harm caused. Individuals who suffer due to dangerous food products may be able to seek compensation for economic and non-economic damages.

In this case, if a person swallows one of these plastic pieces and is harmed as a result, Rich Product Corporation could be made to answer to an Illinois product liability lawsuit and be held legally responsible for damages to compensate the victim for medical and hospital expenses, as well as for harm suffered.

Products affected by this retraction include 1/4-sheet cakes sold at in-store bakeries across the country. Customers who have purchased these cakes are urged to destroy or dispose of the affected product.

If you or a loved one have been harmed by this cake – or any other kind of dangerous product – contact an attorney to understand your rights under the law. You may be entitled to compensation for your injuries.

A recent report by the Chicago Tribune reveals a devastating problem: manufacturers of window blinds have ignored demands from federal regulators asking for increased safety standards and to eliminate exposed cords on window blinds and shades that pose a fatal safety risk to young children.

According to U.S. regulators, children can get caught in the cords that hold the blinds together or the cords that are used to pull blinds up and down. In fact, the Federal Safety Agency has said that more than 200 children in the United States have died in the last two decades from being strangled in window cord-related accidents with blinds and shades. Nevertheless, manufacturers, who are responsible for setting their own safety standards, have implemented less-stringent requirements that, according to the Chicago Tribune, advocates say won’t reduce injuries or deaths.

In the summer of 2011, safety regulators from the United States, Canada, and Europe appealed to the window blind industry to raise product safety standards that would reduce the risk of strangulation. However, “the industry is clinging to the status quo and is refusing to address this very dire safety issue,” said Rachel Weintraub, director of product safety with the nonprofit Consumer Federation of America and a member of a task force drafting the new standards.

Safety regulators want the window-covering producers to manufacture blinds without the long cords used to pull blinds up and down; these cords can get wrapped around the necks of children, causing death and serious injuries. In response, manufacturers have said that it’s just not feasible to rid blinds of cords, and that it’s impossible – and unrealistic – to rid the product of all risks.

But that’s not quite right. According to the Chicago Tribune, some companies already make blinds with inaccessible cords. The only issue is that, although that technology exists for some blinds and shades, the cordless technology can add to costs. Asked Bill O’Connor, president of B&W Window Fashions in Waukegan, Illinois, “if it’s a better mousetrap, why isn’t it offered as a standard feature?” His company has developed a Roman shade that doesn’t have accessible cords, and doesn’t cost more to make.

When a company manufactures a product to be marketed to the public, the company is responsible for ensuring the safety of those products. There are three main types of Illinois product liability claims:

1. A manufacturing defect, which generally occurs when an otherwise safe product is assembled carelessly;
2. A design defect, which occurs when, no matter how well the product is put together, its intent or layout is inherently dangerous;
3. A failure to warn, which can occur when a product markets a product that they know to be potentially hazardous, and fails to warn consumers of the latent danger.

In this particular situation, two of these types of liability are incurred. No matter how well the blinds are put together, they pose a risk of strangulation to children. Because these products are inherently dangerous, if a child is harmed or killed by the blinds, the manufacturer could be held legally responsible for the damages caused, and an Illinois wrongful death lawsuit could potentially arise.

Additionally, these dangerous products don’t carry warnings. According to the Chicago Tribune, federal regulators are also proposing that manufacturers require that a warning label on product packaging saying: “for child safety, consider cordless alternatives or products without accessible cords.” Nevertheless, safety advocates say the warning doesn’t explicitly tell parents not to use the products if children are in the home. If parents are unaware of the strangulation hazards posed by the window-coverings and a child is harmed as a result, the parents may be able to bring a Chicago personal injury lawsuit on behalf of the child.

At this point we can hope that regulations passed are stringent enough to protect children, and urge parents to become educated about the safety hazards associated with these products. We are especially proud of our Chicago personal injury attorneys and the changes that their efforts have brought with regard to dangerous products and Illinois product liability law. In many instances, they have not only recovered substantial verdicts and settlements for our clients, but also helped to ensure that the defective product was removed from the market and prevented from causing any further pain, suffering, and damage.

Following on the heels of Ford’s recall for a half-million defective vehicles, our Chicago personal injury lawyers were concerned to read about BMW’s recall of almost 89,000 Mini vehicles due to an issue with the electronic circuit board in the car’s inner-engineering.

BMW, or Bavarian Motor Works, is a German international luxury automobile-, motorcycle-, and engine-manufacturing conglomerate that owns and produces motor vehicles under the brands BMW, Mini, and Rolls-Royce. Although BMW started out as an airplane-engine manufacturer, it is now one of the world’s most successful automakers; in 2010, the BMW group produced almost 1,500,000 automobiles across all of its brands.

Nevertheless, Mini brand vehicles from model years 2007 through 2011 have been retracted from the market because overheating in the car’s circuit board may lead to fire. The flaw relates to the electronic circuit board that controls the electric auxiliary water pump used to cool the turbocharger. When it’s not working properly, the circuit board may overheat, which is what may cause the flames.

Corporations owe a duty of care to consumers. When they put products on the market that harm customers, those companies may be held legally responsible for damages from those injuries. If a fire starts in the Mini’s engine that causes an accident or injury to the consumer, the BMW group could be held legally responsible for the monetary damages required to compensate the victim.

When consumers are harmed because products are unsafe, an Illinois personal injury lawsuit may arise, and the corporations responsible for production may be made to pay compensatory damages to put the consumer back in the position they were in before the injury occurred. This includes covering medical and hospital expenses, and in more serious cases, compensating the victim for a loss of normal life or lost wages. In some cases when the companies’ errors are egregious, they may also be made to pay punitive damages which serve to punish the company and to send a message to others in the same position to be more careful in the future.

Nevertheless, this isn’t the first time Mini vehicles have faced this problem; last October, Mini brand cars were found to have a similar design issue that led to the recall of about 32,000 vehicles.

According to BMW, owners will be notified next month, and local dealerships will replace the defective water pump for free. Our Illinois personal injury attorneys want people to be especially cautious. If you have one of these types of vehicles, it is best not to drive it until it has been inspected or repaired by a licensed BMW/Mini dealer.

For this particular recall, affected models include: 2007-2011 Mini Cooper S;
2008-2011 Clubman; 2009-2011 Cooper S Convertible; 2011 Countryman; 2009-2011 Mini John Cooper Works (JCW); 2009 Clubman JCW; 2010-2011 Mini JCW Convertible.

If you or a loved one have been injured as a result of a dangerous or defective product, contact an attorney immediately to better understand your rights under the law. You may be entitled to compensation for your injuries.

It sounds like something out of a horror movie, but it’s actually the subject of the FDA’s latest recall.

Bedford Laboratories, a pharmaceutical- and medical device-manufacturing corporation has just recalled two vaccines after it was found that vials of the injections contained glass particles.

Bedford Laboratories is an American manufacturer that supplies an extensive selection of critical-care and medically necessary multisource and specialty injectable products to the healthcare marketplace. This is the second recall for the same product; according to the FDA’s report, the recalls were first initiated in August of 2011 after visible glass particles were found in a limited number of vials in the affected lots.

The first vaccine retracted from the market was for Vecuronium, a muscle relaxant that is generally used during surgery in conjunction with general anesthesia, to facilitate intubation and mechanical ventilation. The other recalled injection was Polymyxin B, an antibiotic used primarily to treat infections by causing cells to become more permeable, at which point the increase in water-uptake leads to the cell’s death. Polymyxin B, in its natural form, is also commonly used in the topical first-aid preparation ointment Neosporin.

Nevertheless, despite the enormous benefits these medications may have, the glass particles make them potentially deadly. According to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, particulate matter in injections – such as the glass in this particular case – can be harmful when introduced into the bloodstream. Potential adverse effects may include such things as vein irritation and inflammation, tissue death, obstruction of capillaries and arteries, and in more serious cases, anaphylactic shock, and death.

Although to date there have been no injuries reported from the affected lots, the potential for hazard is enormous.

Illinois product liability law is an area of personal injury law that focuses on dangerous and defective products; it is the area of law in which manufacturers, distributors, retailers, and others who manufacture and disseminate goods to the public are held responsible for the injuries caused by those products. "Products" in this instance covers a wide range of categories, including medical devices and pharmaceuticals.

In cases in which Illinois product liability lawsuits arise, the claims most commonly asserted are negligence, strict liability, breach of warranty, and various other consumer protection claims. This particular situation involves strict liability. Under strict liability, the manufacturer of the product is liable for injuries caused if the product harms consumers, even if the manufacturer was not directly negligent in making that product defective.

Our Chicago personal injury lawyers represent victims across Illinois in matters against companies that have sold or manufactured unsafe products to consumers. In fact, our attorneys brought a case against Orion Research Inc. and Baxter Health Care Corporation for a flawed test for the genetic disease cystic fibrosis. The failures of the test led a set of parents to have a second cystic child. While recovering a substantial settlement for the family, the firm and the family were more concerned with the discontinuation of the test. As a result of our efforts, the test was eliminated.

If you've had an incident with a product that caused an injury, or are the survivor of someone who may have died from the use or exposure to a dangerous or defective product, contact an attorney to better understand your rights under the law. You may be entitled to compensation for your suffering.

Given what’s on it, you probably wouldn’t want to rub it on your face.

That’s what federal regulators are saying about tissues that have been contained in metal tissue holders distributed by Bed Bath & Beyond stores. According to the Chicago Sun Times, the tissue-box holders were contaminated with low levels of radioactive material.

Bed Bath & Beyond, a multinational domestic merchandise conglomerate, allegedly sold the products in more than twenty states, including Illinois; in a recent public statement, Bed Bath & Beyond, Inc. said that its Dual Ridge Metal boutique tissue holder has been carried in about 200 of its stores since July.

Bed Bath & Beyond, Inc. operates a chain of almost 1000 stores that pander mid-ranged home furnishings that are primarily intended – as the name suggest – for the bathroom and the bedroom. The corporation is counted among the Fortune 500, and the Forbes 2000 list of successful businesses.

According to the Chicago Sun Times, a spokesperson for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission stated that the domestic goods company has recalled the tissue holder from stores, but that there is no serious threat to human health. Nevertheless, Bed Bath & Beyond has retracted the product after state health officials pulled 12 contaminated boxes from the shelves of one of the retail stores, claiming that it’s better to avoid unnecessary exposure to radiation.

Moreover, the Illinois Emergency Management Agency says there is “no immediate threat” posed by decorative tissue box holders, and that it is coordinating with federal officials and Bed, Bath & Beyond, Inc. to identify and secure the contaminated products.

Authorities say the tissue holders contain manmade cobalt-60 radioactive material. Cobalt-60 is a synthetic radioactive isotope of cobalt, a silver-grey naturally occurring metal that is often used to create blue pigments. According to the Environmental Protection Agency, cobalt-60, the radioactive version of the metal, is used to detect structural flaws in metal parts, as well as in product sterilization.

When a person or animal is exposed to cobalt-60, though most of the radioactive material is excreted in feces, a small portion is absorbed by the kidney, liver, and bones; prolonged exposure may lead to radiation poisoning and cancer.

The symptoms of radiation poisoning depends largely on the dose of radiation exposure. Relatively small doses – as may be the case with the decorative tissue boxes – may present in gastrointestinal symptoms, such as nausea and vomiting.

When a corporation manufactures and distributes products to the public, that company is responsible for any injuries caused by dangerous or defective products. Businesses are expected to test their products prior to putting them on the market to ensure public safety. When defects affect consumers, those companies can be liable for damages resulting from the injuries their merchandise causes. This is how Chicago personal injury lawsuits arise.

When companies are held responsible in Illinois product liability lawsuits they may be made to pay compensatory damages, which attempt to put an injured person back in the position he or she was in before being injured, such as compensation for medical and hospital expenses, and the loss of a normal life following the injury. Additionally, in some cases, punitive damages may also be awarded; punitive damages are intended to punish wrongdoers and send a message to the responsible corporation and other companies to be more careful in the future.

Bed Bath & Beyond is recalling all of the “brushed metal” tissue boxes, and is asking any customers who bought them to return them for a full refund.

Nevertheless, if you or a loved one have been harmed as a result of this – or any other – defective product, contact an attorney to better understand your rights under the law.

Injuries that arise from foodborne illnesses can have devastating effects. Resultantly, when people suffer serious personal injury, hospitalization, or even death due to food poisoning, an Illinois personal injury lawsuit may arise. The restaurant or retail store responsible for distributing the contaminated food may be made to pay compensation to victims.

That might just be the next step here.

According to the Chicago Daily Herald, the Cook County Department of Public Health has determined that norovirus, a highly contagious form of food poisoning, is the culprit behind gastrointestinal illnesses of 146 people who were sickened after eating at Bob Chinn’s Crab House in Wheeling, Illinois.

Norovirus is an RNA virus that has been cited as the cause of almost 90% of epidemic non-bacterial outbreaks of gastroenteritis around the world, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention speculate that it may be responsible for nearly half of all foodborne pandemics of gastroenteritis in the United States. The virus may be transmitted by food or water that has been infected by human fecal matter, by person-to-person contact, contact with contaminated surfaces, or by aerosolization of the virus, such as when a toilet is flushed. A spokeswoman for the Cook County Department of Public Health, Amy Poore, stated that the conclusion was based on stool samples taken from victims who had eaten at the Bob Chinn’s restaurant.

Because the virus is highly contagious, it’s spreading quickly. “There’s norovirus circulating everywhere in suburban Cook County,” said Poore. Cases of norovirus – likely traceable back to the Bob Chinn’s outbreak – have been reported in a number of Chicago suburbs.

According to the Chicago Daily Herald, Chinn’s voluntarily complied with the Cook County Health Department’s requirements before reopening after having been closed for a full day. Said Poore on behalf of the Health Department, “whenever you have this kind of an outbreak, anything that had been prepared is discarded...Everything is thoroughly sanitized and then it’s basically like starting fresh.”

Symptoms of illness caused by norovirus often resemble the common stomach flu, and may include nausea and vomiting, diarrhea, and stomach cramps. Other symptoms may include a low-grade fever, headache, muscle aches, fatigue, and chills. Although the majority of these symptoms aren’t life-threatening, diarrhea and vomiting can potentially expose a person to dehydration and malnutrition, which could require hospitalization, especially for young children and the elderly. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommend carefully washing hands as a way to avoid spread of norovirus, especially after using the bathroom and before preparing food.

Restaurants owe a duty of care to their patrons; when a customer is sickened because of a contaminated food product, the company responsible for causing that illness may be made to pay to compensate the consumer. Damages in an Illinois personal injury lawsuit, such as one that may arise in this case, might include such things as hospital and medical bills, as well as money lost from an inability to work.

If you or a loved one have recently eaten at this restaurant and are experiencing symptoms of norovirus, seek medical attention immediately. A doctor will be able to diagnose if you have been infected by the disease. Additionally, contact an attorney to be advised of your rights under the law. You may be entitled to compensation for your injuries.

Illinois product liability law is an area of Illinois personal injury law that is triggered when a consumer is harmed by a dangerous or defective product.

This past Wednesday, the Ford Motor Company released a statement saying that it is recalling nearly 500,000 minivans and SUVs due to mechanical issues in the automobiles.

The Ford Motor Company is a multinational automobile-manufacturing corporation that produces the Ford and Lincoln brands, as well as owns stakes in Mazda, Aston Martin, Jaguar, Land Rover, and Volvo; production of the Mercury brand was discontinued after the 2011 model year. The company is the fifth-largest automaker in the world, and reported global revenues of $118.3 billion in 2009.

According to a report published by MSNBC, the American automaker is recalling 205,896 Freestar and Mercury Monterey minivans made during the 2004 and 2005 model years because their torque converter output shaft may fail, causing the automobile to have a sudden loss of power, which could potentially cause the vehicle to crash.

Additionally, Ford is retracting 244,530 Escape SUVs made during the 2001 and 2002 model years because their brake master cylinder reservoir cap could leak brake fluid; when that happens, if brake fluid leaks, it could corrode electrical connectors in the vehicle’s braking system and possibly lead to a fire.

Corporations owe a duty of care to consumers. When they put products on the market that harm customers, those companies may be held legally responsible for damages from those injuries. If any of the individuals who own these models of vehicles are injured because Ford’s products are defective, Ford could potentially be on the line for a lot of money.

Ford has stated that with both sets of recalls, they plan to inform owners, and have dealers replace the defective parts for free, but, because of a parts delay Ford may not be able to fix some of the dangerous Escape models immediately.

Our Illinois personal injury attorneys want people to be especially cautious. If you have one of these types of vehicles, it is best not to drive it until it has been inspected or repaired by a licensed Ford dealer.

We are particularly proud of the changes that our Chicago personal injury attorneys’ efforts have brought in the area of product liability. In many instances, they have not only recovered substantial verdicts and settlements for our clients, but also helped to ensure that the defective product was removed from the market and prevented from causing any further pain, suffering, and damage.

If you have had an incident with a product that caused an injury, or are the survivor of someone who may have died from the use or exposure to a dangerous or defective product, it's important that you know your rights under the law.

The United States Food and Drug Administration has not recalled orange juice from the market despite the fact that testing for low levels of fungicide demonstrated that the juice was contaminated. Nevertheless, our Illinois personal injury attorneys are urging consumers to be cautious.

According to reports by the Associated Press, the Coca-Cola Company, a large-scale bottled-juice and soda conglomerate, was the corporation that alerted federal regulators about the low levels of fungicide in its own orange juice and in competitors' juices, prompting juice prices to rise and increasing government testing for the residue.

Coca-Cola, an American-based company, makes the Minute Maid brand and Simply Orange brand of orange juice; this past Thursday, Coca-Cola notified the FDA of elements of the fungicide carbendazim in both the company's orange juice and in competitors' juices.

Carbendazim is a chemical intended to control plant diseases in human foodstuffs, such as cereals and fruits. Recent studies have shown that high doses of carbendazim have caused infertility and destroyed the genitals of laboratory animals. According to the Associated Press, the FDA said Coca-Cola found levels up to 35 parts per billion of the fungicide, which is far below the European Union's maximum residue level of 200 parts per billion. Despite Europe’s set parameters, the American government has not yet established a maximum residue level for carbendazim in orange juice, though the Environmental Protection Agency has suggested that a concentration of less than 80 parts per billion raises no concern. Carbendazim is not currently approved for use on citrus in the United States, but it is used to combat mold on orange trees in Brazil, which exports orange juice to the United States.

The Food and Drug Administration and the Environmental Protection Agency have said that, after testing, orange juice is safe to drink and the levels found are below levels of concern. The FDA is not releasing the names of the brands of juices that tested positive for carbendazim.

At this point, the FDA has declared that it does not plan to remove any juice products that are currently on store shelves. Still, because carbendazim is not approved for use in the United States, any food that contains even trace amounts is considered illegal. As it currently stands, the FDA is now testing shipments of orange juice at the border and will detain any that contain more than 10 parts per billion of the chemical; said the Associated Press, any amount below 10 parts per billion isn't measurable. Additionally, FDA official Nega Beru asked the industry to ensure that suppliers in Brazil, the world's largest orange producer, and other countries stop using the fungicide.

Our Chicago food poisoning attorneys know that, according to 2010 estimates by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention(CDC), each year roughly 48 million people are sickened by a foodborne illness. Even worse, over 125,000 people require hospitalization and 3,000 die after consuming contaminated foods in their homes or in restaurants.

When a food manufacturer or distributer disseminates an infected or poisonous food product to the public and a consumer is sickened or injured as a result, that company may be held legally responsible and may be made to pay for damages that result from the injury.

People who suffer serious personal injury, hospitalization, or even death due to food poisoning may be able to seek compensation for economic and non-economic damages. Our Illinois food poisoning lawyers have experience representing clients in similar cases, including having won a $4 million settlement for three convention attendees who contracted salmonella poisoning that caused them to suffer crippling arthritic injuries.

Our Chicago personal injury attorneys read with concern an article in the New York Times claiming that hospital employees recognize and report only one out of every seven accidents, errors, or other injuries that harm Medicare patients while they are hospitalized.

This frightening report was published by the Department of Health and Human Services after federal investigators found that, despite the fact that almost all hospitals have some type of system to report injuries to patients, “hospital staff did not report most events that harmed Medicare beneficiaries,” said Daniel R. Levinson, inspector general of the Department of Health and Human Services. In fact, some of the most serious problems, including some that caused patients to die, were not even reported.

The New York Times stated that the study was undertaken to examine hospitals countrywide; federal investigators identified many unreported events by having independent doctors review patients’ records. In fact, the inspector general estimated that more than 130,000 Medicare beneficiaries experienced one or more adverse events in hospitals in a single month, but only around 14% of these incidents were reported or investigated.

Hospitals owe a duty of care to their patients. Part of that responsibility – and also a condition of being paid under Medicare – is that hospitals are required to “track medical errors and adverse patient events, analyze their causes” and improve care. When hospitals aren’t fulfilling their obligations by reporting the mistakes they make, they are breaching that duty.

Moreover, the study reported that, even when hospitals do investigate preventable injuries and infections that have been reported, they rarely change their practices to prevent repetition of the harmful circumstances, said the New York Times. This is yet another example of a breach in their responsibilities, and when patients are harmed in situations that could have been avoided had more care been taken, an Illinois medical malpractice lawsuit may arise.

As a general rule, when the careless or intentional acts of a doctor, nurse, hospital, or other healthcare provider cause injury to a patient, they may provide the basis for a Chicago medical malpractice lawsuit, and the healthcare professional may be made to pay for damages caused by the injury.

Some of the reasons listed for healthcare workers failing to report injuries were that employees were afraid to admit when they made mistakes, that hospital employees did not recognize “what constituted patient harm,” or that they did not realize that particular events harmed patients and should be reported. Additionally, stated Levinson, in some cases, employees assumed someone else would report the episode, or they thought it was so common that it did not need to be reported.

Nevertheless, whatever the excuse, the statistics are alarming. When patients put their trust in the hands of hospitals and those facilities breach the duty of care owed to their consumers, serious problems can arise. In the future, the New York Times reports, Medicare officials have said that they will develop a list of “reportable events” that hospitals and their employees can use.

However, until then, we can only hope that hospitals take the initiative to be more careful in the future. If you or a loved one have suffered because of a healthcare professional’s negligence, contact an attorney to be advised of your rights under the law. You may be entitled to compensation for your injuries.

A recent article published by MSNBC detailing the tragic death of a 7-year old school girl has any Chicago personal injury attorney wondering why the school didn’t do more to save her.

According to MSNBC, the first-grader died from an apparent allergic reaction after having eaten something containing nuts and eggs that triggered allergy-related breathing and heart problems. Though paramedics arrived less than five minutes after the school had called for help, she was already in cardiac arrest. She was taken to a local hospital where she was pronounced dead.

This devastating situation is raising questions about how the school in this particular situation – and how schools across the country – should handle these types of circumstances.

Said MSNBC, school officials did not treat the girl with medication such as an epinephrine EpiPen, which can reverse severe allergic reactions. The young girl’s death is causing Chicago wrongful death attorneys to ask questions about whether public schools ought to have doses of anti-allergy medication on-hand for emergencies such as this.

In the summer of 2011, Illinois passed a law allowing schools to stockpile epinephrine to treat allergic reactions, and authorizing schools to administer the drugs in emergency situations without specific prescriptions.

Nevertheless, this story also raises issues of Illinois premises liability law. In general, premises liability law is triggered when an accident or injury occurs to an individual who is on property owned or controlled by another; the owner of the property may be liable if it can be proved that their negligence led to an injury. In this case, school administrators were in charge of the school premises, and were negligent in not having life-saving medications available for the young girl, and for not administering them to her. As a result, they may be made to pay for damages suffered by the girl’s family, such as:

• Pain, suffering or mental anguish suffered by her surviving family members,
• Loss of the girl’s companionship, and
• Punitive damages, which are intended to punish wrongdoers (in this case, school officials) and prevent them from harming others by ensuring that they act more carefully in the future.

Our Chicago wrongful death lawyers have successfully handled hundreds of wrongful death cases and recovered millions of dollars in verdicts and settlements for the families of victims wrongfully killed because of someone else's negligence. Our attorneys understand how devastating these cases can be for families who have lost loved ones, and have the experience and expertise to fight for your rights. In fact, our attorneys won a $775,000 settlement for the family of a three-year-old boy who fell out of a 3rd story window to his death 10 days after his mother removed a broken window from their apartment and covered the opening with plastic. The landlord failed to have the window repaired in a timely manner.

If you've lost a loved one in a situation which you believe may be a result of the negligence of another person, you may be able to file a lawsuit to recover the costs involved to pay for medical and funeral expenses, lost benefits, such as insurance, from the death, and pain, suffering or mental anguish suffered by the survivors of the decedent. Contact an attorney to understand your rights under the law.

Novartis International AG, the second-most lucrative pharmaceutical company in the world, has just recalled a number of over-the-counter medications because packages of pills may have accidentally included doses of powerful prescription medications.

Although the U.S. Food and Drug Administration is not recalling all containers of these medications because they may be otherwise medically necessary, the FDA has released a public warning, cautioning consumers about the potential mix-up.

According to reports by the Associated Press, the problem arose at an American Novartis production facility, which has subsequently been shut down. In 2010, Novartis International AG, a major manufacturer of generic prescription drugs, recorded sales of $46.806 billion. A number of the prescription drugs inadvertently included in the over-the-counter medications were opioids (drugs used in the treatment and management of pain) that are otherwise sold under the labels Percocet, Endocet, Opana, and Zydone. Pieces of the prescription drugs made their way into containers of the over-the-counter remedies, which is what caused the concern and the resulting recall.

This past Sunday, Novartis AG issued a nationwide retraction of certain bottled versions of Excedrin (a headache pain-reliever), Bufferin (an anti-inflammatory medication for minor aches and pains), Gas-X (a pill intended to relieve pain caused by excess gas in the stomach), and No-Doz (a caffeine stimulant), saying that they may contain stray, broken, or chipped parts of prescription tablets of drugs which were manufactured at the same plant.

This situation is a prime example of Illinois product liability law; product liability is an area of Chicago personal injury law that focuses on dangerous and defective products. Although no injuries have yet been reported as a result of the mistake, because Novartis AG’s negligence led to the prescription medications’ inclusion in over-the-counter products, Novartis could be liable for damages if injuries do arise.

Said the FDA’s recall report, mixing of different products in the same bottle could result in consumers taking the incorrect product and receiving a higher or lower strength pain-reliever drug than otherwise intended, or receiving an unintended ingredient. This could potentially result in overdose, interaction with other medications a customer may be taking, or an allergic reaction if the consumer is allergic to the unintended ingredient.

Although the Consumer Health division of Novartis has publicly stated that the recall is a precautionary measure, the tainted over-the-counter packages were distributed to wholesale and retail stores across the country. With such widespread dissemination, the risk to consumers is enormous.

Novartis AG plans to notify distributers and customers, and is urging customers to return potentially hazardous packages. Our Chicago personal injury lawyers have handled numerous cases in which customers have been injured by dangerous, defective, or diseased products. If you or a loved one have suffered as a result of using an unsafe product, contact an attorney to be apprised of your rights under the law.

Continue reading "Over-The-Counter Medications Recalled Because of Accidental Inclusion of Prescription Pharmaceuticals" »

The FDA has just released a statement detailing the recall of Organique by Himalaya Nourishing Night Cream because samples of the face lotion were found to contain the bacteria staphylococcus aureus and a type of fungus.

Product liability is an area of personal injury law that focuses on dangerous and defective products. Illinois product liability lawsuits arise when manufactures and distributors of products disseminate hazardous or contaminated products to the public, and persons are harmed as a result. The corporations may then be held legally responsible for any injuries caused by the flawed merchandise.

According to the FDA’s report, the product in this case was distributed across the United States and Canada, and the bacteria were traced to the bottle’s pump components, which were supplied by a third-party manufacturer. Because there was no way to determine if all pumps used in manufacturing this particular line were contaminated, the Himalaya Drug Company is recalling the entire batch.

According to Buisinessweek Magazine, the Himalaya Drug Company is an international corporation whose products are sold in 60 countries across the world. The company develops, produces, and sells pharmaceutical, personal care, and consumer health products for children’s, women’s, men’s, and general health.

The product in question – the Nourishing Night Cream – was sold in a cylinder shaped teal bottle with an orange cap, said MSNBC.

Although the bacteria staphylococcus aureus is a natural microbe that is harmless in small amounts, when introduced to broken skin or to persons with compromised immune systems, it may cause Staph infections, as well as a variety of other illnesses that range from minor skin infections to potentially-fatal diseases such as meningitis, pneumonia, toxic shock syndrome, and sepsis.

To date, no injuries have yet been reported from the affected batches of Nourishing Night Cream, but if consumers do suffer infection from the lotion, the company may be held responsible for compensating victims for their injuries in an Illinois personal injury lawsuit. Damages may include such things as medical and hospital expenses to treat the effects of the disease, and, in more serious cases, compensation for the loss of a loved one after a wrongful death.

Himalaya Drug Company is voluntarily participating in the recall, and will test all third-party bottle components for disease, in the future. Consumers are urged not to use the cream, and instead to return the product to a retail store or directly to the corporation for a refund or replacement.

Our Chicago injury lawyers represent plaintiffs across Illinois in matters against corporations or manufacturers who have sold or manufactured unsafe products for consumers. “Products,” in this instance covers a wide range of categories, including

• Medical devices
• Machinery and tools
• Medicine and Drugs, both prescription and non-prescription
• Food and tobacco
• Toxic chemicals and substances, such as pesticides, asbestos, and mold
• Autos and other motor vehicles, including trucks and motorcycles
• Automobile accessories such as tires, seat belts, airbags and child car seats
• Household products and appliances
• Toys and recreational equipment, and
• Clothing and apparel

We are particularly proud of the changes that our Illinois injury lawyers’ efforts have brought in this area. In many instances, our attorneys have not only recovered substantial verdicts and settlements for our clients, but also helped to ensure that the defective product was removed from the market and prevented from causing any further pain, suffering, and damage.

If you or a loved one have had an incident with a product that caused an injury, or are the survivor of someone who may have died from the use or exposure to a dangerous or defective product, it's important that you know your rights under the law.

Every Chicago personal injury attorney knows that corporations who manufacture food products have a duty to consumers to ensure that products they sell to the public are safe for human consumption. Ideally, foods should be tested extensively before being put on the market. However, when infected, or unsafe foodstuffs are sold to consumers, and those foods cause injury, the companies may be held liable for the damages caused by those injuries, and an Illinois personal injury lawsuit may arise.

According to MSNBC, Organic Pastures Dairy Company, a popular American dairy corporation is currently under quarantine because its raw milk products were recalled after milk infected with E. Coli sent three children to the hospital. The company otherwise sells 2,400 gallons of raw milk per day, but will stay under quarantine until it is found to have met all state sanitation requirements.

Often, before milk is marketed to consumers, it undergoes a process known as pasteurization, which involves heating milk to 161 degrees Fahrenheit for 15 seconds for the purpose of sanitizing the milk. Although the Centers for Disease control and Prevention, and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration say that pathogens from raw milk make it unsafe for people to consume, some organizations argue that, because farm sanitation has greatly improved, raw milk can now be produced hygienically.

In fact, 28 U.S. States currently do not prohibit the sales of raw milk. Proponents of raw milk claim that, in addition to killing off the dangerous bacteria in the milk, pasteurization also removes some of the natural nutrients. Nevertheless, most government agencies and public health organizations require that milk be pasteurized in order to be considered safely drinkable.

In this particular case, the contaminated milk was infected with Escherichia Coli (commonly abbreviated E. Coli), a bacterium that is found in the lower intestines of warm-blooded animals. When E. Coli is outside of the body – often polluting food by way of fecal contamination – some strains have the potential to cause serious food poisoning in humans.

According to 2010 estimates by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, each year roughly 48 million people are sickened by a foodborne illness; of those, over 125,000 people require hospitalization and 3,000 die after consuming contaminated fruits, vegetables, meats, nuts and processed foods in their homes or in restaurants. Virulent strains of E. Coli can lead to serious infection, and more potent strains may even cause death.

According to MSNBC, the three children sickened by the milk in this particular case were hospitalized with a condition that may lead to kidney failure. If investigations link the disease back to the milk produced by Organic Pastures, the company could be held legally liable for the costs of the medical and hospital bills, as well as damages from the pain and suffering the children endured.

Illnesses from food poisoning have the potential to be devastating and life altering. A doctor will be able to diagnose if you have been infected by contaminated food. Additionally, a personal injury attorney may be able to advise you of your rights under the law; if you were sickened by disease-ridden food, either from a retail store or restaurant, you may be entitled to compensation for your injuries.

Our Illinois personal injury attorneys have extensive experience representing clients in similar cases, including having won a $4 million settlement for three convention attendees who contracted salmonella poisoning that caused them to suffer crippling arthritic injuries.

Our Chicago nursing home abuse attorneys were pleased to learn that recently a State Supreme Court has handed down two decisions that represent major improvements for nursing home residents and their families who are seeking justice against negligent or abusive nursing facilities.

In both cases, the State Supreme Court struck down a segment of nursing home arbitration legislation that placed damage caps on awards, restricting them in a way that made the allowable amount far less than what is otherwise legally recoverable in state courts. This is a very important step in protecting victims’ rights, and these rulings may help deter nursing homes in Illinois from lobbying for similar damage caps on residents and their families.

Damage caps (often referred to by their more lengthy epithet, “Non-Economic Damages Caps,”) are controversial tort reforms that attempt to limit the amount of money awarded to victims in Illinois personal injury lawsuits for intangible things such as severe pain, physical and emotional distress, loss of a loved one, or disability and disfigurement.

These types of damages serve to compensate injuries that aren’t easily measured by a dollar amount; for instance, this type of reparation is particularly helpful for victims who don’t otherwise work outside the home. The “worth” of either their contributions to the home, or from their companionship cannot be calculated in terms of definable monetary value, though still an important area of reparation. In short, non-economic damages are the only way a court can compensate a victim for the injury itself, as opposed to just for the out-of-pocket expenses such as medical bills and legal fees.

A number of legal experts have even gone so far as to say that legislation placing limits on non-economic damages is contrary to the Constitution of the United States:
Initially, opponents of caps on damages argue that the limits violate the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, in that there’s no rational relationship between the objectives that the legislature is hoping to obtain in placing the caps on damages, and the variation of damages allowed to be awarded in different states. In a similar vein, critics of damage limits have also found that caps violate the Separation of Powers doctrine in that they allow the legislature to arbitrarily limit the authority of a jury, which acts as an extension of the judicial branch of the government. Finally, opponents of damage caps argue that placing a maximum on awards violates the constitutional right to a trial by jury; because tort litigation is generally an issue governed under state jurisdictional authority, states have the ability to allow a constitutional right to a trial by jury in tort cases. When the victim is forced to settle the case in capped arbitration, this right is violated.

After hearing the two cases brought before the State Supreme Court, the Court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, thereby eradicating the arbitration agreements’ damage caps. The United States Supreme Court has said that they see arbitration clauses as a way to move a case to a different forum, or to promote alternative dispute resolution, but not to change a person’s substantive, inalienable rights afforded by the Constitution. Because of the holdings in these two cases, arbitration agreements in the state will not be able to contain provisions limiting the amount of damages a resident or family member can recover if the damage cap limits are below the amount that the state otherwise allows an individual to recover in court.

Our very own Chicago nursing home negligence attorney John Perconti was interviewed after the decisions were handed down; he said that the Court deciding these cases “has helped the consumer by holding the caps are in violation of the public policy.” Said Perconti, “these opinions should deter nursing homes in other states from imposing damage caps in their agreements.”

“We recommend that a nursing home contract should not be signed if it contains an arbitration provision, and [consumers should] ask that it be stricken from the agreement or they will go elsewhere,” Perconti says. “Nursing homes want to fill their beds and may be [more] willing to strike the provision than lose the revenue.”

Our Illinois personal injury lawyers were concerned to read that Build-A-Bear Workshop, an American retailer of stuffed animals, has recalled approximately 300,000 ‘Colorful Hearts’ teddy bears sold across the United States and Canada. The Consumer Product Safety Commission said of the recall, the bears’ eyes can loosen and fall out which creates a choking hazard for children.

Although no injuries have yet been reported, the risk of harm to children is overwhelming; if even one child chokes to death because of the manufacturing error, it’s one too many.

Illinois product liability lawsuits arise when manufactures and distributors of products disseminate dangerous, defective, or contaminated products to the public, and persons are harmed as a result. The corporations may then be held legally responsible for any injuries caused by the flawed merchandise.

Chicago product liability claims generally fall into three categories: manufacturing defects, design defects, or a failure on the part of the company to warn consumers of the potential danger associated with the product. Manufacturing defects are problems that arise during the production of a product, and usually present in the form of faulty or improperly working items. Design defects are ones that cause injury when a product’s design is inherently dangerous, no matter how well the product is made. Finally, Failure-to-Warn flaws occur when manufacturers distribute a product that is potentially dangerous, but fails to warn purchasers of the possible harm; in cases such as those, if the manufacturer knew about the potential for injury and didn’t warn customers, the company can be held liable for any injuries the consumer incurs.

This situation presents an example of a manufacturing defect – and even worse, it’s the third time this year the stuffed animal company has recalled toys due to safety concerns, reports the Huffington Post.

Build-A-Bear Workshop is an international company founded in 1997 that sells teddy bears and other stuffed animals both online, and through an interactive in-person process in which a stuffed animal is customized and constructed during a customer’s visit to the store. In 2007, Build-A-Bear Workshop reported $474.4 million in sales.

In December of 2011, Build-A-Bear agreed to pay a $6000 civil penalty for failing to report a dangerous defect in a line of toy beach chairs sold between 2001 and 2009, said the Huffington Post. The Consumer Product Safety Commission reported “the sharp edges of the chair's folding wooden frame can pinch, lacerate or amputate a child's fingertip if the finger is caught between the frame as the chair is folded." Allegedly the corporation was aware of ten incidents of injury between 2007 and 2009, but did not report the danger of the product to the Commission until March 2009.

Additionally, in August of 2011, the Consumer Product Safety Commission announced that Build-A-Bear had recalled more than 26,500 ‘Love Hugs Peace Lapel Pins’ because the pins contained excessive lead-based paint.

When companies manufacture products that are marketed to the public, those companies are responsible for ensuring that their merchandise is safe for public use. When consumers are harmed because the products are unsafe, the corporations may be made to pay compensatory damages to put the consumer back in the position they were in before the injury occurred. This includes covering medical and hospital expenses, and in more serious cases, compensating the victim for a loss of normal life or lost wages.

In some cases when the companies’ errors are egregious, they may also be made to pay punitive damages which serve to punish the company and to send a message to others in the same position to be more careful in the future.

The teddy bear in question – the Colorful Hearts Teddy Bear – is approximately 16 inches high, with black plastic eyes. Its body is covered with a multi-colored heart-shaped pattern. The bears were sold at Build-A-Bear Workshop stores and online from April to December of 2011.

Customers can return the bear to any Build-A-Bear store for a coupon for any available stuffed animal. If your child has been harmed by the defectively-manufactured bear, contact an attorney to be apprised of your rights under the law.

Illinois personal injury lawsuits aren’t always pretty.

Recently MSNBC posted an article detailing two interrelated lawsuits that would have any Chicago personal injury attorney scratching his or her head. According to MSNBC, a State Appeals Court for Illinois disagreed with a Cook County Judge’s ruling that a case cannot move forward in a situation where a man’s detatched body parts struck and injured an innocent bystander after the man was hit and killed by a train.

The lawsuit arose when the female bystander sued the estate of the man, claiming that she was hit by his flying body parts, and as a result, sustained a broken leg, broken wrist, and shoulder injury. The situation arose from a tragic turn of events that occurred at the Edgebrook, Illinois Metra Station; the Chicago Tribune reported that the man was shielding himself from pouring rain with an umbrella over his head and was hurrying to catch an inbound train when a southbound Amtrak train going more than 70 miles per hour struck him.

The force of being hit by the train sent part of the man’s body flying more than 100 feet, striking the female victim, who was waiting for a train on the southbound train platform.

According to the Chicago Tribune, the decedent’s family sued Metra and Canadian Pacific Railway, claiming that they were negligent by not announcing a Metra delay, which led to the man’s accident when he mistook which train was his.

The walloped bystander has in turn sued the man’s estate. Though a Cook County Judge initially ruled that the deceased man could not have anticipated the injuries his body parts would cause to the woman, an Illinois State Court of Appeals disagreed, stating that it was “reasonably foreseeable” that the high-speed train would kill the man and send his body flying in the direction of people waiting on the platform, reported the Chicago Tribune. Because of the man’s carelessness and negligence (which also caused his death), the woman’s attorneys are arguing, the injuries caused by his flung body parts were a direct result of his actions.

The Chicago Tribune cited a number of other cases, including a case from 1951, in which a postal worker won a personal injury lawsuit in Illinois after having been hit by the body of an elderly woman who was struck by a train.

This particular case also reminds us that Chicago personal injury law isn’t always pretty – or clear cut – but our attorneys have the experience and understanding to handle even the most complex cases.

According to a recent article published by MSNBC, five years after Bayer CropScience – a corporation – inadvertently introduced a strain of genetically modified long-grain rice into the U.S. market, Bayer has admitted fault and agreed to move forward with a $750 million settlement stemming from the mistake.

Bayer CropScience is a division of Bayer, a German chemical and pharmaceutical conglomerate, otherwise most well-known for its original brand of aspirin. Bayer CropScience is in the business of genetic modification of foods for the purposes of crop protection and nonagricultural pest control. CropScience is one of the world’s leading food science companies in its field, and is one of the premier innovators in the arena of genetic engineering of food.

However, in 2006, the United States Department of Agriculture found that Bayer CropScience’s brand of LibertyLink genetically modified rice had contaminated the country’s rice supply. As a result, the European Union banned imports of U.S. rice, and the market for rice plummeted. Personal injury lawsuits were brought on behalf of rice farmers who lost significant income from the economic backlash from Bayer’s mistake.

Genetically modified foods are foods that are produced after changes have been made to their DNA by genetic engineering techniques. The alterations are intended to produce better, plusher crops that are able to resist strains of vegetal diseases. Genetically modified foods were first marketed to consumers in 1996. To this day, only modified plant-based goods – such as soybeans, corn, canola, and rice – have been sold to the public; although altered animal products have also been developed, they are not currently on the market.

Though no injuries in humans have yet been reported due to consuming genetically modified foods, the E.U.’s refusal to accept them – which triggered the economic disaster for rice farmers that triggered this particular settlement – causes us to question the potential risks involved with modified foods.

No studies have yet concretely determined whether engineered crops have caused any harm to the public. On the other hand, however, a number of consumer rights groups claim that the long-term health risks posed by genetically altered foods wouldn’t yet show up in tests since the public has only been eating these products since 1996; long-term effects wouldn’t yet have had the opportunity to surface.

In fact, according to MSNBC, federal regulators had not yet approved LibertyLink rice (the rice in dispute) for human consumption, at the time when trace amounts were found mixed with conventional rice seed in storage bins. The European Union’s fear that the rice was unsafe, along with the notion that genetically altered rice was somehow impure, quashed sales in major markets. Said MSNBC, the mistake left growers with huge losses, since prices fell.

A Chicago personal injury attorney can attest that when corporations – especially those in the business of manufacturing food products – place merchandise on the market, they have the duty of ensuring that their products are safe. When a diseased, defective, or dangerous product is released to the public and causes harm to consumers, the corporation responsible for manufacturing the food may be held legally liable for the damages caused by the injury.

In the years to come, we will need to keep a careful watch on consumers of genetically modified foods; if consumers are harmed because the products were inherently dangerous, Illinois personal injury lawsuits may arise.

Our Chicago personal injury attorneys read with concern an article published by MSNBC regarding a very scary trend in recent health care that is plaguing Chicago.

The article reported that the National Association of State Mental Health Program Directors (NASMHPD) estimates that – because of current economic trouble – states have cut $3.4 billion in mental health services in the past in the past three years. Nevertheless, largely because of those same economic difficulties, an additional 400,000 people sought help at public mental health facilities.

Said MSNBC, across the country, doctors are dealing with an increase in attempted suicides and severe cases of depression and psychosis as states slash mental health services during the country’s worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. Moreover, “if the economy doesn't improve, next year could be worse because many community mental health agencies are cutting programs and using up reserve funds," says Linda Rosenberg, president of the National Council for Community Behavioral Healthcare. Many hospitals are simply not prepared for the increased caseload of psychiatric patients.

This means that across the United States, persons who need psychiatric care are unable to receive proper treatment, and are forced to go to emergency rooms for medication. The spike in psychiatric patients is leading to overcrowding in trauma facilities, and is preventing doctors from spending an adequate amount of time with any patient. Beds are being taken up by patients who ought to be treated in psychiatric wards, and individuals seeking traditional trauma treatment are kept waiting for care.

According to a 2010 survey of 600 hospital emergency department administrators, done by the Schumacher Group which manages emergency departments across the country, more than 70 percent of emergency departments have kept patients waiting in the emergency department for 24 hours.

But perhaps even more concerning is the fact that, in addition to the overcrowding in the emergency units, trauma physicians are ill-equipped to handle psychiatric patients. Dr. William Sullivan, a physician at the University of Illinois Medical Center at Chicago and a past president of the Illinois College of Emergency Physicians discussed a situation in which a patient asked him to make adjustments to her prescriptions. "I didn't feel comfortable doing that," Sullivan said, noting that emergency physicians are being asked to deliver specialized care that should be handled by a psychiatrist. Said Sullivan, “it's almost akin to having a cardiac patient come in and say, 'I need someone to adjust my defibrillator.' In the emergency department, we can do a lot, but there are some things we have to leave with the specialists.”

Because trauma patients aren’t able to receive proper care, the effects of these budget cuts are even more widespread. Doctors and other healthcare providers owe a duty of care to their patients – when they are unable to give them proper care, and that inability causes injury to the patients, Illinois medical malpractice lawsuits may arise.

When someone is determined to be legally responsible for injuring someone else, they are liable for the injury, and may be made to pay the injured person either compensatory damages, which attempts to put an injured person back in the position he or she was in before being injured, or in some cases, punitive damages, which are intended to punish wrongdoers and prevent them from harming others.

A Chicago personal injury attorney can attest to the fact that medical malpractice lawsuits arise from a variety of sources, including:

. Missed Diagnosis
. Delayed Diagnosis
. Lack of Informed Consent
. Birth Injuries
. Healthcare Provider Errors
. Misread X–ray, Slides, and Ultrasounds
. Medical Device Errors
. HMO Misconduct
. Medication / Pharmaceutical Errors
. Spinal Cord Injuries
. Dental Malpractice
. Nursing Home Abuse and Neglect

Injuries suffered as a result of medical malpractice can be severe and life altering. If you or a loved one has been injured or has died due to a healthcare provider's mistakes, contact an attorney immediately to understand your rights under the law.

Our Chicago personal injury attorneys wish you and your family a very safe and happy New Year. With the new year comes new opportunities, and we wish you every chance for happiness.

Though the best-case scenario would be to avoid being injured and needing to hire an attorney because you have been harmed, our Illinois personal injury lawyers have the experience and understanding to handle even the most complex cases. Our Chicago injury lawyers understand that your immediate goals after going through a trauma are to get your medical bills paid and covered, make sure you do not suffer financially through any lost wages, and make sure your insurance company will pay for future treatment relating to your injury.

Again, the best-case situation would be to avoid injury altogether, but if you need a comforting advocate to fight for your rights, our attorneys have the experience to do the best job.

Please have a safe and happy 2012!