February 10, 2012

An Interesting Twist on Personal Injury Law: A New Type of Plaintiff

Illinois personal injury law allows people to make claims based on the loss of companionship of a loved one. Monetary damages attempt to put people back in the position they were in prior to an injury or accident; sometimes this happens by compensating people for pain and suffering or the loss of a family member.

More specifically, Chicago product liability lawsuits allow people the potential to achieve justice when loved ones are harmed by dangerous, flawed, or infected products. But what happens when our loved ones aren’t persons?

According to recent reports by MSNBC, American government health officials are increasing port-inspections for dangerous toxins for shipments of chicken jerky pet treats from China.

To date, more than 500 dogs have been sickened in the past six months – some fatally so – because the jerky treats contain traces of melamine and melamine analogs and diethylene glycol, chemicals used in plastics and resins. These chemicals can be extremely dangerous for pets; in fact, in 2007, melamine-tainted imported pet food sickened and killed thousands of dogs and cats in the United States. This is the agency’s third alert in the past four years about the treats.

As a result of ingesting these chemicals, the U.S. FDA reports that common effects in dogs are serious problems such as kidney failure and Fanconi syndrome, a condition marked by low blood sugar.

When corporations manufacture products that are marketed to consumers, those companies are responsibility for ensuring that the merchandise meets all safety requirements; companies are expected to test their products before distributing them to the public, and when those products are unsafe and cause harm to customers, the corporation may be held legally responsible for the injuries caused. In this case, it was the responsibility of the companies who produced the chicken treats to ensure they were safe for pets to consume.

Although the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has not released the names of any specific brands linked to the defective dog treats, the illness appear to be tied to imported Chinese chicken jerky products, also sold as chicken tenders, chicken strips or chicken treats, reported MSNBC.

Another important concern in Illinois personal injury law is the concept that a person or business has a legal duty to use reasonable care to avoid causing emotional distress to another person. If a company’s negligent actions – such as failing to ensure that the dog treats were safe for pets – cause emotional distress to a person, the business may be made to pay damages to the injured person. For many Illinoisans, dogs are considered an important part of the family, and their deaths, as a result of a corporation’s negligent may constitute a tort.

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

January 28, 2012

Our Personal Injury Lawyers Had it Right When Predicting Potential For Lawsuits in Food Recall Situation

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

January 27, 2012

Cameras Allowed In Trial Courts on a Trial Basis

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.

December 13, 2011

Non-Disparagement Contracts Could Infringe on Constitutional Rights and Also Harm Patients

The First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States affords all persons freedom against the abridgment of speech, which has been interpreted to include all forms of communication, be they written, spoken, or typed. In this day and age of technological advances, the Internet has provided people with yet another forum in which to communicate ideas and opinions, and has been an enormous beneficial learning tool.

So, when a person is harmed by the negligence of a medical provider, they should be able to warn other people about their experience, to prevent future medical malpractice, right?

Not so, say lawyers on behalf of the negligent health care professionals.

But how fair is that? Not only would the the inalienable rights of citizens be forsaken if that were the case, but innocent patients who would potentially become future victims would not be given the opportunity to make informed decisions about their choice of healthcare provider.

That’s the argument of a man who has recently filed a class-action lawsuit against a dentist after the dentist required him to sign a contract promising not to disparage her, or her work, online – and then fined him thousands of dollars, trying to enforce the contract, reports MSNBC.

The man went to his dentist for treatment for a serious infection and severe toothache; he was in pain and was desperate for treatment. Although he questioned the anti-defamation contract’s terms, he was in urgent need of dental work, so he signed the contract.

According to MSNBC, the dentist was among hundreds of medical professionals nationwide in recent years that have refused to care for patients unless they signed anti-defamation contracts. Any Chicago personal injury attorney would tell you that, given increasing rates of Illinois medical malpractice cases, the ability to share and receive information about healthcare providers is imperative to patient safety.

These controversial contracts demand that patients not only don’t post negative comments on the internet regarding the healthcare provider or the treatment, but that the dentist owned the copyright to any critical posts.

According to MSNBC, after the dentist in this case allegedly overcharged the man by approximately $4,000 for his care, submitted his records to the wrong insurance company and then refused to provide copies of the records so he could submit them correctly himself, the man posted complaints on online patient-review websites. Days later, the dentist demanded that the websites remove the man’s opinion comments, and sent him invoices for fines of $100 a day that ultimately totaled more than $4600.

As a general rule, patient- and consumer-review websites refuse to remove negative comments, under the rationale that they are protected by the federal Communication Decency Act and protections afforded by the First Amendment.

As per MSNBC, it is not clear whether this lawsuit – and the resultant publicity – will lead to an end of to medical gag-order contracts, but our Chicago personal injury lawyers are hopeful that patient rights – both with regard to free speech, and the ability to get needed information to protect themselves – will come out on top.

November 19, 2011

Federal Government Reinstates Physician Database, But Medicare Has Better Solution

Earlier this month, our Chicago personal injury lawyers reflected on the news that the federal government had eliminated public access to an online federal database of medical malpractice claims and damages against doctors. Now, however, the government has reopened the website with constraints that prohibit users to identify physicians against whom claims have been made.

According to a report by MSNBC, The Department of Health and Human Services reinstated the public database in such a way that allows members of the public to access the information without any identifying details about the physicians against whom claims were made.

However, there may be a solution for patients who want to know the truth about their health care providers before deciding who to trust to provide them with care. Medicare has recently begun publishing patient safety ratings for thousands of hospitals across the country. Although the data was originally complied as a way for Medicare to determine which hospitals should receive less funding based on rates of surgical complications, infections, medical mistakes, and avoidable deaths. However, the information has found a convenient and extremely beneficial second use; consumers can now use the data to evaluate hospitals.

The information – available on Medicare’s Hospital Compare Website – evaluates hospitals based on reports of specific medical errors with the ultimate aim of improving patient safety; hospitals deemed to be of the lowest quality will be in danger of losing up to 2% of Medicare reimbursements, starting in October of 2012. The financial incentive gives hospitals an extra reason to use the utmost care in treating patients. Medicare is using the data from each hospital and comparing it not national averages for complications and injuries that occur in hospitals to determine how each hospital is performing.

Patient safety advocates have long been in favor of making this type of information available to the public. If patients are able to check the safety statistics of hospitals, they may be able to avoid going to hospitals that have higher rates of patient-suffered harm. As a result, rates of patient injuries may decline.

Although hospitals and healthcare providers have expressed concern over the way that Medicare is measuring the mishaps that occur in hospitals, the simple point still stands that consumers are getting more information. Even if Medicare’s gauge isn’t perfect (and no reason to think it is otherwise flawed), all hospitals are measured with the same method of assessment, so as compared to one another, the assessment should give a fair understanding of which hospitals are better than others.

Medical errors are very serious. Our Illinois personal injury attorneys have handled numerous cases involving medical malpractice injuries, and have the knowledge and experience to handle even the most complex cases. In fact, our attorneys won a $17.7 million medical malpractice settlement for a former police officer who suffered a life-altering brain injury due to nursing staff negligence at a Chicago hospital.

If you or a loved one has been injured as a result of negligence on the part of a healthcare provider or hospital, you may be entitled to compensation for your injuries under the law.