Illinois Injury Lawyer Blog

Iowa’s 1st District Democratic Congressman Bruce L. Braley drafted an eloquent letter to the Honorable Patrick Leahy, urging the Senator to prioritize patient safety and ensure that any medical malpractice reform in the budget discussion is focused on the most effective way to reduce medical malpractice cases in America: by reducing medical errors! Representative Braley pointed out that the most significant way to reduce the overall costs of medical malpractice is to emphasize patient safety. As we just blogged about on Monday, the WHO reported that out of every 100 hospitalized patients at any given time, seven individuals in developed countries and ten in developing countries will acquire at least one health-care associated infection. Costs associated with medical negligence claims here in the United States account for only 1.36% of all spending for health care in 207, yet by reducing the number of preventable medical errors, we can realize a major impact on public health and cost. The Institute of Medicine (IOM) reports that every single year, preventable medical errors cause the wrongful deaths of as many as 98,000 Americans.

Continue reading "Congressman’s letter to Senator highlights importance of medical safety" »

Our Chicago medical malpractice lawyers hear a lot of talk about the “need” for medical malpractice lawsuit damages caps, which we consider as an absolute detriment to justice. We were happy to see an article revealing the real effects of medical malpractice damages caps. One medical malpractice lawyer recalled an interesting case that he was handling in a state with medical malpractice damages cap. The defendant doctor in the medical malpractice lawsuit had removed a boy’s colon instead of his spleen. The boy had a genetic disorder that was causing his spleen to limit his body’s red blood cell production. After his colon was mistakenly removed, surgeons had to attach the medical malpractice victim’s large intestine to his rectal stub. The surgeon who made the medical mistake was actually never sued. They never saw a courtroom. The surgeon was never given the opportunity to defend himself or herself and the victim was never able to see a courtroom. Instead, an insurance company simply handed the family of the victim $500,000. That is the maximum the family would have been able to receive if it went to court, given the state’s cap on non-economic damage awards in medical malpractice lawsuits.

As aptly described by the boy’s medical malpractice lawyer, the law limiting medical malpractice damages has succeeded only in giving bad doctors slaps on the wrists for committing malpractice, while also increasing insurance company profits by limiting their damage awards to victims of those same bad doctors. Proponents, as we are aware, allege that the law drastically reduces medical malpractice insurance premiums for doctors. According to a 2010 insurance commissioner report, the state averages 273 medical malpractice claims per year, down a mere 7 from 280 in 2008.

Continue reading "Medical malpractice damages caps still cause concern" »

Our Illinois personal injury lawyers always keep abreast of changes at both the state and federal level. Unfortunately, changes are being proposed in both arenas that would take away the rights of injury victims and other vulnerable community members, particular those in Illinois nursing homes. At the state level, proposed budget cuts would dangerously lower the amount of aid given to ensure that staffing levels remain adequate and that the overall treatment of seniors at these facilities meets basic quality standards.

On top of those state threats, the care of our senior citizens is also at risk from possible changes by federal officials. The Consumer Voice has information on these latest challenges which risk rolling back nearly four decades of safety improvements. What’s more is that additional federal Medicare and Medicaid spending cuts may be added to the proposed state cuts to severely hurt many vulnerable seniors who need certain care to survive. It would not be an understatement to note that lives are literally on the line when it comes to this resource allocation.

The potential national changes are taking two forms: a resolution known as the “Ryan Budget Proposal” and separate Medicare and Medicaid caps. The budget proposals would essentially repeal forty years of work to raise the formerly abysmal standards at many nursing homes. If the changes are enacted these facilities would face less inspections and less enforcement—many facilities will undoubtedly slide back into poorer care and less oversight. Thousands of seniors would suffer. Those regulatory changes would then be combined with crippling Medicare and Medicaid reductions which would leave many seniors with no options for help.

We urge you to please consider making contact with your U.S. Senator to encourage their support for our area seniors. An email, letter, phone call, town hall meeting comment, or any other method of communication will go a long way to ensure that thousands of elderly community members are spared pain and suffering.

Continue reading "Federal Changes May Result in More Suffering For Injury Victims" »

An Illinois personal injury lawyer is aware of the need to protect the basic legal rights of negligence victims from the big interests that seek to strip them away. Over the last several months we have been following the advancements of the latest effort to eliminate rights encapsulated in legislation known as House Resolution 5 or the HEALTH Act. If passed the measure would essentially destroy many basic legal provisions that have long been given to Illinois medical malpractice victims and those hurt by nursing home neglect.

Blog readers are aware that the bill has already been approved by the U.S. House of Representatives. Before reaching the full Senate for consideration is must first pass through the Senate’s Energy & Commerce. That committee is expected to hold hearings on the bill beginning tomorrow and continuing on Wednesday, before potentially being sent to the full United States Senate for an up or down vote.

During this week’s committee process, legislators can offer amendments which may change some specific provisions of the bill. Following that option, the committee members will vote to send it to the full Senate. If amendments are made to the legislation by the committee before it is sent to the full Senate (and if it passes the entire Senate), than the two chambers of Congress must meet and reconcile the different versions of the bill before sending it to the President for his potential approval.

Those who have followed this measure know that it represents an egregious attempt by big insurance interests and the medical lobby to strip victims of legal rights. The claimed “problem” of medical malpractice lawsuits has been cited again and again, even though those claims run directly counter to evidence. It is vital that this bill be stopped or for the most draconian portions of the legislation to be amended out.

Continue reading "H.R. 5 Dangerous “Tort Reform” Bill Nears Senate Vote" »

Tort reform measures are opposed by advocates on all ends of the spectrum. Some local observers may roll their eyes when a Chicago personal injury attorney argues against tort changes. But a diverse range of individuals share concerns about unnecessary changes to our legal system.

For example, the 10th Amendment Center recently explained how a free-market constitutional scholar at the Independence Institute penned a long attack outlining the logical constitutional objections to the medical malpractice bill known as H.R. 5. The man admits that he has previously been a conservative Republican political activist and was at one time a Republican gubernatorial candidate.

The advocate explains his confusion that so-called conservatives would support H.R. 5, which he describes as “a measure based on a grossly overly-expansive view of the authority of Congress.” It is his position that it violates both the 9th and 10th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. The proponents of the bill claim that Congress has the power to act pursuant to the “Commerce Clause,” but the subject matter at issue—civil court actions—have little no relation to commerce as the Founders intended. Alternatively, the “Necessary and Proper Clause” offers no congressional power mandate either.

Overall, H.R. 5 represents a disregard of American federalism and distortion of the role of the federal government and the states. It is important that our Congressional representatives be held accountable for their actions and words. All those who vocally support the limited role of the federal government should take policy positions consistent with that opinion, regardless of the particular interest group to which the policy appeals.

Continue reading "Conservative Constitutional Scholar Advocates Against H.R. 5" »

As we have frequently mentioned, a United States House of Representatives Energy subcommittee had a hearing this week related to H.R. 5—a medical malpractice piece of legislation. The Blog of Legal Times wrote an overview of the committee’s efforts. Of particular note, they provided a good summary of medical malpractice victim advocates’ testimony

The bill H.R. 5 would impose limits the private contractual relationship between lawyer and client, arbitrarily cap certain types of damages (nullifying jury decisions), alter pleading standards changes, and force upon states other barriers to the rights of medical victims to seek legal relief.

One of those testifying at the committee hearing was Brian Wolfman, a visiting law professor at Georgetown University. He emphasized the problems with the bill, including the infringement upon the private agreement between client and lawyer. The professor explained how the free market should be allowed to work, without artificial micromanagement by the federal government. His testimony also took issues with the unnecessary cap on damages. He explained how the $250,000 figure bears no relationship to the needs of medical malpractice victims or any other standardized, logical analysis. Instead, it is a random, low-ball figure that serves the interests of an insurance industry at the expense of all others.

During the hearing Representative Harry Waxman emphasized how claims about the impact of tort reform bear little resemblance to the truth. He used his own state as an example. In the first 13 years after California passed legislation with provisions similar to those in H.R. 5, medical malpractice insurance premiums actually went up by 45%. It took comprehensive insurance reform to actually influence insurance rates. The federal government would be wise to do the same.

Continue reading "Illinois Injury Lawsuit Watch: Overview of Latest H.R. 5 Committee Hearing" »

Blog readers are aware that Congressional hearings were conducted this week related to the federal bill known as H.R. 5—a unnecessary, illogical piece of legislation that was recently introduced in the House of Representatives. The bill is officially known as the “Help Efficient, Accessible, Low-Cost, Timely Healthcare (HEALTH) Act of 2011.”

This legislation would impose arbitrary caps on damages—taking away that decision from juries. On top of that, changes in statutes of limitation, pleading standards, and other areas would do immense damage to the rights of Illinois injury victims. Recently another major national organization joined the chorus of those advocating against the bill

The National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) sent a letter to the Congressional committee regarding the bill. The letter clearly outlined the group’s concerns and stated unequivocally that there was “strong bipartisan opposition to the passage of the latest federal medical malpractice legislation.”

The group pointed out that H.R. 5 would do direct damage to the rights of each state to make their own decisions in these matters. A one-size-fits-all approach to medical malpractice laws would essentially take even more power away from state legislatures and give it back to the federal government.

Attacks on states’ rights are in direct contrast to the important American tradition of federalism. Conservative thinkers rightly point out that the foundation of the country is steeped in the ability of individual states to decide their own unique policies. In that way, states act as “laboratories” where public issues are tested and the results available for all to view when considering their own decisions. H.R. 5 rejects that diversity. Instead, it ignores states’ right, preempts local laws, and cedes even more power to far-away federal decision-makers.

Continue reading "Illinois Injury Lawsuit News: States Organization Against H.R. 5" »

Today proponents of tort reform will continue their misguided attempt to take away the rights of medical victims with a piece of legislation known as House Resolution 5 (HR 5). Testimony will be heard today on the bill in the Health Subcommittee of the House Energy and Commerce Committee. This is the second committee meeting involving the legislation in the last month

Of course, we have often pointed out the problems with this legislation on the blog. Similar to other measures that have been rejected by common-sense decision-makers in the past, HR 5 seeks to enrich certain big businesses at the expense of ordinary community members who happen to get caught up in painful medical malpractice lawsuits. Drug manufactures, insurance companies, and similar interests are pushing the bill in an effort to ensure that regular citizens have even less ability to hold the conglomerates accountable for their actions.

HR 5 is the latest attempt to take away medical victim rights. Specifically, the bill involves the government making arbitrary decisions about all legal damages, taking away the constitutional requirement that juries make the decision. On top of that, if the bill passes, the statute of limitations would be shortened—with the likely outcome that more victims will unsuspectingly lose their right to sue their wrongdoer in a medical malpractice lawsuit.

This bill, like the many others before it, must be defeated.

Continue reading "Illinois injury Lawsuit Watch: H.R. 5 Hearing Today" »

As we have often mentioned on this blog, tort reform legislation (both at the state and federal levels) is an unnecessary intrusion into the Constitutional powers and rights given to the American people. The efforts to limit the ability of injured victims to seek fairness in the legal system is often nothing more than a power grab by big interests who seek to insulate themselves from the costs of injuring others in their quest for profits.

We have also pointed out that the traditional political subdivisions of conservatives and liberals are inadequate to understand the unique political dynamics at play in the lawsuit reform debacle. The truth remains that all those committed to preserving the balance of power and individual rights guaranteed by our Constitutional founders should stand arm-in-arm against the misguided efforts of those advocating tort reform.

It should therefore come as no surprise that a prominent conservative politician is stepping out in a southern state to oppose these dangerous proposals. Former Republican Presidential candidate Fred Thompson testified at a state house subcommittee hearing against a state tort reform proposal, according to Knox News.

The former U.S. senator explained that the “problems” sought to be fixed by these proposals are always grossly exaggerated. He likened the legislation to “killing a mouse with a bazooka.” Additionally, he stressed that the focus should be on limiting the egregious examples of death and injury caused by negligence—not tying the hands of those injured.

To make the point, Thompson spoke about various examples of tragic negligence. He mentioned a medical malpractice lawsuit filed after a girl died after being given five times the normal dose of drugs for a tonsil removal. The victim’s rights advocate also spoke about a truck accident lawsuit involving a mother and daughter who were burned to death after the semi crashed into their parked car. Stories of horrific nursing home abuse could also be added to the list of activities that need to be more prominently understood and prevented, instead of silenced.

Continue reading "Conservative Politician Comes Out Against Unnecessary, Dangerous Tort Reform Law" »

The 7th Amendment Advocate blog remains a good source of comprehensive, clear-sighted analysis of the tort reform debate. Last week a new post outlined the details of the latest misguided legislation aimed at taking away the rights of negligence victims.

The bill known as H.R. 966—or the Lawsuit Abuse Reduction Act (LARA)—essentially attempts to toughen rules of federal Civil Procedure, which would create disincentives to filing an Illinois injury lawsuit and add judicial sanctions on attorneys. The basics of the bill are similar to legislation that passed the U.S. House in 2005 but failed to be accepted by the Senate.

More specifically, LARA has three major elements. The first involves making judicial sanctions on attorneys mandatory rather than discretionary. Second, judicial sanctions would be deemed a “main objective” of the rule instead of mere deterrence. Finally, the bill would remove the “safe harbor” provision of the current rules, which allows an attorney the possibility of withdrawing a suit without exposure to sanctions. All of these measures are essentially an attempt to “scare” lawyers from brining certain cases forward for consideration.

The logical reasons to oppose the legislation remain potent. As with all tort reform bills, the law is an unwarranted intrusion into the civil justice system; it would only further chip away at the rights given to the judicial branch in our split governmental system. It is clear that the nation’s Founders intended the courtroom to be a fair, separate sphere of justice immune for overreach by the legislative branch.

Perhaps most disturbingly, the rule changes regarding lawyer sanctions would likely have the effect of squelching certain types of meritorious claims. Those include expected categories, like Illinois personal injury lawsuits. But the problematic effects are actually seen most notably in lawsuits alleging infringement of religious liberty. Statistics indicate that there has been a clear decrease in the number of suits brought forward to uphold the rights of citizen’s religious freedom when changes like these are enacted.

Continue reading "Latest Tort Reform Bill Infringes on Judicial & Religious Liberty" »

An article in the Huffington Post last week emphasized a principle that we have discussed often on this blog: the effect tort reform will have on limiting valid Illinois injury lawsuits. The story attempted to provide context to the often misleading claims made by proponents of reform.

One tactic used to distort the effect of these reform efforts is to mention large verdicts reached by juries in a few isolated cases that seem unfair out of context. For example, the most high-profile case mentioned is that of the elderly McDonald’s customer who was awarded $3 million following horrific burns she suffered when an employee spilled boiling coffee into her lap. The award was deemed by some as a sign of “what was wrong” with the American civil justice system.

However, a closer look at that particular case provides a more appropriate filter though which to examine the personal injury lawsuit. The 82-year old victim’s burns were only inches from her private area, ultimately requiring a variety of skin grafts. She was certainly not the only person harmed by McDonalds in this way. Over 700 people had already made formal complaints to the company because of the coffee situation. However, those complaints had done nothing to change the McDonalds practice of serving coffee at temperatures up to 205 degrees Fahrenheit—sufficient to peel skin off bones in less than seven seconds.

The elderly victim in the original case only sought to have her medical bills paid for by the negligent company. Instead, after hearing the evidence, the jury decided that the only way to get the company to change its dangerous practice (because 700 victims apparently had no effect) was to hit the company in the pocketbook. The jury, made up of community members, therefore decided to award the $3 million in that particular case to emphasis the company’s extreme negligence in allowing victims to mount without implementing any changes.

Unfortunately, that back-story is rarely explained, allowing the myth of certain lawsuit oversteps to be perpetuated. The truth remains that tort reform efforts are pushed by big businesses seeking to insulate themselves from the responsibility of paying for the consequences of their behavior. Instead of accepting the duty to compensate victims of their negligence, these large companies, from medical providers to nursing home conglomerates, would rather rig the system so that legal rights are taken away from the people they harm.

Continue reading "Corporations Seek Tort Reform To Take Away Rights of Illinois Injury Victims" »

The American Association for Justice has published a useful primer for understanding our nation’s health care debate. As reforming our country’s health care system will be a major agenda item for the new Congress and administration, we need to be tuned in to the cost of health care and the driving forces behind the debate. In years past, there has been a lot of focus on restricting patients’ rights to hold negligent medical providers accountable for medical malpractice, but little focus on actually reducing and eliminating preventable medical errors. In part, this is due to the exploitation of the medical negligence “crisis” by interest groups with agendas to push.

Preventable medical errors – medical malpractice – kill and seriously injure hundreds of thousands of Americans yearly. If the Centers for Disease Control were to include preventable medical errors as a category, it would be the sixth leading cause of death in the United States of America. Nonetheless, the debate surrounding the medical negligence policy debate has revolved around other extraneous factors, such as doctors’ insurance premiums. Thus, the discussion has essentially ignored the fundamental problem. Preventing medical errors will dramatically lower health care costs, reduce doctors’ insurance premiums, and protect the health and well-being of patients.

Contrary to what Fox News and other exploiting companies want you to believe, few injured patients ever file medical negligence lawsuits and fewer still file frivolous claims. 70 percent of patients who experience medical errors are not told by their doctors; nearly one half of the nation’s doctors admit to not reporting incompetence or medical errors.

Our Chicago personal injury lawyers encourage you to read the entire Medical Negligence primer at the American Association for Justice website.

Illinois Trial Lawyers Association President Todd A. Smith recently responded to a Daily Herald editorial that repeated falsehoods and misconceptions surrounding doctor supply in Illinois and perpetuated the myth that Illinois medical malpractice lawsuit caps will lower health care costs. Mr. Smith pointed out that the Daily Herald article regarding doctors fleeing our state cited the Northwestern University’s Feinberg School of Medicine so-called “study.” The suggestion is that doctors are fleeing Illinois because of Chicago personal injury lawyers and medical malpractice lawsuits. The study, however, clearly states that the Chicagoland area physician market is “oversaturated.” We have more doctors than are otherwise needed, which appears to be the opposite of doctors fleeing.

The survey showed that a majority of the physicians leaving the state of Illinois are those that never planned to stay. The new doctors are returning to their home states as originally planned, not fleeing the state because of the fear of our civil justice system. Additionally, facts show that the number of doctors in Illinois has been steadily increasing. According to the American Medical Association, the number of Illinois physicians licensed and engaged in patient care has never declined in the past 45 years. The editorial that Mr. Smith was responding to called for caps on non-economic damages, which will do nothing to bring down liability insurance premiums, attract doctors to our state, or most importantly, protect patients from negligent doctors. Medical malpractice lawsuit caps have been ruled unconstitutional by the Illinois Supreme Court three times. Mr. Smith urged that it is time to move the discussion forward and focus on the issue that will truly benefit doctors and patients.

Visit the Illinois Trial Lawyers Association to read the entire letter from Mr. Smith debunking the Illinois medical malpractice caps argument.

While President Obama’s State of the Union address was inspiring and thought-provoking, one statement brought concern. President Obama indicated his support for some type of federal law limiting medical malpractice lawsuits. Shortly thereafter, the House Republicans introduced H.R. 5, which contains a $250,000 cap on non-economic damages and stringent limits on attorneys’ fees. The bill indicates that it would not only apply to medical malpractice claims, but also to drug and device cases, nursing home abuse and neglect lawsuits, and claims against the insurance industry. Plus, the bill preempts state laws that provide additional protection to patients.

How disappointing that both the President and the sponsors of the bill have targeted this sector of the civil justice system. The bill is drawing opposition from the right side too – Tea Party advocates have stated that the bill provides a “marker for the differences between the too-business-friendly Republican establishment who dominate Washington and the Tea Party-oriented, limited-government Americans of all parties.” This medical malpractice limiting bill does nothing to stop medical malpractice, which kills up to 100,000 Americans annually and personally injures up to ten times that number. This bill does not act to improve hospital hygiene, medical records technology, or other medical practice. Medical malpractice lawsuits cannot exist if there is little or no medical malpractice. Can’t we work towards improving medical treatment?

Continue reading "Federal Law limiting medical malpractice lawsuits would hurt victims" »

A recent article by Ken Connor for the Center for a Just Society addresses the selective constitutionalism that Republicans apply to the civil justice system. Mr. Connor described how the civil justice system has been the victim of a vicious public relations battle, demonizing lawyers and ridiculing jurors. Special interest groups, including insurance companies, drug companies, and big business cartels have forcefully pursued inhibiting legislation through state and federal legislators, urging them to enact laws that carry out the agendas of special interests, without regard to civil rights. The efforts on behalf of the special interest groups often propose legislative fixes that appear to be aimed at increasing the fairness of the judicial process and lowering the cost of health care. However, they often include artificial caps on damages, draconian limits on liability, and shortened periods of time in which suits may be filed. In reality, these measures are aimed at insulating the wrongdoers – often the special interest groups – from full accountability for their wrongful actions, product liability, and negligent behavior. At the same time, they prevent injured persons from obtaining sufficient and just compensation for their suffering.

Mr. Connor pointed out that it is the Republican Party is often leading the charge for the civil justice system reform. Most recently, Republicans Phil Gingrey and Lamar Smith have proposed HR 5 or the HEALTH Act, which Mr. Connor calls an affront to the Bill of Rights that would result in the imposition of a federally imposed, special-interest driven emasculation of fundamental constitutional rights. The HEALTH Act of 2011 is actually the same exact bill that was passed by the House of Representatives in 2005.

To read more about the bill for “civil justice reform,” visit the Center for A Just Society website.

A recent Letter to the Editor by Illinois Trial Lawyers Association (ITLA) President appeared in the The State-Journal Register. In the letter, ITLA President Todd A. Smith responded to recent letters to the editor that Travis Akin and Ed Murnane, spokespeople for anti-consumer groups/big insurance front groups, bombarded papers with. Mr. Smith described that Akin and Murnane had bombarded the newspaper with hyperbole and fabrications about the Illinois civil justice system and had quoted bogus “studies” in their recent Letters to the Editor. Akin and Murnane often blame our bad economic times on Illinois personal injury lawsuits and Illinois medical malpractice lawsuits, neglecting to focus on the state of Illinois’ budget crisis, the rocky national economy, and the global recession. Rather, Mr. Smith points out that it seems that Murnane’s and Akin’s problem with Illinois is Illinois citizens’ exercising their right to seek justice.

Continue reading "ITLA President explains that courts are a deterrent to corporate misconduct" »

The National Law Journal recently addressed the widespread critical response to the American Tort Reform Association’s annual survey of so-called “judicial hellholes.” This year, Philadelphia ranked number 1 in the corporate-sponsored group’s annual survey set to be released soon. The survey is conducted by the American Tort Reform Association, a group in Washington fully backed by business groups, and pushes for – often divisive and prohibitive – changes to the tort system. The American Association for Justice spokesman dismissed the annual ranking, stating “Despite all the chemical companies and polluters behind this front group, it appears that the American Tort Reform Association is going green – recycling the same junk report that has been debunked and ridiculed year after year. It’s an early holiday token of thanks to its drug, tobacco, and insurance industry funders and a ploy for these corporations to continue their negligent behavior and avoid any accountability.” The statement continued that the effort is funded by negligent corporations and industries to undermine the civil justice system and prevent American workers and consumers from getting justice.

Illinois made an appearance in this year’s “judicial hellholes” list – of course to no surprise of Illinois personal injury lawyers or Illinois medical malpractice lawyers. Illinois has a long history of being a target for so-called “tort reform.” If you recall, Illinois Supreme Court Justice Kilbride was recently a target of a corporate-funded attack on his judicial retention. Despite widespread support from legal groups, judicial associations, and the fraternal order of police, corporate-funded out-of-state tort reform pushers sought to unseat Justice Kilbride through nasty attack advertisements. What did he do to deserve this unwanted attention? He simply sided with the majority of the Illinois Supreme Court in striking down an unconstitutional “cap” on compensation for victims of Illinois medical malpractice. Luckily, their corporate money failed to deter the retention election for Justice Kilbride in Illinois. However, other states and other judges should hold their ground and be vigilant as corporate-backed groups will likely try to continue to unseat judges they view as opposed to jury award limits.

To read more about the so-called judicial hellhole list, visit the National Law Journal.

Illinois Supreme Court Justice Thomas Kilbride was recently retained after a heavy corporate press to vote “no” during Justice Kilbride’s election for retention. The judge’s only “sin” was siding with the Illinois court’s majority in striking down an unconstitutional “cap” on compensation for victims of Illinois medical malpractice. That one act against the so-called “tort reform” advocates provided the impetus for an onslaught of sleazy, inaccurate “anti-crime” ads run against him funded by state and national corporate-backed tort reform groups. The Chicago Tribune reported that Justice Kilbride was portrayed as soft on crime in visceral radio ads that featured actors portraying rapists and murderers. The campaign may have had an opposite effect – it prompted a backlash from other judges, lawyers, and legal scholars who pointed out Kilbride’s opinions were based on legal procedures and points of law. Justice Kilbride was endorsed by the Illinois State Fraternal Order of Police and the Illinois and National Rifle Associations. The Illinois State Bar condemned the attacks on Justice Kilbride.

The campaign focused on what Justice Kilbride referred to as “gross distortions” of his judicial record. The focused and acknowledged aim of the “Illinois Civil Justice League” was to dump ajudge that they saw as unwilling to stop large jury medical malpractice lawsuit and Illinois negligence lawsuit awards given to plaintiffs. Justice Kilbride was retained; the negative attacks were unsuccessful. This will not stop the “Illinois Civil Justice League.” The League president announced that they will continue to try and unseat judges they view as opposed to jury award limits.

Follow the link to thepoptort.com to read more about the failed attempt to unseat Illinois Supreme Court Justice Thomas Kilbride.

A new report released by the American Association for Justice announced that the United States Chamber of Commerce (“Chamber”) enters two lawsuits weekly to advance its own agenda while blocking justice for everyday Americans. Earlier this month, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce President and CEO referred to litigation as “one of our most powerful tools for making sure that federal agencies follow the law and are held accountable.” However, just this week, the Chamber held its yearly “Legal Reform Summit” where it schemes attempts to undermine the civil justice system and weaken the basic protects of everyday American workers and consumers. The annual Chamber event is underwritten by its multinational corporate members.

The American Association for Justice hits the target in addressing the Chamber’s hypocrisy in blocking justice for everyday Americans while simultaneously using the civil justice system liberally for its own pro-corporate agenda. The report exposes that the Chamber is one of the most aggressive litigators in our nation’s capital city, filing pro-corporate lawsuits at a rate of over twice weekly! AAJ President described that the Chamber has one rule for corporations and another rule for everyone else, which comes at the “expense of ill-treated workers, defrauded investors, and injured consumers.” The Chamber willingly and frequently spends millions of dollars in the courtrooms to prevent citizens from holding wrongdoers accountable in those same courtrooms! The Chicago injury lawyers at Levin & Perconti could not agree more!

Some examples of the Chamber’s litigation on behalf of corporations, and at the expense of Americans’ health or security, include: defending the most conceited and worst behaved corporate CEOs and their excesses; trying to force workers rather than employers to pay for their safety equipment; filing multiple actions opposing any move to combat climate change; and spending years defending big tobacco, asbestos, and other companies accused of significant product liability. The Chamber has to face the truth that the right to justice belongs to all Americans, not just the companies with the biggest pocketbooks.

To read the entire American Association for Justice report on the Chamber of Commerce’s hypocrisy, follow the link.

CBS Chicago News reports that Illinois lawyers forming the Illinois State Bar Association has condemned an advertising campaign that a pro-business “tort reform” group is running against Illinois Supreme Court Justice Thomas Kilbride. The group is called JUSTPAC and has began to run radio ads in markets throughout Illinois in areas such as the Quad Cities, Will County, and Kankakee. The advertisements feature actors posing as hardened criminals describing their crimes and thanking Justice Kilbride for ruling in their favor. Illinois lawyers, through the Illinois State Bar Association, has called the campaign inappropriate, stating that it distorts Justice Kilbride’s record. In some of the cases that the ads target, Justice Kilbride ruled that law enforcement authorities violated suspects’ rights, but in one case at least, the Justice actually voted to uphold the conviction.

In a connection that does not surprise the Chicago personal injury lawyers at Levin & Perconti, JUSTPAC is affiliated with the Illinois Civil Justice League, a misleading-named group that opposes a ruling by Justice Kilbride and the court against a state law limiting the amount of money juries can award victims of medical malpractice. The Illinois Supreme Court ruled that the Illinois state constitution empowers juries – and not legislators – to make the decisions of how many damages victims are entitled.

Also not surprising is how much money JUSTPAC has spent on these advertisements. Big businesses have a lot of money at stake here. JUSTPAC has spent about $600,000 on radio ads against Kilbride, financed in significant part by groups such as National “Tort Reform” Association. Justice Kilbride has been endorsed by the Illinois State Fraternal Order of Police and the Illinois and National Rifle Associations.

Follow the link to CBS Local to read more about the ad attacks against Justice Kilbride.