Justia Lawyer Rating for Robert D. Kreisman

by

Ann E. Guiffrida’s personal injury case against the owner of a bar called The Palace in downstate Hamburg, Ill., was dismissed because the plaintiff had mixed up the names of two corporations. One was The Palace Inc. and the other was Boothy’s Palace Tavern Inc.

Guiffrida filed a lawsuit in the federal district of the Central District of Illinois naming the defendant The Palace Inc. When venue was challenged, Hamburg, Ill., located on the Mississippi River, 80 miles north of St. Louis, is in the Southern District of Illinois, not the Central District. Guiffrida voluntarily dismissed the federal case and then filed the state claim in Madison County, Ill., although Hamburg is actually in Calhoun County, Ill.

When Guiffrida found out that she should have sued and served Boothy’s Palace Tavern Inc., she argued that this was merely a case of misidentifying the correct name or a misnomer that is covered by Section 2-401 of the Illinois Code of Civil Procedure. Rather than a mistake of the identify by the defendant, which would have required Guiffrida to satisfy Section 2-616(d) as to relating back, the judge in Madison County concluded that the mix-up fell within the category of misnomer.

Continue reading

by

On July 11, 2008, Tenesha Martin, an employee of a railroad, was operating a forklift while unloading the truck’s trailer at Canadian Pacific Railway’s docking area in Chicago. The forklift fell off the loading dock when the unmanned truck, owned by the defendant Central Transport Inc., rolled away from the dock causing her to sustain disabling lumbar disc injuries.

The defendant, Soo Line Railroad, argued that the trucking company, Central Transport, was at fault, while the trucking company blamed the railroad. Both defendants argued that Martin was contributorily negligent for choosing not to exercise due care and caution.

The presiding trial judge allowed evidence of Martin’s marijuana use in 2010 based on her history, which was given to a psychiatrist in 2011.

Continue reading

by

Retired United States Supreme Court Associate Justice John Paul Stevens spoke at the 15th Annual Justice John Paul Stevens Award Luncheon. The Justice John Paul Stevens Award was conceived by Justice Stevens’s former law clerks. The first time it was presented was in September 2000. The award is given by both The Chicago Bar Foundation and The Chicago Bar Association. Justice Stevens, who is a Chicago native and practiced law in Chicago before his elevation to the bench, has been honored for his lifetime efforts to improve the system of justice and his active participation and dedication to The Chicago Bar Association.

The award that is given annually and is bestowed upon distinguished attorneys who exemplify Stevens’s commitment to integrity and public service in the practice of law. This year’s honorees included lawyers and judges from state court, federal court and the Illinois Supreme Court.

Justice Stevens has recently published one of his many books and this one is somewhat controversial but extremely well-written and provocative. It is titled,  Six Amendments: How and Why We Should Change the Constitution. The book is an excellent summary of not just of the Constitution, but the rigors required to revise the Constitution, which has been done only 18 times during the nation’s history — revisions to the Constitution as opposed to the 27 Amendments to it.

Continue reading

by

On June 23, 2009, Ramon Ortiz was driving northbound on Sacramento Boulevard and stopped at a red light at the intersection of Chicago Avenue in Chicago, Ill. When the light turned green, he started into the intersection and his car was hit by the defendant’s car. Richard Sakre was driving his car westbound. Ortiz alleged in his lawsuit that Sakre ran the red light, which caused the collision.

Ortiz was 44 and suffered three cervical disc herniation/protrusions at C4-5, C5-6 and C6-7. He also sustained a torn left rotator cuff, which was caused or aggravated by this crash. He was treated with steroid injections and physical therapy and then became symptom-free six months after the accident.

Ortiz’s medical bills totaled $55,348. He missed a week of work as a commercial roofing driver.

Continue reading

by

Lawyers who handle jury trials prepare their cases typically by reviewing all of the depositions, all of the issues of damages, the pleadings, the written discovery, the law that applies and the jury instructions that may be used. That would be just the start. Some lawyers, like me, abstract all of the depositions, which mean a summary by page is made for each deposition transcript. That allows the lawyer to both read again the transcripts of depositions that may have been taken some years ago and now refresh the memory of the lawyer who may call the witness either as a witness on direct examination or a witness that may be called by the opposition and cross-examined during the trial.

Lawyers spend a lot of time doing all of this work in reviewing the case, meeting with the clients, re-reading the file, the medical records, the photographs and other evidence, the preparation of demonstrative evidence, the preparation of visuals such as large blow-ups or use of computers to generate images for the jury, all the while perhaps spending little time on preparing the case for the jurors in anticipation of what they will discuss in the jury room.

In my practice before trial I utilize the benefits of a focus group, which would be a method to test-drive the elements of the case before an uninterested, unbiased group just like the jury, to evaluate strengths and weaknesses of the case. The discussions that these practice jurors have are many times the same kinds of discussions and deliberations that take place at the end of the trial in the jury room.

Continue reading

by

Levia Moultrie began working at Penn Aluminum in 1990. Over the next 20 years, Moultrie worked in different positions, including forklift operator, block operator, utility coiler and scrap chopper.

In September 2008, Moultrie used his seniority to take on the job of forklift operator. The collective bargaining agreement between Moultrie’s union and Penn Aluminum gave Moultrie two days to show that he could perform the job.

A little more than a week after Moultrie switched into the forklift operator job, he began experiencing performance problems. During one shipment he was tasked with handling, Moultrie incorrectly hooked up some wires causing a delay in a shipment.

Continue reading

by

In a case that has been labeled one of first impression, the wife of a victim of mesothelioma has prevailed after the defendant, Tennessee Valley Authority, moved to dismiss the case. The case was heard in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama.

Barbara Bobo brought this lawsuit against nine defendants, eight of whom were dismissed pursuant to stipulation for dismissal leaving only her claim against the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA). The plaintiffs were the co-personal representatives of the estate of Barbara Bobo who maintained a variety of claims against the TVA based on her contraction of pleural mesothelioma from washing her husband’s work clothes. It was alleged that the work clothes contained asbestos dust originating from his job duties at TVA’s Browns Ferry Nuclear Power General Facility in Limestone County, Ala.

In this case, the principle issue was the causation of her contraction of mesothelioma. Before the court was a motion to exclude specific causation opinions of doctors. The motion to exclude the specific causation opinion was found to be moot and the motion to exclude specific causation opinion of another doctor was denied.

Continue reading

by

Hennessy Industries was a car part manufacturer. It was sued frequently for asbestos-related personal injury claims. Hennessy sought insurance coverage for these claims from National Union Fire Insurance Co. The companies entered into a cost-sharing agreement in 2008. However, as the lawsuits and claims came in, Hennessy asked National Union to indemnify its settlements and defense costs. To resolve their differences about what was owed, Hennessy demanded arbitration under the agreement. Illinois law would be applied.

Hennessy filed a lawsuit against National Union under the Illinois Insurance Code, 215 ILCS 5/155(1), which provides that, in cases involving vexatious and unreasonable delay, the court may award reasonable attorney fees, other costs, plus an additional amount.

Hennessy claimed that National Union’s delays in providing coverage were vexatious and unreasonable. The federal district court judge in Chicago declined to dismiss the case, acknowledging a provision that “the arbitrator shall not be empowered or have jurisdiction to award punitive damages, fines or penalties,” but held that Hennessy’s claim arose under statutory law rather than under the cost-sharing agreement.

Continue reading

by

Several dietary supplements are being tested again in the United States and the Netherlands because of a new synthetic stimulant widely used in these products. The stimulant has been untested on humans. Federal regulators have taken no action, although the government has been urged by scientists to look closer.

The chemical DMAA, a stimulant as labeled by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), is illegal when mixed with dietary supplements or any other product consumed by humans. DMAA is an ingredient that carries the risks of heart attacks, seizures and neurological problems. That compound is also listed on labels as AMP Citrate. AMP Citrate is a close relative of the compound DMAA.

Pieter Cohen, an assistant professor at Harvard Medical School and a co-author of an article of the scientific journal Drug Testing and Analysis, stated, “We want the FDA and we want the stores to immediately remove these products from the store shelves,” referring to products sold to the public containing DMAA. According to the research published, 14 products were tested that listed AMP Citrate, 4-amino, 2-methylpentane citrate or some of the other chemical names used to describe the new stimulant. According to Cohen, these are marketing names.

Continue reading

by

The Illinois Appellate Court has answered a certified question that was brought to it from a circuit court judge. In this case, Michael McGrath owned a home designed and built by Patrick Plunkett Architectural Design Ltd. and insured by American Family Insurance Co. McGrath filed an insurance claim on Aug. 23, 2006 claiming that the water damage to his home was caused by the faulty design in construction by the defendant, Patrick Plunkett Architectural. American Family first denied McGrath’s claim; he then filed suit against American Family and won in federal court. McGrath won his case on summary judgment, and American Family agreed to a settlement for about $1.1 million. After paying McGrath, American Family requested that McGrath sign a written assignment to the extent of its payment, but McGrath chose not to respond.

American Family then filed suit against the defendants, Patrick Plunkett and his architectural firm, claiming negligence and causing the damage to McGrath’s home. Since American Family did not have an executed written assignment, the insurance company filed suit in its capacity as McGrath’s equitable subrogee. At the same time the American Family lawsuit was pending, it filed a lawsuit against McGrath for specific performance in order to obtain his executed written assignment. However, American Family’s suit against defendants was dismissed with prejudice on a combined motion to dismiss under §2-619.1 of the Code of Civil Procedure (735 ILCS 5/2-619.1), with a trial court finding that American Family was required to have a written assignment in order to pursue a subrogation claim. Shortly after that, American Family’s lawsuit against McGrath was dismissed with a trial court finding that American Family had released its claim for an assignment by settling the federal lawsuit. The trial judge also found that the claim was barred by res judicata based on the dismissal of the equitable subrogation suit against defendants.

American Family simultaneously appealed the dismissal of both lawsuits and the appellate court affirmed the dismissal of the subrogation claim, holding that American Family had failed to perfect its rights of subrogation under the terms of the insurance policy. However, the appellate court reversed the dismissal of American Family’s claim against McGrath and remanded the case. The opinion of the court in that case was unpublished under Supreme Court Rule 23. On remand, McGrath eventually did execute the assignment for American Family and that case was dismissed.

Continue reading