Justia Lawyer Rating for Robert D. Kreisman

by

Sandy Parrish, the administrator of the estate of Karen Parrish, filed a wrongful-death and survival action against physician Michael Jones, D.O., and other medical providers. The suit stemmed from what was alleged to be the negligent care of Karen Parrish, resulting in her death. 

On Dec. 30, 2004, Parrish was admitted to Adena Regional Medical Center and diagnosed with an acute peripheral-nerve disorder. She was then transferred to a rehabilitation center and was under the care of another defendant physician, Christopher Skocik, D.O. 

In the lawsuit, the Parrish family alleged that the medical staff treating Karen had been negligent by choosing not to prescribe the appropriate anti-coagulation therapy. It was further alleged in the complaint that as a direct and proximate result of that negligence, Karen died prematurely suffering a cardiopulmonary arrest and hypoxia due to a pulmonary emboli with saddle embolus and deep-vein thrombosis.

Continue reading

by

Nursing home residents often develop pneumonia. Pneumonia is a common infection that is too often deadly in the elderly. Pneumonia is just one of the many medical ailments that afflict nursing home residents. Family practice physicians taking care of elderly residents often prescribe a variety of different medications with different dosages. 

Administrations of medication is the responsibility of the nursing home and its personnel. Frequently, the medication prescribed is not given in the correct dosages, which can be harmful or deadly to residents. Some residents can develop toxicity symptoms from overdosing with prescribed medication. The overdosing of prescription medicine can lead to side effects such as shortness of breath, other complications and even death.

Nursing home residents and families must be aware of all medication prescribed to the resident. To double check what nursing home personnel is prescribing, it would be appropriate to ask if the medicine given is correctly dosed.  That question should be posed often, especially if family members notice a change in dosage or in the medication itself.

Continue reading

by

Non-competition agreements are usually a part of an employment agreement that the company develops; employees have access to company secrets, trade secrets and customer lists, all of which can be detrimental if known by those outside the company, including competitors. It has long been the case that the traditional non-competition agreements are difficult to enforce. In the case of Reliable Fire Equipment Co. v. Arredondo, 2011 Ill. 111871, the Illinois Supreme Court reaffirmed the three-part rule of reason test courts have used to determine enforceability of an employment-based non-compete clause. In Reliable, it was held that a restrictive covenant is reasonable if it:  (1) is not greater than is required for the protection of a legitimate business interest of the promissee (usually an employer); (2) does not impose an undue hardship on the promisor (usually an employee); and (3) does not injure the public.

Illinois courts have held that traditional business interest requires a company to show a support for the non-competition agreement, but that is ill-defined. The test set out in the Reliable Fire case would require that extensive pretrial discovery be conducted in order to know if the employer has the facts to make out a case.

Continue reading

by

Over the last ten years, the City of Chicago has made inroads in reducing pollution in carbon emissions. According to a recent study, Chicago has used traditional planning and land-use authorities to become the North American leader in green building practices. Chicago has also aggressively been using its buying and convening power to lead as a model to other cities. Recently, Mayor Rahm Emanuel has led an effort to shut down the last remaining coal plants in Chicago. 

Like all cities, Chicago has limited authority to control climate change. Governments strive to regulate emissions or industry energy-efficiency standards. The federal statutes reserve most of the authority for national government on climate issues. In order for a city to fit into the federal regulations, it must take independent action to make an impact.

One way that cities work around the Federal Clean Air Act of 1970 and the Federal Environmental Protection Agency is to work with land-use regulation that cities do control. Zoning and planning allows each individual city to shape physical and economic development in its area. 

Continue reading

by

Scott Weigle and John Moore, two mechanics, were working on a trailer from a semi-truck. Weigle and Moore had considerable experience as mechanics working at a trucking repair company.

On July 31, 2009, Weigle and Moore were about to do a job to rebuild the braking system on a semi-truck trailer.  They used an airlift to raise the rear portion of the trailer and then lowered the trailer onto two support stands.  Weigle had already begun work on the trailer when Moore came over to help.  The trailer moved as both mechanics were working underneath, causing the support stands to tip over and the trailer came crashing down on the two men.  Both Weigle and Moore suffered serious injuries.

The two support stands were designed by the company SPX.  These support stands consist of a conical base, an extension tube and a support pin. 

Continue reading

by

The Illinois Appellate Court has affirmed a decision made by a Cook County Circuit Court judge regarding a twice-filed injury case.

Michael Fiorito and Joseph Bellocchio were involved in a traffic collision on Oct. 19, 2001. Fiorito was injured and hired a lawyer to sue Bellocchio. 

In August 2003, the attorney for Fiorito filed a complaint against Bellocchio in the Circuit Court of Cook County but never told Fiorito about it.  A year later, Fiorito fired his first lawyer and hired a new one.  The second attorney was unable to determine if the first attorney had filed a lawsuit and so filed a second one on his own in October 2003. 

Continue reading

by

The plaintiff, Mark Zimmerman, 44, lived in a three-story building. The building came with a deck attached to an exterior stairwell. As Zimmerman was leaving for work, he bent over to pick something up while holding on to the deck railing. The railing collapsed.  Zimmerman fell three stories to the ground, fracturing his right ankle. He also suffered lumbar fractures at L2 and L4. 

Zimmerman underwent two ankle surgeries and a spinal fusion surgery. His medical bills totaled more than $400,000. Before the date of this incident, Zimmerman worked as a school janitor. He has not returned to work since.

In a lawsuit filed in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Ill., Zimmerman sued the owner of the building and its management company. He alleged premises liability because of the defective railing, saying it was unsafe and caused his injuries. 

Continue reading

by

Recently two Cook County Circuit Court judges, Judge Lynn M. Egan (Law Division) and Judge Mary Ellen Coghlan (Probate Division), developed an instructive PowerPoint program for Illinois lawyers, in an effort to clearly define the differences between wrongful death actions and survival actions in Illinois.

In a wrongful death act claim, the recovery would be for the exclusive benefit of the decedent’s surviving spouse and next-of-kin.  If the wrongful death was immediate with no pain and suffering associated with it, a special administrator could be appointed as the case is being filed. No probate estate would be necessary.

However, the confusion begins when a wrongful death act claim and a survival statute claim are both present. When a survival action is available to a plaintiff, the judges concur that a probate estate must be set up for the benefit of the decedent’s estate.  A survival action is like many personal injury cases in which there may be pain and suffering element to the case associated with the injury that later resulted in death. Where there is a portion of the recovery for damages related to pain and suffering by settlement or verdict, the sum associated with the survival action goes to the decedent’s estate, not to the next-of-kin or surviving spouse as it would if for the wrongful death action. 

Continue reading

by

For as long as I have been practicing law, now 37 years, the question an expert must always be asked is whether his or her opinion is to a reasonable degree of certainty. Once that question is answered in the affirmative, the burden for the offering expert is whether the opinion that is about to be given improving the strength of the expert witness’s opinion is more probably true than not. That second question must be answered affirmatively as well. 

In a recent deposition of one of my experts, one of the defendants’ lawyers spent a great deal of time badgering the witness about what she believed the term reasonable degree of medical certainty means since it was stated in that fashion in her written opinions. The answer went something like this:  “I have never been asked this before.” The defense counsel argued with the witness, saying that she did not correctly state what he said was the “test in Illinois,” for reasonable certainty.  I am not aware of any law that requires an expert to define what reasonable certainty means before answering, since it is a set of words that are understandable on their face. This witness testified that she believed it was more probably true than not that the injury suffered by the plaintiff was caused by the negligence of the defendants.

To dig deeper in this, “reasonable certainty” is a statement that the opinion is not a guess or speculation, but the product of some scientific method or from the education, background and experience of the expert. 

Continue reading

by

Jack Taylor was a motocross enthusiast from the downstate Illinois town of Lewistown. Taylor replaced a tire for his motocross bike on July 9, 2009 with a new one he purchased from a store in Peoria, Ill.  On July 11, 2009, Taylor went to the Sunset Ridge MX MotoCross Course in Walton, which is near Lewistown.

While using the course, Taylor attempted to jump. When he landed on the front tire, the one he had only recently replaced, it blew out and caused him to be injured. Taylor was taken to a nearby hospital and then transferred to another hospital in Peoria. 

On June 21, 2012, Taylor filed a lawsuit against Lemans Corp., Moose Racing, Parts Unlimited and Gibbs Motor Corp., alleging strict liability for a defective product, negligence and breach of implied warranties. The lawsuit that Taylor filed was in Cook County. The defendants moved to transfer the case to Bureau County, where the motocross course was located. The motion was brought under the doctrine of forum non conveniens.

Continue reading