Justia Lawyer Rating for Robert D. Kreisman

by

On Jan. 11, 2010, Vinayak Dravid was driving eastbound on Golf Road in Skokie, Ill., when the defendant Anila Amin pulled out from a parking lot at 3337 W. Golf Road. Amin was attempting to turn left and go westbound, causing the crash with a plaintiff’s car.  The impact resulted in both cars spinning and then making a second contact with each other. Both of the vehicles were a total loss. 

Dravid, 46, and a professor at Northwestern University, maintained that the crash caused him aggravation to his previously diagnosed herniated discs at L4-5 and L5-S1. Dravid said the impact and force of the crash reawakened his symptoms and increased the intensity of his pain. Surgery was recommended prior to the crash, but Dravid elected to deal with the pain and claimed his back had been largely without symptoms in the months just before the crash.

After the collision, Dravid underwent additional physical therapy and an injection. Surgery was again recommended by his doctor, but this time by a different neurosurgeon. 

Continue reading

by

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit in Chicago reversed a district court decision granting summary judgment where the court found that the expert testimony for the plaintiff was unreliable. Donald Schultz was a painter for American Motors Corp. from 1981 until 1989. Benzene was a substance in the paint that was used.Mr. Schultz died in 2006 from an acute myeloid leukemia (AML) related to benzene exposure. 

The wife of Mr. Schultz, Joann, filed a lawsuit against Akzo Nobel Paints (formerly known as the Glidden Co.), asserting that the benzene in the paint caused Mr. Schultz’s AML and subsequently his death.

Akzo moved for summary judgment using the expert testimony of its expert toxicologist, David Pyatt. Pyatt’s opinion was that the benzene exposure did not cause Mr. Schultz’s AML because only workers exposed to more than 40 parts per million (ppm) years of benzene developed AML.

Continue reading

by

In April 2009, the plaintiffs brought a lawsuit against James W. Hall, Cassandra McCord, JWH Management Inc. and JWH Family Partnership Ltd. Right after the lawsuit was brought, another group of plaintiffs filed a separate lawsuit naming some of the same defendants and then others. 

In the first litigation — the Bernstein litigation — the defendants were sued for breach of four promissory notes in the amount of $450,000. 

In the second lawsuit, the BMD litigation, Heiman and Sussex were defendants in the second lawsuit, but not in the Bernstein litigation. The defendants in the BMD litigation moved to consolidate the two cases pointing out that in both, James W. Hall and the JWH Family Partnership were being sued for failing to honor promissory notes;  in both cases, these defendants were moving for dismissal, claiming lack of personal jurisdiction. 

Continue reading

by

In January 2003, Michael Henderson, the defendant, wanted to rehabilitate real estate he owned. He submitted a loan application to the plaintiff, National Lending Services Inc. National Lending approved Henderson’s loan. The loan provided for an adjustable rate interest in which the interest only was paid until the loan matured on June 1, 2004. 

Henderson signed a trust agreement providing that National Lending would distribute the loan funds as necessary to Chicago Title & Trust, which would then pay the construction companies that were doing the rehab work on the property.

Every month, Henderson would pay $185.83 as the interest payment required on the note. When the note matured in June 2004, rather than paying the remainder of the $322,983.41 that was due, he continued to make monthly interest payments. Finally, on Dec. 2, 2010, National Lending filed a lawsuit against Henderson for the unpaid balance of the note, plus per diem additional charges. Henderson appeared pro se in the case. 

Continue reading

by

This shareholder derivative lawsuit arose out of a long and unsuccessful effort by Baxter International Inc. to fix various problems with a medical device called Colleague Infusion Pump. The plaintiff in the case, Westmoreland County Employee Retirement System (Westmoreland) alleged that Baxter’s directors and officers breached their fiduciary duties by “consciously disregard(ing) their responsibility to bring Baxter into compliance with the 2006 Consent Decree and related health and safety laws.” 

The breach was alleged to have caused Baxter to lose more than $550 million after the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) mandated a recall of the Colleague Infusion Pumps in 2010. Westmoreland was a shareholder that sustained a significant stock value loss; it claimed the loss was caused by Baxter’s board’s and officers’ breach of fiduciary duty.

In the mid-1990s, Baxter was manufacturing and selling a product called the Colleague Infusion Pump (Pump), an electronic medical device used to deliver intravenous fluids to patients. The FDA closely regulates the medical device industry and required that companies comply with “current good manufacturing practices” and “quality system regulations” (see 21 C.F.R. Part 820), when manufacturing such medical devices. Between 1999 and 2005, the pumps were suffering from a range of defects, some relating to the manufacturing process and others to flaws in the machinery. The FDA discovered some of these problems during its inspections on Baxter’s facilities. The FDA sent a series of warning letters to Baxter in which it detailed Baxter’s failure to bring its manufacturing process into compliance with quality-controlled standards. In October 2005, the FDA took the drastic step of filing a complaint in federal court seeking forfeiture of all of Baxter-owned Colleague Infusion Pumps. 

Continue reading

by

On Jan. 14, 2010, Anthony Rossi was driving eastbound on 95th Street in Oak Lawn, Ill.  The corner of his car was hit by a semi-tractor-trailer truck on the same eastbound 95th Street driven by the defendant, Steven Groft, as he was changing lanes.  The crash caused Rossi’s car to spin out of control. 

Rossi, age 28, refused to be taken to a hospital by ambulance, but later drove himself to the emergency room at Christ Hospital.  The defendants defended the case, arguing for limiting the severity of Rossi’s injuries.

Rossi maintained that he suffered a ligamentous cervical injury (whiplash), facet joint syndrome, aggravation of cervical spondylosis and chronic neck pain, which required a series of facet and trigger point injections and nerve ablations. Rossi had applied for a job as a Cook County Correctional Officer. He was not hired. Rossi claimed that his injuries from the crash prevented him from being hired by the County.  He is now unemployed and a stay-at-home father.

Continue reading

by

Robert D. Kreisman of Kreisman Law Offices has been elected to the office of secretary of the American Association for Justice’s (AAJ) Professional Negligence Section.  This law section facilitates the exchange of information for AAJ members handling professional negligence matters throughout the United States. This section is one of the largest of the section groups of the American Association for Justice. In his own practice, Robert Kreisman handles a wide variety of litigation matters and has experience in litigating medical negligence cases, nursing home abuse cases, pharmaceutical defect cases and commercial and business disputes. 

Kreisman Law Offices has been handling injury cases for individuals and families who have been harmed, injured or died as a result of the carelessness or negligence of another for more than 37 years in and around Chicago, Cook County and its surrounding areas, including Mundelein, Libertyville, Palos Heights, Morton Grove, Park Forest, Antioch, Chicago (Lincoln Square), Chicago (Roscoe Village), Chicago (Beverly), Lincolnwood and Tinley Park, Ill.

Related blog posts:

Continue reading

by

Philip Crosby worked for Cooper B-Line Inc., a manufacturer of electrical components and tools.  A portion of Crosby’s middle finger was severed while he was working on the job on July 28, 2010. Crosby filed a claim in the Illinois Industrial Commission under the Illinois Workers’ Compensation Act.  He asked for his medical bills to be paid and for temporary total disability benefits. 

Crosby returned to work in September 2010.  In a conversation with his manager, Crosby allegedly argued that he did not intend to refrain from using the unsafe work practice that led to his injury.  His employer, Cooper, then suspended him for 3 days without pay as a disciplinary measure.  A grievance was filed on behalf of Crosby by his union. 

A few days later, Crosby was accused of violating a different safety regulation and was fired. At this point, the union representing workers at Crosby  asked that his termination be referred to as a permanent lay off without recall rights. That would make him eligible for unemployment benefits and a neutral job reference for the future.

Continue reading

by

James Miglore, age 58, was an electrician working at the construction site of a new Hoffman Estates park district ice arena.  The construction area was located at 1685 W. Higgins Road in Hoffman Estates, Ill.  The defendant, Harbour Contractors, was the construction manager for the project. Midwest Masonry was the masonry subcontractor.  Miglore was employed by the third-party defendant, American Electric, the electrical subcontractor.

In August 2004, Midwest Masonry built the scaffolding at the site to assist its masons in building a 10-foot interior wall.

Miglore alleged in his lawsuit that he was using Midwest’s scaffolding when he fell from it; he was working about 8 feet above ground. At the trial, Miglore testified that he had set his A-frame ladder next to the scaffolding, climbed onto the scaffolding without a problem and then took 3 to 4 steps when a board on the scaffold “flipped up” and caused his fall. 

Continue reading

by

Consideration is the essential ingredient for legally enforceable contracts. The same is true in at-will employment where an employee is required to sign a noncompetition agreement in order to keep his or her job. When the employee signs such a noncompete contract, the employer then promises a continued length of time of employment, which is similar to adequate consideration. 

The question in this case, where Eric D. Fifield was a new employee of Enterprise Financial Group (EFG), what was sufficient consideration for length of his employment?  The case turns on the “substantial period of time” of the length of employment promised by the employer.

In this case, the Illinois Appellate Court affirmed a declaratory judgment for Fifield and his new employer EFG in their lawsuit against Premier Dealer Services. 

Continue reading