Justia Lawyer Rating for Robert D. Kreisman

by

A Chicago ironworker was unable to convince a Cook County jury that another construction worker was responsible for his construction site accident and injuries. Instead the jury decided in favor of the defendant construction company in Anthony Silva v. O’Sullivan Plumbing, Inc., 06 L 13525, and denied the plaintiff damages for his construction site injury.

Anthony Silva was an ironworker employed by Walsh Construction, a general contracting construction management company. At the time of his 2004 construction injury, Silva was working on the Shoreham Residential project located at 400 E. South Water St. in Chicago. Silva was performing work on a plumbing pipe that was located between two concrete walls that would be used to create the elevator core walls.

At trail, Silva testified that he had followed the required safety protocol by using a tie-wire to tie by the concrete form wall back in order to expose the pipe so that he could work behind the form walls. However, while he was working, the tied-back form wall fell and struck Silva on his back and wrist. He required surgeries for both his cervical disc injury and his wrist injuries.

Continue reading

by

The Illinois Appellate Court clarified the duty owed to pedestrians who are outside of set crosswalks in the personal injury lawsuit of Amanda Jimolka v. Chicago Transit Authority, et al., No. 1-10-2894 (2011). The court held that motorists only owe a duty to pedestrians who are within the limits of an identified crosswalk. As a result, the Jimolka matter was dismissed based on evidence that the plaintiff was not within a crosswalk at the time of her injury.

The bus accident at issue occurred in August 2001 near the intersection of Belmont Ave. and Clark St. in Chicago. The plaintiff, Beverly Longo, was walking across the street when she was hit by a CTA bus. Although Longo was outside the crosswalk when she was hit, her guardian alleged that the CTA and its bus driver were still at fault in the pedestrian accident.

Longo’s attorneys contended that she was not in the crosswalk because of heavy pedestrian traffic and also blamed a bike rider who was making a delivery for a sandwich shop. Longo claimed because of these impediments, she was unable to walk in the crosswalk and was forced to walk in other areas. Longo also accused the bus driver of speeding and claimed that if he had been driving at a normal speed that the bus accident could have been avoided.

Continue reading

by

While most lawsuits are tried in the same state where they occurred, an Indiana construction accident was recently the subject of an Illinois personal injury lawsuit. The Indiana injury was tried in Illinois because one of the defendant’s businesses was based out of Illinois. However, to make John Mazzorana v. Berglund Construction Co., et al., No. 06 L 12451, even more unique, although the case was tried in Illinois, the court applied Indiana law.

The personal injury lawsuit was brought by John Mazzorana, an Indiana resident who was working as a bricklayer for Hawk Construction at construction site in Chesterton, Indiana. The 2006 Indiana construction accident occurred after Mazzorana fell 30 feet after stepping on a plank. The Indiana resident ruptured his Achilles tendon and fractured both his heel and a vertebrae.

Berglund Construction Co. was the general contractor for the Indiana construction job and as such was one of the main defendants in the construction accident lawsuit. Bergland Construction was based out of Illinois and so moved to remove the Indiana lawsuit to Illinois courts, a move Mazzorana’s attorneys agreed to. However, Berglund then settled its portion of the lawsuit with Mazzorana for $400,000 prior to the start of the Illinois trial. Therefore, the only remaining parties in the Illinois lawsuit were all based out of Indiana.

Continue reading

by

An Illinois jury awarded $1.7 million to the surviving family members of a man who was hit by a semi-tractor trailer; Estate of Edward Kolodzik v. Cesar Castillo, VBD Transport, Inc., MLP Transport, Inc., No. 04 L 3715. While the decedent, Edward Kolodzik, survived the crash, he died five years later, allegedly from complications arising from the Illinois trucking accident.

The Illinois trucking accident occurred on Illinois Interstate 39/90 near Rockford, Illinois. Kolodzik was driving his car when he was struck by a Mack semi-tractor trailer driven by Cesar Castillo. Kolodzik suffered from a traumatic brain injury and right shoulder and lower back musculoskeletal injuries. As a result of these injuries, the 49 year-old Kolodzik became disabled and dependent on pain medication to relieve his severe shoulder and lower back pain.

A personal injury lawsuit was brought against the truck driver and his employers for their liability in Kolodzik’s injuries and resulting medical condition. When Kolodzik died five years after the truck accident, his wife and five minor children further alleged that his death was a result of his poor health and medical condition following the highway accident.

Continue reading

by

A Missouri judge declared a mistrial in a class action lawsuit against tobacco manufacturer Philip Morris USA because the jurors had still not come to a decision after five days of deliberation. The Missouri lawsuit was first filed in 2000 and included claims that the cigarette company had misled smokers through its claims that “light” cigarettes were safer than regular cigarettes.

While other tobacco companies have employed similarly misleading language by advertising “light” or “low tar” cigarettes, the St. Louis personal injury lawsuit specifically focuses on Philip Morris. It alleges that Philip Morris was in violation of the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act due to its false claims that its Marlboro Lights contained less tar and nicotine than its Marlboro Reds.

Since being filed in 2000, the Missouri lawsuit had undergone eleven years and several twists and turns, including an appeal and several trips to the federal court. And while St. Louis Circuit Judge Michael David put an end to the current litigation cycle, the case can still be retried. And according to the plaintiffs’ attorney, there are already plans in the works to begin retrying the class action lawsuit.

Continue reading

by

The November 2011 issue of the Illinois Bar Journal contains an article entitled “Creditors Are Not Freeloaders: The Common Fund Doctrine Does Not Apply to Hospital Lienholders.” The law article was written by Kreisman Law Office principal Robert D. Kreisman. Kreisman has been representing Illinois plaintiffs in personal injury and medical malpractice lawsuits for over 35 years in the Chicago and Cook County areas.

The Illinois Bar Journal article analyzes a recent Illinois Supreme Court decision in Wendling v. Southern Illinois Hospital Services, 242 Ill.2d 261, 950 N.E.2d 646 (2011). The Wendling case was significant in that the court’s decision removed any doubt as to whether or not the common fund doctrine applies to a healthcare services lien; the Supreme Court determined that the common fund doctrine does not apply.

In litigation, the general rule is that each party is responsible for paying his or her own attorney fees and costs. However, the common fund doctrine is an exception to that general rule. Under the common fund doctrine is applied when a common fund is created through the efforts of the litigant’s attorney, which in turn ends up benefiting a third party. When this occurs, the attorney who created the common fund can recover reasonable fees and costs from the third party, even though he/she is not technically the attorney’s client.

Continue reading

by

A Cook County jury entered a $600,000 verdict in the auto accident lawsuit of Joseph Barbin v. United Parcel Service Inc. and Jorge D. Hernandez, No. 07 L 12572. While it is not unusual for a court to rule in favor of the plaintiff in a rear-end accident, what is unique about Barbin is that the accident was caused as a result of the defendant driver’s failure to obey emergency vehicle traffic laws.

The plaintiff had been hit by the defendant driver while waiting at an intersection for an ambulance to pass. Joseph Barbin was approaching the intersection of North Ave. and First Ave. in Melrose Park when he noted an ambulance approaching with its siren and lights activated. Barbin joined a line of two other vehicles in waiting for the ambulance to pass. However, it was while Barbin was waiting for the ambulance to pass that he was rear-ended by Jorge Hernandez.

Hernandez was driving a UPS package car at the time of the rear-end accident. The impact of Hernandez’s truck with Barbin’s vehicle caused not only severe whiplash, but also resulted in a herniated disc in Barbin’s cervical spine. Barbin underwent a fusion and discectomy surgery at the C4-5 level, but will need future surgery above and below the C4-5 spine in order to repair his cervical spine.

Continue reading

by

A Chicago jury awarded $850,000 to a Chicago construction employee who suffered severe injuries after falling from his work on elevated train tracks. The personal injury verdict in Raul Luna et al. v. Chicago Transit Authority, Kiewit Western Co., Divane Brothers Electric Co., et al., No. 07 L 12550, came despite evidence that suggested the employee was injured because he violated some of the construction site’s safety requirements.

Raul Luna was an industrial painter employed by SCI Coatings, LLC. At the time of his construction site accident, Luna was working on Chicago Transit Authority’s (CTA) elevated railroad tracks as part of the CTA’s Chicago Loop renovation project. Luna was brought in to help sandblast and paint columns on the Van Buren St. train tracks between State St. and Wabash Ave. Because the train tracks were elevated, workers were using a manlift to reach the above ground areas. This essentially involved workers securing themselves using a harness-like device in order to prevent them from falling in the event that they slipped while working above ground.

In addition to his painting duties, Luna was also responsible of removing the construction site’s containment structure, which was constructed of tarps and wood two-by-fours. In order to reach the top of containment structure, Luna used the manlift as required by the job’s safety requirements. Luna proceeded to remove the nails from the two-by-fours in order to break down the containment structure. However, at some point Luna untied himself from the manlift, exited its basket area, and began to crawl across the elevated tracks.

It was while crawly unprotected across the tracks that Luna fell; one of the two-by-fours broke as Luna was removing a nail, sending him falling to the street below. Luna sustained an epidural hematoma, a comminuted displaced wrist fracture, and a comminuted fibula fracture. The fibula fracture required an internal fixation surgery so that Luna’s bones would heal properly. In addition, Luna suffered from a traumatic brain injury, which left him with cognitive, psychological, and behavioral deficits following his construction site injury.

Continue reading

by

In the recent case of Vincent v. Alden-Park Strathmoor, Inc., No. 110406, 2011 WL 1077706 (Ill.Sup.Ct.), the Supreme Court reviewed the nursing home malpractice lawsuit to determine whether or not punitive damages are allowed in the event that the wronged party is deceased. The Vincent case was filed by the family members of Majorie Vincent, an elderly resident of Alden-Park Strathmoor, after Majorie died while living at the long-term nursing facility.

Majorie’s family filed a complaint under the Illinois Nursing Home Care Act, which alleged that Alden-Park had violated the Act through its negligent and abusive treatment of Majorie. The complaint specifically accused Alden-Park of failing to provide Majorie with adequate medical and personal care and was willful and want in its conscious and reckless disregard of her health and safety.

In its complaint, the plaintiffs reserved the right to seek punitive damages, which are damages awarded as punishment for the defendant’s willful and wanton behavior. And while the plaintiffs did not seek the damages in their original complaint, they did reserve the right to do so at a later date. However, the defendants brought a motion seeking to bar the plaintiffs from requesting punitive damages at any time. The motion was based on the general assumption because the Illinois Nursing Home Care Act does not specifically state whether or not punitive damages survive a person’s death, that they do not.

Continue reading

by

While many people suffer from food allergies, the severity of those allergies varies. For example, some people might break out in a rash that is then easily treated with Benadryl, while others may suffer from more serious, life-threatening reactions. Yet whether your food allergy is mild or severe, it is important to make your waiter aware of your allergy when dining out. However, mistakes have been known to happen and an ingredient which you are allergic to might inadvertently end up in your order.

This sort of mix-up was the subject of the Chicago personal injury case of Eva Holmes White v. Chai H. Leung, d/b/a Choice China Wok, Leung Choice China Wok 10L-2254. In 2004, Eva White ordered the lunch special at Choice China Wok, a Chinese restaurant located at 10341 S. Halsted St. Because Ms. White is allergic to shrimp, she asked that the shrimp egg foo young, the shrimp fried rice, and the shrimp egg roll that were included in the special be substituted with chicken.

After receiving her order, White returned to her car to eat her food. Before eating her egg roll, White reported that she broke it in half and checked that there was not any shrimp in her egg roll. After determining that there was not, she proceeded to take a bite. However, immediately after that she noticed that there was in fact shrimp in her egg roll.

Continue reading