Justia Lawyer Rating for Robert D. Kreisman

by

A suit was filed against Phillip Morris claiming its practice of labeling cigarettes as “Light” qualified as consumer fraud. The Appellate Court denied Phillip Morris’s argument that it was immune from such lawsuits under federal law so the company is appealing to the U.S. Supreme Court.

The plaintiffs in Altria v, Good, 501 F. 3d 29 (1st Cir. 2007) alleged that Phillip Morris violated state laws prohibiting fraudulent misrepresentation in its false promotions and advertising for Marlboro and Cambridge Lights as “Light” with “Lowered Tar and Nicotine” when in fact the “Light” cigarettes would not deliver any less tar or nicotine to the smoker.

Phillip Morris responded to plaintiff by stating that the consumer fraud claims are preempted by the Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act, and preempted implicitly in the “efforts of Congress and Federal Trade Commission for 40 years to implement a national, uniform policy of informing the public about the health risks of smoking.”
The majority of the defendant’s argument rests on its assumption that the plaintiffs are bringing a claim for a failure to warn and not for fraud. Because a failure to warn would fall under the banner of warning label regulations, which is overseen by the federal government, any such claims would need to be brought under federal, and not state, law.

However, the US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit did not see plaintiffs’ claim as dealing with a failure to warn, but rather with Phillip Morris fraudulently representing its product. And because the federal law does not deal directly with fraud there is nothing to preempt the state law from taking precedent. Therefore, Phillip Morris is not immune from litigation dealing with plaintiffs’ claim because federal law does not negate consumer fraud claims related to the sale of light cigarettes.

To reach a final conclusion, the US Supreme Court has agreed to review Phillip Morris’s argument that federal law totally immunizes it from suits regarding consumer fraud claims as to “light” cigarette labeling. The case is set for oral argument in the fall of 2008.

Continue reading

by

Every fall my now 93 year-old mom calls and reminds me that with the Chicago winter on its way, it is imperative that I get my annual flu shot. Being an obedient son, I comply by hustling over to the nearest clinic to get that shot. And of course, my mom also gets her prescribed flu shot and has thankfully avoided the dreaded flu during the winter season.

But now immunologists are coming forward with new studies reporting that the vaccine doesn’t work very well for those over 70. Yet the over 70 age bracket accounts for 75% of all the flu deaths.

When explaining the drastic shift in these new studies, researchers pointed to the faulty logic used in prior studies. Instead of evaluating the effectiveness of the vaccine against the flu, the studies instead seemed to support evidence of who received the shot and who didn’t.

People who are health conscious, like my mom, are more likely to get an annual flu shot. Whereas people that are frail and have trouble taking care of themselves are less likely to leave home to get the vaccine. And this second group is at greater risk of death, with or without the flu shot.

Continue reading

by

Chicago’s 7th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a ruling that had dismissed a prisoner’s medical malpractice claim against his prison. Inmate Diego Gil brought a suit against the Federal Correctional Institution of Oxford, Wisconsin, claiming negligence and medical malpractice under the Federal Torts Claim Act, along with a violation of his Eighth Amendment rights. Diego Gil v. James Reed, et al., No. 06-1414.

In March 1998 Gil underwent surgical repair of a rectal prolapse. When his condition worsened after the unsuccessful surgery Gil sought medical aid from a physician’s assistant at his prison. But the physician assistant refused to give Gil medical attention, stating he was abusing the facility’s emergency care.

This refusal of care continued for the next year and a half. During that time Gil developed an infection near the surgical site and was denied antibiotics. Gil’s requests to see a specialist were continually denied. When Gil was finally allowed to see a colorectal surgeon he was immediately taken to surgery for rectal prolapse. After his second operation Gil was prescribed specific pain medications and warned against taking Tylenol III as it could cause constipation that would exacerbate his condition. Yet the prison staff refused to give Gil the prescribed pain medications and instead gave him Tylenol III.

At this point Gil filed suit against several of the prison officials for medical negligence and malpractice. He also alleged that the refusal to follow the surgeon’s instructions amounted to a deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs as a violation under the Eighth Amendment of the Constitution.

Continue reading

by

A California Appellate Court supported a trial court’s ruling that the Medical Device Amendments (MDA), Title 21 USC §360k(a), preempts any state law imposing safety requirements on manufacturers of a medical device. So even though the medical device did not pass all of the state’s safety requirements, in Blanco v. Baxter Healthcare Corp. the plaintiff’s claim was denied because the medical device in question met all the FDA requirements. As we see again and again, the MDA’s preemption claim is making it increasingly difficult to seek legal recourse for a faulty medical device. Of course, this would hold true for our cases in Chicago and around Illinois.

Claudia Blanco was diagnosed with mitral valve stenosis and needed to have her natural valve replaced with an artificial one. During surgery a bileaflet mitral heart valve manufactured by Baxter-Travenol Laboratories was inserted. A year after Blanco received the valve Baxter suspended marketing of its product due to reports of possible valve failures.

However, Blanco didn’t receive any notice of the valve problems for another five years. And while the notice advised her of the potential problems it did not advise her to have the valve removed or replaced. Less than ten years later Blanco’s artificial valve failed and she was rushed to the hospital for an emergency valve replacement, but died. After her death a representative from Baxter evaluated her valve and determined that the failure was in fact caused by a faulty valve.

But despite the evidence that the product was faulty Blanco’s claim was denied by both the trial and appellate courts. Because the medical device had passed a “rigorous” approval by the FDA it was protected from litigation for product liability. Also, because the device’s warnings were also approved by the FDA a claim cannot be brought for failure to warn.

Continue reading

by

A Cook County jury verdict was entered in favor of the University of Chicago Hospitals in a 2005 trial and was upheld on appeal to the Illinois Appellate Court (Kashief Weathers et al. v. University of Chicago Hospitals, et al., No. 1-061726). In the case, several doctors were accused of causing brain damage to an infant born with his umbilical cord wrapped around his neck. The plaintiff child now suffers from cerebral palsy and severe brain damage.

The baby’s mother brought an Illinois birth injury malpractice claim against University of Chicago Hospital alleging that defendant doctors failed to relieve the trauma caused by his umbilical cord during his birth in October 1988. There were also allegations that the doctors didn’t timely treat the baby’s seizures after his birth.

The plaintiffs’ obstetric expert testified that the defendant doctors deviated from the standard of care by not performing a cesarean section, which would have sped up the delivery. The expert felt that a quick delivery could have changed the child’s outcome because the brain damage likely occurred at some time during labor.

But the defense expert, a pediatric neurologist, disagreed. He felt that a cesarean section would not have made a difference because in his opinion the baby was injured at least one day prior to his birth. So by the time his mother was in labor there was nothing the doctors could have done to alter his outcome.

The trial jury sided with the defense and entered a verdict in favor of the University of Chicago Hospitals. The plaintiff brought the case for appeal on several counts.

Continue reading

by

When Misty Green was in kindergarten she was sexually molested by her Illinois school bus driver. The bus driver has since been convicted of child abuse and sent to prison. But now an adult Green seeks compensation from her Illinois school district based on its liability in the abuse (Green v. Carlinville Community Unit School Dist. No. 1).

An Illinois trial court granted the school district’s motion for summary judgment stating that all the counts against the district were reliant on the district’s classification as a “common carrier,” but that the district was not a common carrier. An Illinois Appellate Court agreed that the district was not a common carrier, but that it was still liable for the bus driver’s misconduct.

Under Illinois law a common carrier is a carrier who transports and serves all the public alike and does not have the ability to refuse service to anyone. Whereas a private carrier has no obligation to indiscriminately carry all of the public and instead transports only by special agreement. Both the trial and appellate court found that the school district was not a common carrier because it did not transport all of the public. Rather the district transported only students and only for student-related activities.

But even though the Illinois appellate court agreed that the school district could not be classified as a common carrier it disagreed with the trial’s court ruling- namely, that the district was not liable for the bus driver’s misconduct. Instead the appellate court found that the school district could be held liable.

Continue reading

by

Illinois Appellate Court ruled that Illinois Insurance Guaranty Fund (IIGF) is responsible for paying Illinois workers’ compensation benefits to a worker who was injured on the job (Virginia Surety Co. v. Adjustable Forms, Inc.). This ruling came in spite of IIGF’s claims that the Chicago worker was also covered under Virginia Surety Co.’s policy and therefore it should be paying the Illinois workers’ compensation benefits.

Michael Hadrys, an Adjustable Forms employee, was injured while working on a construction project in Illinois called the River East Project. And as is typical in the construction industry, his insurance was an owner controlled insurance program (OCIP) meaning that it was covered through the owner of the job and not his direct employer. The OCIP was being covered by Reliance Insurance Co., who have since folded, and that’s when things get complicated.

Typically, when an insurance company folds all its claims are handled by the Illinois Insurance Guaranty Fund (IIGF), provided that there is no other insurance company involved to take over the claim. However, in this case because Hadrys’s employer, Adjustable Forms, actually also had its own insurance through a different provider, Virginia Surety Co. Therefore the IIGF argued that it was not responsible for paying Hadrys’s workers’ compensation claim, but that Virginia Surety Co. was. Yet the Illinois Appellate Court disagreed.

The case revolved around whether or not Virginia Surety Co. was actually responsible for insuring Hadrys at the time of his Illinois construction site injury. The IIGF said that it was because it was an alternate form of insurance for Hadrys’s employer. Virginia Surety Co. said that it was not because Adjustable Forms insurance policy stated that it would cover injured employees unless they had other insurance.

Continue reading

by

The United States Supreme Court is expected to hear the case of Wyeth v. Levine this November which could have far reaching implications as to pharmaceutical litigation cases against drug companies, including those in Illinois and the Chicago area. The legal advice comes from top doctors and editors of the New England Journal of Medicine who have submitted a friend-of-the-court brief. The doctors state that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) “is in no position” to guarantee drug safety. The doctors went on to to say that lawsuits can serve as “a vital deterrent” and protect consumers if drug companies don’t disclose risks.

The underlying case is about Diana Levine, a Vermont guitarist, who lost her right arm below the elbow after being injected with the drug Phenergen, a medicine used mostly for nausea. She sued the drug manufacturer, Wyeth, contending that the drug company had a duty to warn consumers that injections, like the one she experienced, could have devastating consequences. The state courts in Vermont agreed with Ms. Levine in awarding her nearly $7 million.

But Wyeth appealed stating that it was protected from such lawsuits. It argued that the FDA’s judgment could not in effect be overruled by a state court. FDA scientists had weighed the risk and benefits of Phenergan in approving the drug’s safety literature as a guide for doctors. The FDA was aware of the risks associated with injecting some forms of Phenergan, but the label did not specifically warn about the technique used for this patient.

It has been commented before that the FDA has been the “gold standard” in drug evaluation. The New England Journal of Medicine editors warned the justices to be skeptical in taking such a view now.

Continue reading

by

A Kane County, Illinois trial court’s decision was reversed in a property damage case involving a car and two horses in what could be described as a two-horse crash. The issue in the case turned out not to be the horses, but the property damage to the car.

State Farm insured the vehicle that was damaged and filed suit against Pat Santucci for property damage only. Santucci was part owner of P.S. Coyote, a corporation that operated out of Santucci’s Illinois property, where he also individually owned the horses, outbuildings and barn involved in the accident. Statewide covered P.S. Coyote and Santucci under a commercial general liability policy.

Statewide agreed to represent Santucci even though he was insured only as related to his business. Statewide even issued a letter to Santucci stating that they reserved no rights and that they would insure Santucci regardless. However, that same day Statewide was declared insolvent. Santucci’s claim would now be handled by the Illinois Guaranty Insurance Fund.

The fund is created by the State of Illinois and is in place to take over some of the insurance claims for liquidated insurance companies. Unlike Statewide Insurance, when the fund took over Santucci’s case it did so with a reservation of rights. That is where Santucci’s claim gets complicated.

Continue reading

by

Chicago area Metra worker Leonard Brzinski was denied recovery for injuries he suffered after falling into a sinkhole while working. Under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act (FELA), a train company employee can bring suit for injuries suffered on the job due to the employer’s negligence.

Brzinski arrived at work in Orland Park, Illinois, to investigate an accident. He was walking along the service road that ran parallel to the railroad tracks for the purpose of taking photographs. While he was walking, the ground gave way and Mr. Brzinski stepped into an 18-inch sinkhole with his left foot and injured himself.

Brzinski filed suit against Metra seeking recovery for his injuries. The defendant, Metra, filed a motion for summary judgment stating (1) Leonard was not one of the employees statutorily allowed to recover under FELA and (2) that Metra had no actual or constructive notice of the sinkhole that caused the injury.

The trial court granted Metra’s motion on the second argument- that Leonard failed to establish that Metra was or should have been on notice of the sinkhole defect. Therefore Metra was not responsible for Brzinski’s injuries.

Brzinski appealed to the Illinois Appellate Court, who affirmed the decision of the trial court. The appeals court further stated that their decision was partly because of the consequences that would occur if they did side with the plaintiff despite his lack of proof. Namely, that every railroad would be liable for damages to an employee who was injured while working for them whether it was due to the railroad’s negligence or not. The court did not feel this was the intention of the FELA statute.

Continue reading