Chicago, Illinois Appeals Lawyer
Our appellate attorney, William S. Wojcik, has successfully argued appeals before the Supreme Court of Illinois and the Appellate Courts of Illinois. He has successfully appealed decisions on cases relating to motor vehicle accidents, personal injury accidents and abortion malpractice. Contact our Oak Lawn law firm for more information about these cases or our personal injury legal practice.
Lewis v. Family Planning Associates
Plaintiff told by abortion clinic that she could not change her mind about having a late-term abortion after laminaria, a device used to dilate the cervix, were inserted. This statement is false. A woman can change her mind about having an abortion and carry the child to term. Three interlocutory appeals have already been taken in this case. The court has ruled that abortionists and their employees must disclose their home addresses and Social Security numbers to plaintiff, her attorneys and her consulting experts, in effect ruling that abortionists are not entitled to special status in civil litigation. The court also deferred ruling on the propriety of a class action until after the underlying case is tried.
A confidential settlement was reached in this case at the time of jury selection.
Drinane v. State Farm, Argued on appeal to the Supreme Court of Illinois (Springfield, IL)
Plaintiff complained of an arbitrator's conflict of interest in rendering an uninsured motorist arbitration award. Plaintiff argued that the relationship between the arbitrator and State Farm Insurance and State Farm's lawyer should have been disclosed to plaintiff's attorney. The Supreme Court agreed. The case represented a significant victory for injured victims involved in arbitration cases since relationships between arbitrators and insurance companies now must be disclosed.
Baaske v. American Family Insurance
Trial court upheld a provision of American Family's auto insurance policy that allowed them to reject uninsured motorist awards over $20,000.00, but forced injured victims to accept arbitration awards below $20,000.00. Plaintiff appealed this decision. The Appellate Court ruled that under Illinois law, the American Family policy provision was unenforceable as well as contrary to Illinois public policy. This case represented another victory for injured persons who were being unfairly taken advantage of by large insurance companies.
Dotto v. Okan
Plaintiff was severely injured after being thrown from a speedboat and run over by its propellers. Trial judge ruled that plaintiff's expert witness, a mechanical engineer would be barred from testifying as to how the accident happened based on scientific principles related to the movement of the boat. Plaintiff argued the testimony was necessary because defendant had denied speeding and making a hard left turn followed by a hard right hand turn, which threw plaintiff out of the boat and caused the boat propeller to run over his arms. Defendant said he was only "straightening out" the boat. Plaintiff's expert would have testified that the accident could not have happened the way the defendant said it did. The Appellate Court held that plaintiff's expert must be allowed testify and awarded plaintiff a new trial. The court said that the old "eyewitness rule" was an "anachronism that must be allowed to rest in peace and not be resurrected." This case was a great victory for injured persons whose cases required expert testimony to establish essential facts and is often cited now when defendants seeks to bar plaintiff's experts from testifying.