Appeals

Bold labels are required.

$950,000 - Roofer fell through skylight opening in building under construction. 31 year old plaintiff suffered a herniated disc requiring surgery with instrumentation.

• $1,495,000 - Elderly patient entered hospital for knee replacement. Surgical errors caused vascular injury and required nursing home stay which resulted in negligent wound care.
• $245,000 - Female slipped on stairs on day of ice storm causing a bimalleolar fracture of her right ankle.
• $3.4 million jury verdict - auto accident - victim suffered cardiac injuries but returned to work within 90 days;
  more
• $3.37 million settlement - November 18, 2004 deft tractor-trailer driver Gary Sucku made a left turn from northbound Archer into the Dolphin Cartage truckyard near Knox;
  more
• $3.775 million settlement for multiple female plaintiffs whose ob/gyn doctor allegedly performed unnecessary biopsies on them in his office.
  more
• $2.1 million settlement - unwitnessed fall resulting in an ankle sprain that required surgery and developed Complex Regional Pain Syndrome;
  more
• $1 million settlement - construction worker suffered multiple trauma when crane boom collapsed;
  more
• $1.2 million settlement on behalf of newborn baby infected with a chronic form of hepatitis as a result of hospital's failure to administer vaccine;
  more
• $1.5 million settlement - lab allegedly breached ethical duty to gynecology patients in reporting pathology results;
  more
• $348,000 verdict - truck driver slipped and fell on oil at loading dock - torn medial meniscus;
  more
• $800,000 verdict - "high burner" suffered knee injury after gas explosion;
  more
• $515,000 - May 10, 2005 deft Durley, waived on by stopped drivers in two of three lanes of traffic on southbound Cicero, made left turn onto westbound 78th St.;
  more
• $270,000 settlement - May 5, 2004 plaintiff, female 24, driving to work southbound on 1-55 during morning "rush hour" when she was struck by defendant's tractor-trailer, which had jack knifed after allegedly being struck by a "phantom" hit-and-run driver; see video;
  more
• $210,000 settlement - June 2, 2004 plaintiff, female, 20, was driving her 2001 Pontiac Surefire eastbound on 159th Street on her way to attend college classes when she was struck from behind by defendants cement truck;
  more
• $210,000 verdict - bar patron beaten by bouncer at nightclub - less than $2500 in medical expenses.
  more
• $300,000 settlement for female plaintiff whose horse was attacked by two Rottweiler dogs, causing her to fall and sustain facial and dental injuries.
  more
• $200,000 settlement - medical malpractice - cataract patient given wrong lens during cataract surgery but still has 20/20 corrected vision;
  more
• $140,000 settlement/arbitration award - television reporter sustained back injury in auto accident - only $7500 in medical expenses;
  more
• $192,500 for three roller-coaster riders who were stuck upside down on the Demon roller coaster when ride failed at Six Flags;
  more
• $6.95 million - class action settlement - health insurer alleged to improperly resolve its liens for medical payments which resulted from third-party automobile accidents.
  more

Appeals

• 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.
• Robert E. Valle et al. v. Bishop Joseph Imesch, etc. et al. No. 101916. On petition for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Illinois SPRINGFIELD - A retired Will County man suing the Roman Catholic Diocese of Joliet wants the Illinois Supreme Court to keep evidence of his wealth out of his personal injury case. Robert E. Valle was a volunteer at St. Thomas the Apostle Church on Oct. 7, 1999, when he was applying sealant to the surface of a concrete statue of St. Thomas. The statue fell on him and crushed his left leg. According to court documents, Valle required multiple surgeries, including reconstructive surgery and other operations on his left femur, all of which cost more than $120,000.
• Valle and his wife, Kathleen, sued the church, advancing a claim for diminished earning capacity. They are now asking the Illinois Supreme Court to rule on three certified questions, which center on whether evidence regarding Valle's personal wealth may be used at trial to belie his assertion that an economic slowdown led him to want to return to the workforce following his injury.
• Valle had retired from a corporate job in June 1999 at age 56. He asserts that, "Due to a downturn in the economy and resultant downturn in his personal assets," he would have left retirement in late 2000 to assume a job in his field. He contends, however, that his injuries kept him from doing so and are thus the basis for a diminished earning capacity claim.
• In January 2004, the church asked for information regarding Valle's assets, income, investments, bank accounts, net worth, credit card accounts and personal financial condition. Valle objected, calling the request "irrelevant, immaterial and highly prejudicial." Circuit Judge Amy M. Bertani-Tomczak ruled in favor of the plaintiffs on March 10.
• A similar request for personal financial information was made in May 2005. Before the case went to trial on Sept. 12, the plaintiffs submitted motions in limine to Circuit Judge Susan T. O'Leary (Bertani-Tomczak had made her rulings as a motion judge) to determine the admissibility of the financial evidence. The court granted certain motions but allowed for some of the evidence "to the extent that Mr. Valle opens the door by indicating that the reason for him to return to work was because of a 'downturn in the economy' or his personal financial situation."
• The court also allowed the defendants to collect certain financial information that Bertani-Tomczak had deemed off-limits.
• Although the Will County court certified three questions for interlocutory appeal pursuant to Supreme Court rule 308, the 3d District Appellate Court declined to hear the case.
• In his petition to leave for appeal, Valle's attorneys ask whether "the long-recognized rule in this state against injecting personal wealth or poverty into a compensatory, non-punitive damages case can be overcome where a retired party making a diminished earning capacity claim indicates that he wanted return to work due to changed economic circumstances, but could not return due to his injuries."
• Valle's attorneys contend that personal wealth should not be used as evidence that Valle's needs to return to work.
• "Illinois ... recognizes the long-established rule that a litigant's personal wealth or poverty cannot be made an issue in a strictly compensatory, non-punitive damage case such as this, as being irrelevant and prejudicial," the plaintiff's attorneys contended, citing LID Associates v. Dolan, 32 Ill.App.3d 1047 (2001).
• If the high court declines to decide whether Valle's personal wealth can be used against him, he has asked the justices to order the Appellate Court to answer the questions certified for appeal.
• Valle is represented by Oak Lawn lawyer William S. Wojcik, Chicago lawyer Timothy Michael O'Brien, Naperville lawyer Robert G. Black and Michael W. Back of Crown Point, Ind.
• The case is Robert E. Valle et al. v. Bishop Joseph Imesch, etc. et al. No. 101916.
• 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 which 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.