Illinois - Wexler Wallace LLP

More documents

Recommendations

Info

78 ILLINOIS plaintiffs injured or dead as a result of the Romeoville explosion and fire, which resulted in $12.7 million for the firm’s clients. The firm is currently pursuing a number of medical malpractice claims including a claim against Cook County for the wrongful death of a child whose arthritis was mistreated; a case involving the negligent prescription of a potent narcotic resulting in an overdose and stroke; and a case surrounding the failure of a doctor to diagnose an ectopic pregnancy. Firm founder Bruce Pfaff is reported to be one of only two lawyers in Illinois who has obtained four verdicts in amounts exceeding $10 million. Two of these awards were against Ford Motor Company. Pfaff has personally secured jury verdicts in excess of $100 million, and has over $100 million in pre-trial settlements. Pfaff has also presented over 90 speeches and articles related to his practice. Partner Michael Gill is an accomplished trial attorney that has received recognition for his successes by his peers and competitors. Rapoport Law Offices Rapoport Law Offices handles personal injury claims throughout Illinois and Wisconsin with a successful and specialized national practice in aviation accident litigation. However, the firm is particularly proud of its trial capacity in all areas of personal injury. In 1999, the firm recovered over $14 million from American Airlines’ insurer as a result of a lawsuit stemming from an aircraft crash that killed 10 passengers and the command pilot. Another laudable accomplishment is the $9.858 million verdict against Mideastern University’s Chicago College of Osteopathic Medicine and the parties. The firm’s client was injured as a result of an unsupervised medical student’s manipulation of the client’s neck when she went to the clinic with complaints of shoulder and neck pain. As a result of this injury, the client had two shoulder surgeries, developed a chronic pain syndrome, and subsequently dropped out of medical school. Other successes include a $13 million award for a toll road semi truck case; $5.6 million on behalf of a baby asphyxiated at birth as a result of medical negligence and $3.38 million on behalf of an injury factory worker in a products liability suit. David Rapoport makes very clear that he never represents insurance companies or businesses because of his commitment to using the trial process to secure justice for those injured by others. This commitment is supported by three decades of advocacy, and in July 2011, David Rapoport was elected as President Elect of the National Board of Trial Advocacy for a two-year term. Wexler Wallace Wexler Wallace is a renowned litigation boutique that represents shareholders, consumers, pension plans, institutional investors, businesses, governments and organizations throughout the world that have endured substantial injury by those who carelessly wield their power. The firm leads complex class actions and multidistrict litigation that leverages the collective muscle of the injured to demand reparations. The firm is heavily involved in litigation in the following areas: antitrust, securities, consumer protection, mass torts, healthcare litigation, False Claims Act litigation, government representation and additional business and commercial litigation. Led by partners Edward Wallace, Kenneth Wexler and Sacramento-based Mark Tamblyn, Wexler Wallace is currently renewing its motion for class certification in a suit against GlaxoSmithKline that alleges the company filed baseless patent infringement actions against makers of generic Wellbutrin SR in order to extend its market exclusivity. This has had the effect of causing consumers and third-party payors to pay more for the name-brand medicine. Wexler Wallace is also seeking to recover $140 million in the representation of funeral home directors throughout the state of Illinois in derivative litigation and class actions. The complaint asserts that monies received as prepayment for funeral services were supposed to be invested in conservative instruments to cover inflation costs. Because the money was allegedly imprudently invested by Merrill Lynch entities, funeral directors were directly damaged and forced to pay for funerals out of pocket. The firm is also litigating a class action complaint against Zynga and Facebook, alleging that consumers are bamboozled into signing up for services without the meaningful intent to do so. Recommended firms Edelson McGuire Headquartered in Chicago, Edelson McGuire has offices in Florida, Denver, New York and California, and has a practice that includes the representation of the media regarding defamation claims, infringements on the right of publicity, privacy cases, copyright issues and the structuring of book and movie deals. The firm, spearheaded by Jay Edelson and Myles McGuire, also works for unions and regularly serves as lead in collective bargaining negotiations. The firm also represents employees in whistleblower claims, retaliatory termination claims, wage disputes and discrimination charges. Edelson McGuire is currently involved in litigation against Amazon for deleting electronic books purchased by customers in order to sell a more expensive version of the book, and is also involved in other tech-related litigation, including the representation of a woman filing a claim alleging that eBay does not accommodate hearing-impaired sellers; a national class action on behalf of customers of E*Trade Securities charging that the company unlawfully charged customers fees; and litigation against companies guilty of violating text messaging spam laws. Litigators of Edelson McGuire have been so successful with their tech-related class actions that they have been declared “one of the most hated firms in Silicon Valley.” Power Rogers & Smith With recoveries in excess of $2 million, Power Rogers & Smith has verdicts and settlements that draw the awe of the legal community and the broader community. The firm litigates medical malpractice, products liability and wrongful death cases that are frequently featured in newspapers and television programs. The firm’s own success is a challenging touchstone to maintain. Power Rogers & Smith recovered a noteworthy $100 million in a trucking accident that killed six children, and the firm reports that its investigation resulted in 72 criminal convictions including a former Illinois governor who is still imprisoned. Founding partner, Larry Rogers, Sr has over 20 years of litigation experience. In that time, his victories in some extremely complex matters have been demonstrated trial work at its finest. He recently won $55 million, the state’s largest medical malpractice verdict on behalf of a brain-damaged woman. The other founding partners, Joseph Power and Todd Smith have similarly demonstrated feats of legal distinction.
Personal Injury and Wrongful Death Compensatory Damages in Illinois Joshua L Weisberg of Rapoport Law Offices Afundamental aspect of any personal injury or wrongful death action is determining the elements of compensatory damages available and any damages limitations that may exist. Under Illinois law, the basic elements of damages in a personal injury case include past and future medical expenses, past and future loss of earnings, past and future pain and suffering, past and future disability/loss of a normal life, and disfigurement. In certain cases, additional damages may be claimed such as caretaking expenses, emotional distress, and shortened life expectancy. An injured plaintiff’s spouse may also maintain an action for loss of consortium and loss of services. Illinois also allows damages for increased risk of future harm. This element of damages was recognized by the Supreme Court of Illinois in Dillon v. Evanston Hospital, 199 Ill. 2d 483 (Ill. 2002), and it enables certain plaintiffs to recover where the likelihood of future harm occurring is less than 50%. These damages are calculated by reducing the total amount of damages to which plaintiff would be entitled if the harm actually occurs by the proven probability that the harm will in fact occur. In wrongful death actions, there are three statutes governing the available elements of damages: the Survival Act (755 ILCS 5/27- 6), Wrongful Death Act (740 ILCS 180/1) and Family Expense Statute (750 ILCS 65/15). The Survival Act allows a decedent’s estate to recover damages sustained by the decedent prior to death. In practice, the most common element of survival damages sought is pain and suffering. Meanwhile, the Wrongful Death Act allows a decedent’s surviving spouse and/or next of kin to recover for their “pecuniary injuries.” The term “pecuniary injuries” has been defined by the Supreme Court of Illinois, and generally includes loss of economic support, loss of services, and loss of society. Additionally, the Illinois legislature recently amended the Wrongful Death Act to expand the definition of pecuniary injuries to include “grief, sorrow, and mental suffering.” 740 ILCS 180/1. Damages may also be sought for medical and burial expenses incurred by a surviving spouse or next of kin pursuant to the Family Expense Statute. Regarding limitations on damages, there are no statutory caps on damages in Illinois. While the Illinois legislature has enacted damages caps on several occasions, each time they were found to be unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of Illinois. For instance, in Best v. Taylor Machine Works, 179 Ill.2d 367 (Ill. 1997), the Supreme Court struck down a cap on noneconomic damages as unconstitutional special legislation and in violation of the separation of powers doctrine. More recently, in Lebron v. Gottlieb Memorial Hospital, 237 Ill.2d 217 (Ill. 2010), the Supreme Court held a noneconomic damages cap in medical malpractice cases was unconstitutional. While there are no damages caps, compensatory damages awarded by a jury may be reduced if they are found to be excessive. The Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, recently summarized the standard for remitter as follows: The amount of a verdict is generally at the discretion of the jury. A damage award is not subject to scientific computation. A question of damages is to be determined by the trier of fact, and “a reviewing court will not lightly substitute its opinion for the judgment rendered in the trial court.” However, a court will order a remittitur, or, if the plaintiff does not consent, a new trial, if a verdict is excessive. * * * [T]he supreme court [has] indicated that an award may be viewed as excessive if it (1) exceeds the range of fair and reasonable compensation, (2) is the result of passion or prejudice, or (3) is so large that it shocks the judicial conscience. But remittitur will not be ordered when an award ‘“falls within the flexible range of conclusions which can reasonably be supported by the facts.’” Colella v. JMS Trucking Co. of Illinois, Inc., 403 Ill. App. 3d 82, 96 (Ill. App. Ct. 2010)(internal citations omitted). Damages may also be barred or limited due to a plaintiff’s conduct. The law concerning contributory negligence states a plaintiff is ILLINOIS barred from recovering if his or her fault is 51% or more of the proximate cause of the damages for which recovery is sought. 735 ILCS 5/2-1116(c). Meanwhile, a plaintiff whose contributory negligence is 50% or less of the proximate cause of the damages for which recovery is sought shall have their damages reduced in proportion to the percentage of their contributory negligence. Id. Plaintiffs also have an independent duty to mitigate damages by exercising ordinary care to obtain medical treatment, and they may not recover damages proximately caused by their failure to exercise such care. Finally, the law concerning joint and several liability is worth noting. Defendants found liable in actions arising out of medical negligence or environmental contamination are jointly and severally liable for all damages to which plaintiff is entitled. 735 ILCS 5/2- 1118. For all other personal injury and wrongful death actions, liable defendants are jointly and severally liable for plaintiff’s past and future medical expenses. 735 ILCS 5/2- 1117. Additionally, liable defendants are jointly and severally liable for all other damages to which plaintiff is entitled if their fault is 25% or greater of the total fault attributable to the plaintiff, the defendants sued by the plaintiff, and any third party defendant except the plaintiff’s employer. Id. In calculating the total fault for purposes of joint and several liability, good-faith settling defendants that have been dismissed from the THE DEFINITIVE GUIDE TO AMERICA’S LEADING LITIGATION FIRMS & ATTORNEYS 79
Page 1 and 2: ILLINOIS Local litigation firms Hig
Page 3: Illinois Illinois has seen litigati
Page 7: 20 North Clark Street, Suite 3500,

Illinois - Wexler Wallace LLP

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?