Chicago Personal Injury Attorneys Blog

Medical malpractice in misdiagnosis of cancer is unfortunately common in Illinois and other states. Diagnosing cancer correctly at the earliest stages is crucial to having a good outcome. At its earliest stages, cancer can often be cured by surgery radiation and other treatments.

Unfortunately the pressures of competitive medicine, insurance industry demands and other factors may limit the attention that hospitals and doctors will give to each patient, letting serious mistakes happen.

No one wants to consider legal action against corporations that own hospitals. But families can often be left destitute by the preventable and untimely loss of a spouse or parent.

People usually cannot tell, on their own, if medical malpractice occurred in diagnosing the cancer. Our firm can help to identify medical malpractice from review of medical records. We help compensate victims and bring hospitals and their employees to justice. For a free and confidential consultation, please contact one of our trial attorneys.

Illinois personal injury lawyers have filed product liability lawsuits involving the Yaz and Yasmin birth control pills. Yasmin is sold under the Ocella and Zarah brands. Yaz is sold under the Gianvi brand name. Bayer Corporation, previously known as Berlex Laboratories, Inc. and Berlex, Inc., manufactures these birth control pills. These products liability lawsuits alleging injuries to women taking birth control are consolidated in the Southern District of Illinois . The Illinois personal injury lawyers' pleadings allege a number of serious injuries, including a greater risk of death, stroke, heart attack, pulmonary embolysm, (PE) deep vein thrombosis, (DVT), and gallbladder disease. Unlike other birth control pills, Yaz and Yasmin are combined oral birth control pills that contain the chemicals ethinyl estradiol and droperinone.

My partner, who is both a chemical engineer and a trial lawyer, and I have studied reports of the injury these pills may cause. Drospirenone, or drsp, negatively effects the body's own balance between salt and water, thereby increasing potassium levels. This condition is commonly known as hyperkalemia. Hyperkalemia often leads to potentially life-threatening health issues, namely serious heart problems. Yasmin and Yaz may endanger otherwise healthy young women to a risk of major and even fatal injuries.

For the plaintiffs' personal injury attorneys to recover damages for their injured clients they will have to prove that the Yasmin and Yaz birth control pills caused these injuries. Having litigated other federal cases involving complex scientific issues, I foresee that the cases will be won or lost on the strength of victims' lawyer's expert testimony. The plaintiff's expert should produce an expert report under Rule 26 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Experienced products liability lawyers would likely have their experts support their conclusion that Yaz and Yasmine caused these injuries using both a statistical correlation analysis as well as a direct theory of causation. They must defend their experts' opinions at depositions and trial from the manufacturer's cross examination.

According to lawsuits filed by victims' product liability lawyers, Yasmin and Yaz side effects could increase the risks of:
Heart Attacks
Strokes
Cardiac Arrhythmias
Deep Vein Thrombosis (DVT)
Pulmonary Embolism (PE)
Gallbladder Disease
Sudden Death

If you or someone you know, have taken Yaz or Yasmine, please contact our firm for a free initial consultation.

Contingency fee patent attorneys have won a victory for a small tech company . The U.S. Supreme Court upheld a $290 million patent infringement verdict against Microsoft which was appealed from Judge Leonard Davis. This is the largest patent verdict ever affirmed on appeal.

My opinion, in having litigated patent cases in front of Judge Davis, is that he is a very capable jurist. On one level, the complete affirming of this case by the two higher courts is not surprising. But the unanimous opinion by the Supreme Court (there were a number of concurrences and Chief Justice Roberts recused himself) goes contrary to the recent trend of Supreme Court opinions favoring alleged patent infringers over small inventors and their contingency fee patent attorneys.

The Supreme Court was asked to rule on the issue of what standard of proof should apply to invalidating a patent. A patent issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office is presumed valid. Invalidity is a defense asserted in virtually all patent infringement suits. Defendants will generally allege that a patent is invalid either because the patent office either improperly analyzed the prior art or did not consider relevant prior art. Courts have consistently ruled that the party seeking to invalidate the patent must prove invalidity by clear and convincing evidence.

Microsoft sought a lower standard of preponderance of the evidence in invalidating patents. It argued that the statute did not explicitly state the standard of proof. The default standard is therefore preponderance. It also argued that, even if the Court upheld the clear and convincing standard for prior art that the patent office considered, a lower standard is appropriate for prior art not considered by the patent office.

The second argument is interesting. It initially sounds reasonable that if the patent office did not consider an item of prior art, then the patent office's decision should not be given deference. But any experienced patent litigator will tell you that it is never that straightforward. There are numerous closely related items of prior art that are cumulative to each other. If this decision had gone the other way, patent prosecutors would have flooded the patent office with every conceivable document. Attorneys representing patent infringement defendants would then argue that the inventor "hid" the most damaging prior art by "burying" it in Information Disclosure Statements dozens of pages long. The Court did, however, suggest that a jury instruction advising the jury that an item of prior art was not considered by the patent office would be appropriate.

This decision supports inventorship and entrepreneurship by giving individuals and small companies access to justice. Contingency fee patent attorneys are more likely to risk time and money to represent individual inventors and small companies, who cannot afford the exorbitant legal fees that experienced patent litigators normally charge, if they know that the courts will not easily invalidate patents.

Products Liability lawyers have won a $30 million dollar jury award in California against a boat manufacturing company for causing serious personal injury to 27 year old Niki Bell. Since products liability cases are among the most challenging of personal injury cases for even the most aggressive trial lawyers, this is a good result.

During a low speed turn, Niki Bell was thrown into the water and suffered severe injuries to her head. Ms. Bell's personal injury/products liability lawyers alleged that the MasterCraft Boat Company was negligent in its design of the MasterCraft X45 . The X45 had a design flaw which caused the front end of the craft to partially submerge during low speed turns. This partial submerging is what caused Ms. Bell to be thrown off the boat and suffer catastrophic injuries.

There are several reason why products liability cases are among the most difficult of personal injury cases. First, the injured plaintiff must show that the defendant was negligent in the design or manufacture of the boat. As a practical matter, the plaintiff's attorneys must master very complex engineering knowledge to challenge the defense's experts. Since my partner and I have backgrounds in engineering and also litigate patent cases involving sophisticated technology, this is natural for us. But most lawyers, even the most aggressive personal injury lawyers, may shy away from these kinds of products liability cases.

Secondly, the defendants will attempt to argue that even if the product was defective and caused catastrophic injuries, there were no reasonable alternative designs within reasonable design and cost constraints. It takes a very aggressive trial lawyer to challenge the defense's engineering experts on these points. Niki Bells attorneys were able to use the tools of discovery to find out that MasterCraft Boat Company took two existing boats and combined them. They made the boat very large so a lot of people could be in it. When the boat dips, the water pours in and the front can be submerged. The defendant apparently never conducted a thorough engineering analysis of the new design.

Having personally tried more than 200 cases, I believe that the defendant's failure to conduct a thorough analysis is a major reason for the victory. I know that juries come down hardest on someone who completely fails to do something, rather than on someone who just makes an honest mistake.

The third reason why products liability cases are among the most challenging of personal injury cases is that the defendants will try to point the finger at someone else. Here MasterCraft argued that the boat operator Jerry Montz had been drinking at the time of the accident and registered a blood-alcohol level of 0.04 percent. He was arrested after the July 9, 2006, accident and later pleaded no contest to negligent operation of a watercraft. There is a strategy that smart personal injury and products liability lawyers use when a defendant tries to blame someone else.I will elaborate on this strategy in a different post.

Patients who received a DePuy ASR hip replacement face a high risk of hip failure or other complications due to problems with the design of the metal-on-metal hip implant. Serious injuries have occured due to negligence in the design of the DePuy hip replacement system. (Also called the DePuy ASR hip replacement system). This could cause thousands of people to experience devastating hip pain and potentially require additional surgery to replace the DePuy ASR hip implant.

What Are The Dangers Of A DePuy ASR Hip Implant?
There is approximately a one in eight chance of a DePuy hip implant failing and requiring surgery. 90,000 DePuy ASR Hips have been sold worldwide. Over 11,000 people could require additional hip replacement surgery due to the defective design of this implant.

There have also been reports of metal becoming exposed to the tissues of the body and causing damage to the bone and tissue near the hip implant, and causing a loosening of the hip. About 3.4% of all DePuy hip replacement recipients have suffered serious injuries due to metal debris from the implant.

How Did The Defective Product Come To Be Created?
How did DePuy Orthopedics produce a hip replacement system with such design defects? DePuy Orthopedics is a subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson, Inc. which has an extensive history of designing medical devices. Having backgrounds in both engineering and law, the product liability litigators of our firm understand how negligently of products with serious design defects can occur in even the best corporations.

But first, a little background on the DePuy ASR hip replacement system. The hip replacement system uses a metal on metal hip implant. There several advantages to using metal in medical devices. A metal such as stainless steel or titanium is extremely strong and light. There is a great deal of engineering experience using metal ball and socket systems in industry. These systems can often be translated directly into replacing ball and socket systems in the human body. But the most important advantage of metal encased in the proper housing is that it is usually biocompatible. That is to say, the human body will not reject it. To see the problems which can occur with non-bioinert materials in the human body, one need look no further than the silicon breast implant product liability cases which bankrupted Dow Corning due to the injuries that it caused to its patients by the negligent design and manufacture of this product.

But metal on metal systems can develop problems, especially in medical devices where it is impossible to lubricate the joint on a continuous basis. (This would require, further surgeries).

What Is The Best Thing For Depuy Patients To Do?Most DePuy ASR hip replacement patients will not suffer injuries. But all should speak with a physician and ensure that they look out for the symptoms of injuries hip pain, swelling of the hip and problems walking. Even those patients who do not suffer from severe injuries should consult with an attorney.

It would be best if all of the DePuy patients could be combined into a class action lawsuit and represented by a single outstanding law firm. But the law does not allow a case where different people suffer all kinds of different personal injuries to be combined into a single class action lawsuit. Each DePuy ASR hip replacement recipient must find his or her own attorney to represent his or her interests.

If you or someone you know has had a DePuy hip implant, even if you do not yet have symptoms, please contact our firm for a free initial consultation.

An injured worker with carpal tunnel syndrome had his claims upheld by the Illinois appellate court in the case of City of Springfield, Illinois v. Illinois Workers' Compensation Commission 2006 MR 643. The workers' compensation claimant was injured at work while employed for the city government. The injured worker sought compensation for repetitive wrist, elbow, and arm trauma injuries pursuant to the Workers' Compensation Act (820 ILCS 305/1 et seq.) The Workers' Compensation arbitrator found that the injured worker suffered an accidental injury arising out of the and in the course of his employment. The Workers' Compensation arbitrator found that the injured worker's bilateral carpal tunnel, bilateral cubital tunnel, and bilatelar pronator syndromes were causally related to a work accident.

An accident at work caused the claimant's personal injury and the arbitrator awarded damages, pursuant to section 8(a)of the Workers' Compensation Act, for past medical expenses as well as prospective medical benefits consisting of several surgical procedures.

The respondent employer did not want to pay damages and challenged whether the injuries were in fact caused by the accident at work. The Illinois Workers' Compensation Commission, Circuit Court and Appellate Court all upheld the verdict in favor of the injured worker.

Cases like this one, where the cause of the medical condition is disputed, are common in workers' compensation, personal injury, medical malpractice, wrongful death and products liability cases. The attorneys of JK Law Firm are highly skilled trial lawyers who also have scientific backgrounds. We can help an arbitrator, judge or jury understand medical evidence to help people who are injured. If you, or someone you know has been injured, please contact us for a free evaluation.

An injured salesman for Ameritech had his workers' compensation claim allowed by the Illinois Workers' Compensation Commission and affirmed by the Circuit Court of Cook County (Chicago) and further affirmed by the Illinois Appellate Court. Ameritech Services, Inc. v. Illinois Workers' Compensation Commission, et al. 07 L 50687.
The injured worker was employed as an account executive and his job entailed selling telephone equipment and services to business customers in the Chicago suburbs in the O'Hare airport region. The injured worker worked from home and communicated with Ameritech by computer, telephone, and fax machine pursuant to Ameritech's "Telework" policy. The injured worker used his personal automobile while working.
During a sales call, the injured worker carried his computer and equipment on his right shoulder as he walked down the stairs from his apartment to his car. He experienced a sharp pain in his lower back as he walked down the stairs. The dropped the equipment that he was carrying and went back to his apartment to lie down, hoping the pain would pass.
The emergency room physician at Northwestern Memorial Hospital diagnosed back strain, prescribed Vicodin and referred him to an orthopedic surgeon. The orthopedic surgeon determined that the injured worker had 50% reduction in his lumbosacral flexion and ordered an MRI. The MRI revealed diffuse degeneration of the vertebrae and chronic disc herniation. The doctor diagnosed the workers' compensation claimant with bulging discs "aggravated as a result of a work related injury".
Ameritech had the injured worker examined by its own doctor who disputed the first doctor's recommendations. The Illinois Workers' Compensation Commission sided with the injured worker and was affirmed by the Circuit Court of Cook County (Chicago) and the Illinois Appellate Court.
This case shows that, telecommuters, sales professionals and office workers can receive workers' compensation injury awards.
Cases like this one, where one medical expert disagrees with another are common in workers' compensation, personal injury, medical malpractice, wrongful death and products liability cases. The attorneys of JK Law Firm are highly skilled trial lawyers who also have scientific backgrounds. We can effectively cross examine an opposing doctor and help an arbitrator, judge or jury understand medical evidence in order to help people who are injured. If you, or someone you know has been injured, please contact us for a free evaluation.

Cancer misdiagnosis medical malpractice is unfortunately common in Illinois and other states. Diagnosing cancer correctly at the earliest stages is crucial to having a good outcome. At its earliest stages, cancer can often be cured by surgery, radiation and other treatments.

Unfortunately the pressures of competitive medicine, insurance industry demands and other factors may limit the attention that hospitals and doctors will give to each patient, letting serious mistakes happen.

No one wants to consider legal action against corporations that own hospitals. But families can often be left destitute by the preventable and untimely loss of a spouse or parent.

People usually cannot tell, on their own, if medical malpractice occurred in diagnosing the cancer. Our firm can help to identify medical malpractice from review of medical records. We help compensate victims and bring hospitals and their employees to justice. For a free and confidential consultation, please contact one of our trial attorneys.