DBMS Lawyers Score Wins in Recent Cases

In recent cases, DBMS lawyers obtained successful results on behalf of their clients.

On October 17, 2008, the Illinois Supreme Court reversed a $27 million verdict and granted a new trial to a product manufacturer represented by Mark H. Boyle and Karen Kies DeGrand.

In Mikolajczyk v. Ford Motor Co., et al., Docket No. 104983 (Ill. October 17, 2008), a case tried by Mark H. Boyle, the Illinois Supreme Court has issued a decision that establishes the necessity of instructing the jury on the elements of the “risk-utility” test relevant to the defense of a product’s design. Mr. Boyle and Karen Kies DeGrand, who heads DBMS’ appellate practice, were part of the defense team that ultimately prevailed in the supreme court.

The plaintiff’s decedent, James Mikolajczyk, was killed when a speeding drunk driver slammed his 4,000-pound Cadillac into the Mikolajczyk vehicle, a 1996 Ford Escort. At trial, the plaintiff proceeded on a strict product liability theory and alleged that the driver’s seat of the Escort was defectively designed, because the seat collapsed when the Escort was struck from the rear. Plaintiff contended that a non-yielding seat would have prevented the death. Ford defended the design of the Escort’s front seat with evidence that a yielding seat’s utility far outweighed its risks, and that no feasible design could have prevented the death of the plaintiff’s decedent given the violent impact. Ford presented evidence that 95 percent of rear-end collisions occur at low speeds, and that, at low speeds, a yielding seat provides much more protection than the rigid seat advocated by the plaintiff.

Based upon the parties’ competing evidence concerning the risks and utility of yielding seats, Ford proposed non-pattern jury instructions addressing the concept of alternate feasible design and instructing the jury that when determining the reasonableness of a product’s design, the overall safety of a product must be considered. The trial court refused Ford’s proposed instructions and gave the jury pattern instructions that focused solely on the consumer expectations test and ignored Ford’s risk-utility defense. In the absence of an instruction to balance the risks and benefits of the seat design or to consider the feasibility of alternative designs, the jury returned a verdict of $27 million; most of the award, $25 million, constituted the jury’s calculation of loss of society damages.

On appeal, the appellate court agreed with Ford’s argument that the jury’s loss of society award was excessive, and should be substantially reduced by the trial court. See Mikolajczyk v. Ford Motor Co., 374 Ill. App. 3d 646 (1st Dist. 2007). Other than to reverse and remand the loss of society award, the appellate court affirmed the circuit court’s judgment.

After the supreme court accepted Ford’s petition for review, the plaintiff cross-appealed for reinstatement of the entire $25 million loss of society award. The supreme court reversed and remanded the case for a new trial, because the trial court abused its discretion by refusing Ford’s non-pattern instructions pertaining to the risk-utility test. The court ruled that, if either party presents evidence sufficient to require the jury to engage in a risk-utility analysis, the instructions should reflect that the consumer expectation test represents but one factor in a broader, integrated risk-utility analysis. Where a product liability defendant introduces evidence that no feasible alternative design exists or that the product’s design presents benefits that outweigh its risk, the defendant is entitled to a corresponding jury instruction, regardless of the plaintiff’s election to frame its case in terms of consumer expectations.

On October 2, 2008, a Cook County jury returned a verdict in favor of three defendant emergency room physicians represented by Donald J. Brown, Jr.

A 26-year old mother of two came to the emergency room complaining of a headache. She had a complicated medical history and was pregnant. She had no fever, neck pain or altered mental signs. Over approximately seven hours in the ER, attempts were made to treat the headache and diagnose what was causing it. Despite their efforts, the emergency room doctors did not did not reach a diagnosis. They brought in the neurology service and, finally, when the patient began seizing after a CT and an MRI, the neurosurgery service was asked to assist. Ultimately, the patient was pronounced dead two days later. Upon post-mortem examination, the cause of death was determined to be bacterial meningitis. This was never diagnosed and the doctors were criticized for failing to do certain types of tests. The defense was based on the reasonableness of the actions taken, given the patient’s presentation and medical history.

On September 23, 2008 a Cook County jury returned a verdict in favor of defendant ophthalmologists represented by Richard B. Foster and Timothy L. Hogan.

A 40 year old female pharmaceutical salesperson underwent lasik surgery to both eyes for myopic astigmatism in 1998, with enhancement surgery performed on both eyes in 1999. She alleged that the defendant surgeon and practice failed to properly measure her pupil size in dim light and thus discover her abnormally large pupil, and that the practice as a result failed to inform her of her enhanced risk of developing night vision problems following surgery. She claimed "night blindness" after surgery caused by halo and starburst effects in low light conditions which disabled her from driving or working at night, and severely impaired all dim light activities. We contended that her dim light pupil size had been repeatedly and accurately measured and found to be normal, that she was informed of all risks of the procedure, and that a larger than normal pupil measured by subsequent ophthalmologists was caused by her chronic use of antihistamine and antidepressant medications. We further contended that any link between mesopic pupil size and enhanced lasik night vision risk had been disproven by multiple studies. Plaintiff asked the jury for $2.5 million, while the jury deliberated for less than one hour before returning a defense verdict.

Kent Mathewson and Tanya Poth achieved a defense victory before a Cook County jury on September 18, 2008.

During a trial before Judge Debra Dooling, the plaintiff alleged that the defendant pathologists had failed to properly interpret biopsy specimens and conduct further inquiry to avoid a false positive diagnosis of mucinous adenocarcinoma in the 56-year-old plaintiff’s rectum. It was alleged that the misdiagnosis led to the unnecessary removal of the plaintiff’s rectum and descending colon and the creation of a permanent and irreversible colostomy. At the time of trial, the plaintiff was 61 years old and sought $11.8 million dollars in damages from the jury. The defense successfully argued that reasonable care had been utilized in interpreting the pathology specimens and that the diagnostic criteria for cancer were present on the specimens.

On July 2, 2008, a Cook County jury returned a verdict in favor of an otolaryngologist represented by Robert W. Smyth, Jr. and Kristin M. Gruss.

During the spring of 2000, the plaintiff's decedent, an orthopedic surgeon at a local hospital, began experiencing nose bleeds. He was seen once by the co-defendant, who cauterized the nose bleed and discovered a large mass in the decedent's nose. The co-defendant instructed the decedent to follow up with the firm's client for further examination and treatment. However, the decedent failed to do so, and in October 2000 was diagnosed with an olfactory neuroblastoma. He died in October 2002 due to complications from the olfactory neuroblastoma.

Plaintiff alleged that the decedent had actually treated with the firm's client, despite any evidence in support of such a claim, and that the firm's client failed to biopsy the nasal mass, thus delaying the cancer diagnosis. Defendants were barred by the Dead Man's Act from introducing evidence of various conversations that the firm's client had with the decedent, exhorting the decedent to come in to the office for examination and treatment. Defendants argued that had the patient returned to the office for examination and treatment, as instructed, then the mass would have been biopsied and the cancer diagnosed earlier.

The jury returned a verdict in favor of the defendants.

On June 27, 2008, a Cook County jury rendered a verdict in favor of an orthopedic surgeon represented by Richard H. Donohue and Anthony M. Pinto.

On January 8, 1998, plaintiff underwent a total knee arthroplasty at West Suburban Hospital, performed by the defendant orthopedic surgeon. Plaintiff’s past medical history was significant for diabetes and a prior high tibial osteotomy to the same knee. As a result, he was at an elevated risk for slow wound healing and infection. Plaintiff’s incision site continued to drain until early February 1998. At that time, the incision closed and healed with the exception of an approximately one-inch eschar at the distal end of the incision. From February 1998 through May 1998, plaintiff gradually improved, in that his pain level decreased and his range of motion improved. However, the eschar remained. On June 1, 1998, plaintiff developed an acute infection in the knee, leading to eight additional surgeries. The additional surgeries included multiple debridements, hardware removal, a muscle flap and ultimately fusion of the knee joint.

Plaintiff alleged that the defendant was negligent in failing to close the incision site completely at any point between the date of surgery and June 1, 1998. According to plaintiff, the closure could have been done by removing the eschar and either approximating the skin or consulting a plastic surgeon for consideration of a muscle flap. Plaintiff’s argued that, had the defendant done so, the infection would not have developed, the total knee arthroplasty would have been a complete success and the subsequent medical care, including hardware removal and fusion, would not have been necessary.

The defense argued that the defendant acted appropriately in conservatively managing the incision site post-operatively. Specifically, the incision, including the eschar, was gradually improving and, as a result, it would have been poor medical judgment to surgically remove the eschar and attempt to close the skin with additional surgery, which may not have been successful. The defense further argued that the sole proximate cause of plaintiff’s infection and subsequent course was an incident in which he soaked the incision site while working in or around his pool the weekend before the infection, as documented in the defendant’s office chart.

The jury returned a defense verdict in less than one hour.

On May 23, 2008, a Cook County jury rendered a verdict in favor of a cardiothoracic surgeon represented by Anthony M. Pinto and Kristin M. Gruss.

Plaintiff's decedent, William Nesper, a 73 year old retiree, was admitted to a local hospital on July 5, 2001, for mitral valve repair surgery, an open heart procedure, performed by the firm's client. He did well for the first week following surgery, then began developing a rare form of pneumonia called bronchiolitis obliterans organizing pneumonia. This is a rare inflammatory reaction which results in destruction of the bronchioles and respiratory failure. Once diagnosed, this was treated appropriately. Unfortunately, after initial improvement, the patient again declined and died on August 9, 2001. Plaintiff alleged that the patient developed endocarditis, an infection of the heart, although there were no clinical signs or symptoms of any such infection and the blood cultures were negative for a blood stream infection. Plaintiff further alleged that the mitral valve repair surgery was improperly performed. The firm's client, a well-known cardiothoracic surgeon, denied that he performed the surgery improperly and denied that the patient had endocarditis. A Cook County jury returned a verdict in favor of the defendant.

On May 14, 2008, a Cook County jury returned a not guilty verdict in favor of a Cardiologist and Cardiologist group represented by Stetson F. Atwood.

In May, 2001 the 39 year old plaintiff went to his chiropractor stating that he believed he “popped a rib” while playing golf the previous day. Plaintiff also complained of having chest pains the previous evening. The chiropractor would not treat the plaintiff until a cardiologist had evaluated him. Plaintiff went to the cardiologist the same day and tests were performed at the hospital’s ER to rule out a heart attack. After several tests, a chest x-ray revealed a 4.5 centimeter calcified mass, which the doctors described as an incidental finding. Plaintiff denied he was ever informed of the mass or that he was to follow-up with the doctor within 14 days. The printed discharge instructions contained errors, in telling the plaintiff to follow up with his family doctor. There was no mention of the mass in the discharge instructions and plaintiff had no knowledge of the mass. Three years later in a visit to the cardiologist complaining of chest pain and difficulty breathing, the cardiologist opened the plaintiff’s chart and found the x-ray report. Defendant cardiologist claims never to have previously seen the report. The tumor had grown from 4.5 centimeters to 19 centimeters and accelerated from a Stage I or II to Stage IV. Plaintiff underwent surgery for the removal of the tumor and portions of his lung and other organs it affected. Plaintiff had a reduced life expectancy. Defendant cardiologist denied the ER ever informed him of the mass and that he had never seen the x-ray report. Records showing the doctor’s “two check mark” system indicated otherwise. Plaintiff contended the hospital was negligent in informing him of the mass, failing to confirm he understood the significance of the finding, failing to inform the cardiologist of the finding, and failing to print our proper discharge instructions. Defense for the hospital argued that, based on custom and practice, the plaintiff would have been told about the finding, the cardiologist was informed via telephone and the report was delivered to the correct doctor. The jury deliberated approximately 5 hours before delivering a not guilty on all defendants.

On May 1, a Cook County jury rendered a verdict in favor of a fertility clinic represented by Kristin M. Gruss.

Plaintiff underwent several cycles of fertility treatments with the co-defendant doctor (a reproductive endocrinologist) at the defendant fertility clinic, represented by Kristin M. Gruss. Plaintiff signed several sets of consent forms which specifically set out the risks of treatment, and the medical records of the clinic documented numerous conversations between the co-defendant doctor, the nurse at the clinic, and the plaintiff in which the possible risks and complications of fertility treatments were discussed. During her ninth cycle of treatment, the plaintiff experienced one of the complications of fertility treatment of which she had been warned, and was hospitalized. She later sued, alleging that the defendants had failed to obtain her informed consent. A Cook County jury returned a verdict in favor of the defendants.

On April 30, 2008, a Cook County jury rendered a verdict in favor of an orthopaedic surgeon and his practice group who were represented by Sherri M. Arrigo and Todd J. Stalmack.

Plaintiff, a 35 year-old Chicago police officer, was evaluated in the office by the defendant after he injured his ankle on the job. The defendant diagnosed the plaintiff with a moderate to severe medial ankle sprain and placed a short leg walking cast and recommended a follow-up office visit in one month. Plaintiff alleged that he called defendant's office three days after the initial visit and complained of excruciating pain and swelling at the top of the cast. Although no office record documented the phone call, defendant did not dispute that plaintiff called the office with complaints of pain based on pharmacy records which showed plaintiff filled a prescription for pain medicine prescribed by defendant on that day. Defendant testifed that it is not unusal for a patient to complain of some increased pain and swelling after a walking cast is placed and that these complaints typically resolve with elevation, rest and pain medication. Defendant agreed that the standard of care required an immediate examination if plaintiff had complained of excruciating pain and severe swelling but further testified that his office would have instructed plaintiff to be seen immediately had such complaints been made. The defendant's nurse also instructed the plaintiff to come to the office or go to the emergency room if the pain or swelling persisted. Plaintiff returned for his scheduled follow-up visit in the office one month later and the cast was removed. The defendant examined the ankle after the cast was removed and found the ankle to be normal. Plaintiff saw the defendant for a follow-up visit one month after the removal of the cast and complained of increasing pain around the ankle. An examination revealed two small nodules around the ankle. The defendant ordered a venous ultrasound which revealed acute superficial venous thrombosis and acute deep venous thrombosis which the defendant treated with medication. Plaintiff continued to have complaints of pain and swelling in his leg and the defendant eventually refered plaintiff to his primary care physician and general surgeon who performed a series of vein stripping surgeries in an attempt to relieve the pain and swelling.

Plaintiff alleged that the defendant failed to see the plaintiff in his office when plaintiff called with complaints of pain and swelling three days after the defendant placed the cast. Plaintiff further alleged that as a result of the defendant's failure to evaluate him in the office, defendant failed to diagnose superficial venous thrombosis and deep venous thrombosis, which led to the development of deep venous insufficiency, several vein stripping surgeries and ultimately the development of a chronic regional pain syndrome. The defense argued that it was within the standard of care to prescribe pain medications and instruct the patient to follow-up given the patient's complaints. The defense further argued that according to the defendant's exams and the venous ultrasound reports, the deep venous thrombosis and superficial venous thrombosis did not develop until after the cast was removed and therefore was not present when plaintiff called defendant's office three days after the cast was placed. During closing arguments, plaintiff's counsel asked the jury to award the plaintiff over $1.0 million dollars for 8 years of lost wages and pain and suffering. The jury deliberated for 35 minutes before returning a verdict in favor of the defendant.

On April 1, 2008, a Cook County jury rendered a verdict in favor of an emergency room physician represented by Sherri M. Arrigo and James D. Sloan.

The decedent, a 32-year-old male, presented to the emergency department with a chief complaint of chest pain radiating to the left side of the back and was evaluated by the defendant, an emergency room physician. The patient rated the pain as a six (6) on a scale of one to ten. When the defendant spoke with the patient, the patient indicated that his chest and back pain was improving, but that he also was experiencing epigastric pain. The decedent also reported that, the day prior, he had worked out on an abdominal machine and ate a heavy meal. After an EKG ruled out a myocardial infarction, the defendant diagnosed gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), which is heartburn, and instructed the patient to return to the emergency department if his condition worsened. The patient collapsed at work three days later and died, the cause of death being an aortic dissection. It was undisputed that the patient had an aortic dissection at the time of the emergency department presentation, but the defense argued that the patient’s complaints and symptoms were extremely atypical of aortic dissection. The defense further argued that the patient was taking the workout supplement Ephedra but failed to report his Ephedra use to the defendant. Defense counsel maintained that, had the defendant known about the decedent’s Ephedra use, the defendant would have consulted a cardiologist and had the patient admitted to the hospital. Defense counsel further argued that, by increasing the blood pressure, the Ephedra use contributed to causing the aortic dissection. During closing arguments, plaintiff’s counsel asked the jury to award the plaintiff, the decedent’s mother, $13.5 million. The jury deliberated for 1.5 hours before returning a verdict in favor of the defendants.

On March 31, 2008, the Illinois Appellate Court affirmed a trial court judgment after a jury verdict for the defendant automotive manufacturer represented by John Krivicich and Karen DeGrand.

At trial, the jury rendered a verdict for the manufacturer and found that the driver was the sole proximate cause of an accident in which a minivan rolled over, killing four people and severely injuring a fifth person. Plaintiffs claimed that the minivan had defective handling and stability. The Appellate Court rejected plaintiffs’ contentions that the judgment and verdict should be reversed because of certain evidentiary rulings by the judge. Plaintiffs were also rebuffed in their request for a new trial. They had asked the jury to award them in excess of twenty-nine million dollars at the time of the trial.

On February 22, 2008 a Cook County jury found in favor of an obstetrician-gynecologist represented by Sherri M. Arrigo and Kristin M. Gruss.

Sherri M. Arrigo and Kristin M. Gruss recently obtained a verdict in favor of the firm's client, an obstetrician-gynecologist, and his group. The plaintiff was admitted to Gottlieb Memorial Hospital on December 4, 2001, in labor with her first child. She received her prenatal care from the firm's client. She was diagnosed with gestational diabetes during the pregnancy. During the delivery at issue, shoulder dystocia was encountered. Our client performed the proper maneuvers and used the appropriate amount of traction to accomplish delivery. The infant was diagnosed with a left brachial plexus injury after birth. Plaintiff argued that the defendant used excessive force in delivering the infant. The jury returned a verdict of not guilty.

On January 25, 2008 a Cook County jury found in favor of an orthopedic surgeon represented by Mark M. Burden and Todd J. Stalmack.

The defendant performed an elective two level spine fusion to treat the plaintiff’s chronic low back pain. The plaintiff at the time of surgery was a 33-year old baggage handler for United Airlines. Plaintiff initially did well after the fusion, but then the fusion failed, which is a recognized complication of the procedure. The plaintiff underwent a subsequent surgical procedure by another surgeon to revise the fusion, and unfortunately after that the plaintiff developed a significant infection, which led to four additional surgical procedures. The plaintiff claimed that his ability to perform a job as a baggage handler was significantly impaired and he missed seven years of work after the initial surgery but by the time of trial had to return to work on a part-time basis. The plaintiff also claimed that because of the alleged negligence he now suffers from permanent, chronic and disabling back pain and left radiculopathy. The plaintiff’s experts testified at trial that the fusion procedure was not indicated and should not have been performed because the defendant physician did not prescribe a sufficient course of conservative treatment prior to surgery. The defense successfully argued that the plaintiff’s long standing history of chronic back pain and prior treatment by other physicians over a significant period of time, along with positive radiographic imaging studies formed a sufficient basis to recommend a fusion procedure to treat the patient’s condition. The jury deliberated for about three hours before rendering a verdict in favor the defendant.

On November 15, 2007, the Second District Appellate Court affirmed the dismissal with prejudice of an estate planning attorney represented by John J. Duffy.

The case involved a failure to draft a trust agreement and will to take advantage of the unlimited gift tax marital deduction in section 2523 of the Internal Revenue Code. The estate planning attorney's client was a wealthy individual with properties in Illinois, Colorado and California. The estate planning documents gave the decedent's children from his first marriage a right of first refusal and access to the properties during specified periods of time. The estate claimed in its suit against the attorney that giving such access and limited control over the California and Colorado properties potentially waived the tax benefits of the marital deduction. Mr. Duffy successfully dismissed the complaint arguing that it was filed just outside the strict and truncated statute of limitations applicable to lawyers drafting estate planning documents. The trial court granted the motion and dismissed the case with prejudice. The Second District affirmed.

On November 2, 2007, a Cook County jury found in favor of the firm's client, an OB/GYN, represented by Sherri M. Arrigo and Kathryn Stalmack.

The defendant performed an elective dilation and evacuation procedure ("D & E") to terminate the plaintiff's second trimester pregnancy due to fetal anomalies. In the recovery room after the D & E, the patient developed signs of uterine hemorrhage and was returned to surgery, where two uterine perforations and a bowel injury were repaired. The patient was stable overnight in the intensive care unit but developed signs of bleeding again the following morning and was returned to the operating room for a third surgery, during which the defendant OB/GYN performed a hysterectomy to control uterine bleeding. As a result, the 27-year old plaintiff is unable to bear more children. It was undisputed that the uterine injuries were caused by the D & E; however, the plaintiff's expert acknowledged that uterine perforation is a known risk of D & E and did not criticize the defendant's performance of that procedure. Plaintiff alleged that the defendant negligently failed to suture the perforation during the third surgery and performed an unnecessary hysterectomy. The defense successfully argued that bleeding could not be controlled despite reasonable conservative measures and the hysterectomy was not only necessary, but life-saving. The jury deliberated for two hours, inclusive of lunch, and returned a verdict in favor of the defendant.

On October 25, 2007, a Cook County jury found in favor of the firm's client, a Hospitalist physician, represented by Richard B. Foster and Timothy L. Hogan.

The defendant, an internist employed as a hospitalist, began anticoagulation therapy on a 79 year old inpatient because of atrial fibrillation, a past history of old stroke that was previously undiscovered, and because of multiple DVTs found during a hospitalization for pneumonia and broken ribs suffered in a fall. The patient was concurrently given aspirin, Lovenox, and Coumadin, which plaintiff claimed was contraindicated. The patient died of a large retroperitoneal bleed. The jury returned a defense verdict after only 40 minutes of deliberations.

On October 22, 2007, a Cook County jury found in favor of the firm's client, a nationally reknown electrophysiologist (a specialist in cardiac arrythmias), represented by Robert W. Smyth, Jr. and Kathryn Stalmack.

The case involved the performance of a cardiac ablation on a three year old boy. A complication occurred during the ablation procedure which left the boy with permanent heart block and the need for a surgically implanted pacemaker for the rest of his life. The attorney representing the young boy requested a verdict in the amount of $7million. The case was tried from October 5 until October 22, 2007. The jury returned a verdict in favor of the defendant.

On October 17, 2007, a Cook County jury found in favor of the firm's client, a bariatric surgeon, represented by Sherri M. Arrigo and L. Michael Tarpey.

Plaintiff alleged that the defendant failed to initiate IV antibiotics and transfer 34-year old female patient (employed wife and mother of two young children) to ICU when she developed a fever and abnormal vital signs one day after defendant performed gastric bypass surgery. The defendant ordered lab work, increased IV fluids, medications, and a STAT upper GI x-ray, which was negative for a surgical leak. Upon return from x-ray, the patient's vital signs were improved and she reported feeling better. However, approximately two hours later, nurses found the patient in bed, unresponsive, pulseless and not breathing. Resuscitation efforts were unsuccessful. Blood culture results came back after the death showing three different types of bacteria in the bloodstream. An autopsy revealed massive liver necrosis. Plaintiff claimed that the patient died of sepsis resulting in acute liver failure. Defendant successfully argued that defendant complied with the standard of care, the patient was not clinically septic, and the patient's acute liver failure and death were caused by non-oxidative stress from surgery in a morbidly obese patient. Plaintiff's counsel had asked the jury to award in excess of $8 million.

In August 2007, Circuit Court of Cook County found in favor of the firm’s client, an OB/GYN, represented by Richard H. Donohue and Sherri M. Arrigo.

Plaintiff alleged that the defendant OB/GYN failed to timely deliver her baby, causing hypoxic ischemic injury and resulting in infant's death three months after birth. Defense successfully argued that the labor was primarily managed by a midwife, and the defendant OB/GYN responded promptly when he was consulted and delivered the baby as quickly and safely as possible. The jury returned a verdict in favor of the defendant.

On July 9, 2007, Circuit Court of DuPage County Judge Elsner granted a motion for summary judgment in favor of the firm’s client, a leading truck manufacturer, represented by L. Michael Tarpey.

The plaintiff claimed breach of an employment contract and a right of first refusal to purchase a leading truck manufacturer's dealership should the dealership ever be sold to a third-party. Plaintiff was the general manager of the facility and alleged he was frozen out of any deals. After taking over twenty depositions, defense filed a motion for summary judgment based on the fact that the contract, and specifically the right of first refusal was unenforceable because it was too vague as it failed to provide a method to determine price. Defense also argued that plaintiff never attempted to assert his rights. Plaintiff was seeking $11 million in damages and refused to negotiate in advance of the Court's ruling. Judge Elsner of DuPage County granted summary judgment in favor of the defendant on all counts. The matter is currently on appeal in the Second District Appellate Court.

In July 2007, a Cook County jury found in favor of the firm's client represented by Bryan J. Kirsch.

Plaintiff alleged that she sustained neck and shoulder injuries when an over the road truck driver negligently made a right hand turn from the center lane, clipping the plaintiff's vehicle and dragging her through the intersection. Defense argued that plaintiff's version of the accident was physically impossible and that plaintiff attempted to turn inside of the truck and collided with the right rear tire of the tractor trailer. The jury returned its verdict in a little less than an hour.

In July 2007, a Winnebago County jury found in favor of an ophthalmologist represented by J. Kent Mathewson.

A Winnebago County jury found in favor of a defendant ophthalmologist represented by J. Kent Mathewson on July 13, 2007. In requesting more than one million dollars in damages, the plaintiff alleged that the defendant ophthalmologist had failed to obtain a proper informed consent relative to a contemplated Lasik procedure on a patient with glaucoma. The plaintiff experienced a significant progression of her glaucoma resulting in loss of visual field and the need for several subsequent surgeries. The defense successfully contended that the Lasik had no effect on her glaucoma.

In June 2007, a Cook County jury found in favor of a physician represented by Mark M. Burden and James D. Sloan.

Plaintiff presented to the hospital in a semi-comatose state. She had been previously diagnosed with a pituitary tumor and underwent surgery to remove that tumor. As part of her treatment a ventriculoperitoneal (VP) shunt was placed to drain excess cerebral spinal fluid. Plaintiff was then admitted to the intensive care unit to the service of the hospitalist service, including the defendant. While in the hospital, she greatly improved, and the treating neurosurgeon felt she could be transferred out of the ICU to a regular floor. However, during the afternoon and into the evening, before leaving the ICU, plaintiff developed a severe headache that was not responding to pain medications, vomited, and developed bradycardia, with a heart rate into the 40's. The hospitalist caring for the patient evaluated her and did not suspect that her symptoms were the result of increased intracranial pressure or a malfunctioning shunt because she appeared relatively stable at the time of his evaluation. Two hours after the evaluation, she had a seizure and suffered a terminal brain hernation and brain death. Plaintiff's experts testified that the defendant deviated from the standard of care by failing to follow-up more aggressively on her suspicion that the patient's shunt was malfunctioning and had led to a dangerous increase in the patient's intracranial pressure. Defense argued that defendant complied with the standard of care when she contacted the neurosurgeon to discuss concerns with him and he assured her the patient's shunt was not the cause of her problems. The jury returned a verdict in favor of the defendant.

In March 2007, a Cook County jury found in favor of a physician represented by Richard H. Donohue.

Plaintiff presented to the emergency room with complaints of severe chest pain and shortness of breath. Chest x-rays were abnormal and showed patchy infiltrates. She had recently had an upper respiratory infection for which the defendant physician had prescribed antibiotics. At the emergency room, plaintiff was given a provisional diagnosis of pneumonia and sent home by the attending E/R physician. Plaintiff saw defendant physician the next day in her office and her condition was much improved. Three days later plaintiff called the defendant physician to report her chest pain was now located in a different area and an appointment was set. However, plaintiff was found unresponsive at home the morning of set appointment and pronounced dead at the hospital. The jury returned a verdict in favor of the defendant.

In January 2007, a Cook County jury found in favor of a urologist represented by Mark M. Burden.

Plaintiff, a disabled iron worker, underwent a surgical procedure performed by the defendant, a urologist. Defendant diagnosed the plaintiff with bladder stones and an enlarged prostate, which conditions contributed to plaintiff’s urinary symptoms. Before the surgery, plaintiff complained of urinary urge incontinence and blood in the urine. Plaintiff testified that immediately after surgery, his urinary incontinence was greatly exacerbated, requiring him to wear adult diapers until he underwent a corrective surgery by a subsequent treating urologist. Plaintiff alleged that defendant’s surgery was not indicated and that defendant failed to perform a cystometrogram before surgery. According to plaintiff’s expert, if defendant had performed a cystometrogram before surgery, he would have diagnosed the plaintiff with a neurogenic bladder and would not have treated him surgically. The defendant contended that the development of the plaintiff’s bladder stones proved that the plaintiff had an obstructive prostate which needed to be surgically resected. The jury returned a verdict in favor of the defendant-urologist.

In December 2006, the Northern District of Illinois Judge Richard Posner entered a verdict in favor of the firm’s client represented by J. Kent Mathewson and Jennifer M. Zlotow.

After a week of trial before Judge Richard Posner, sitting by designation in the Northern District of Illinois, a verdict was returned in favor of the firm’s commercial client represented by J. Kent Mathewson and Jennifer M. Zlotow. This interesting case involved allegations of breach of fiduciary duty, interference with a business relationship, seizure of a corporate opportunity, and breach of contract. The case had begun as a jury trial and immediately before closing arguments, because of some perceived juror misconduct, the jury was discharged and the case concluded as a bench trial before Judge Posner. The plaintiff had sought $20 million dollars in damages. In a twenty-four page written opinion, Judge Posner found that the plaintiff had failed to prove any of the allegations and entered judgment in favor of the defendant on all claims.

On December 4, 2006, a Cook County jury found in favor of an emergency room physician represented by Sherri M. Arrigo and Timothy L. Hogan.

The Firm's client was an Emergency Room Physician at Provena St. Joseph's in Joliet, IL. The plaintiff, a 31 year old male, contended that the defendant physician failed to properly diagnose and treat the plaintiff's ischemic stroke after he presented to the emergency room with neurological symptoms. The plaintiff claimed that the failure to diagnose the ischemic stroke deprived him of the opportunity to receive the drug TPA within the three hour window of opportunity for giving the drug after the onset of symptoms.

The plaintiff requested approximately 6.3 million dollars from the jury and claimed that he suffers from left sided paralysis, seizure disorder and cognitive disorders as a result of the ischemic stroke. After nearly three weeks of trial, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the defendant physician. The defense successfully argued that the defendant physician timely contacted the appropriate consultants and that the plaintiff was not a candidate for TPA during the three hour window of opportunity because of the clinical suspicion of a subarachnoid hemorrhage.

On December 1, 2006, a Cook County jury returned a verdict in favor of a family practice specialist represented by Kent Mathewson and Nick Lopuszynski.

After nearly two weeks of trial before Judge Irwin Solganick, the jury rejected the plaintiff’s request for $4.75 million. The patient had chronic vascular disease and had suffered an above the knee amputation of his leg as well as a stroke which left him without the ability to speak or use his right arm. The plaintiffs, the patient and his wife, had alleged that the defendant physician failed to properly monitor the vascular disease and the threatened status of the lower limb, allowing the circulatory compromise to eventually require the amputation of the leg and cause a cerebral vascular accident.

In November 2006, a Marathon County jury returned a verdict in favor of the firm’s client, Ford Motor Company, represented by Anthony M. Pinto.

The plaintiff was traveling southbound on Route 51 in central Wisconsin in his 1997 Ford F-150, at which time he was allegedly exposed to an unreasonably dangerous level of carbon monoxide. The plaintiff alleged that the excess carbon monoxide was the result of two defects in the design of the vehicle, the inappropriate programming of the powertrain control module and the inappropriate routing of the exhaust system. The plaintiff claimed that the carbon monoxide exposure resulted in severe physical and cognitive deficits. The defense argued that the vehicle’s design was appropriate and that the medical evidence did not support the plaintiff’s claim that his injuries were the result of carbon monoxide exposure. The jury returned a defense verdict in favor of Ford Motor Company in less than two hours.

On November 15, 2006, Circuit Court of Cook County Judge Jeffrey Lawrence granted a motion for summary judgment in favor of a defendant lawyer and law firm represented by J. Kent Mathewson, Kathryn Markowsky and John Seaman.

The plaintiff had claimed in excess of $30 million dollars in damages based on the alleged malpractice of the defendant attorneys. The claim arose from the defendants’ representation of a closely held family business and the individual defendant family members. Plaintiff had alleged a conflict of interest which led to the plaintiff’s failure to obtain an appropriate severance agreement and shareholder rights upon his termination from the company. The plaintiff had been a 25% shareholder and employee of the closely held family business. The plaintiff had claimed that the value of the purported severance agreement and stock were worth in excess of $30 million dollars over the life of the plaintiff.

On October 3, 2006, a Cook County jury returned a verdict in favor of a physician represented by Robert W. Smyth.

The firm’s client was the former chief of the medical staff and chairman of surgery at Alexian Brothers Medical Center. The allegation was that the defendant-physician misperformed peripheral vascular surgery leaving the plaintiff with serious post-operative problems and permanent disfigurement. The jury returned its verdict for the defendant-physician.

In October, 2006, John J. Duffy, John A. Krivicich and Charles S. Ofstein received a directed verdict on behalf of Ford Motor Company.

The plaintiff was traveling northbound on I-94 when a wheel separated from a 1987 Ford F-150, bounced over the concrete median and crashed through the plaintiff’s windshield. The plaintiff suffered two broken vertebrae, which were surgically fused, as well as permanent double vision and weakness on the right side of his body. The plaintiff alleged that the spare wheel and tire were original equipment and that the taper on the lug nuts did not match the taper on the wheel thus allowing the lug nuts to back off over time. Ford contended that the operator of the vehicle, who had changed the wheel and tire 33 miles before it came off, failed to tighten the lug nuts sufficiently to create optimum clamp load. Ford further argued that the plaintiff could not establish with any reasonable certainty that the wheel and tire used in the roadside change was the same wheel equipped with the vehicle back in 1987. At the conclusion of plaintiff’s case-in-chief, a directed verdict was entered in favor of Ford. The court ruled that the plaintiff failed to establish sufficient evidence that the wheel and tire used during the roadside change were the same replacement wheel and tire equipped with the vehicle in 1987.

In September 2006, a Cook County jury returned a verdict in favor of an orthopedic surgeon represented by Mark Burden.

The 58 year-old plaintiff slipped and fell fracturing her left tibia. The firm’s client attempted to surgically repair her tibia, which was complicated by a prior fracture in the distant past. The defendant was not able to obtain anatomic alignment and there was some angulation or varus deformity in her left tibia after the surgery. The plaintiff continued to follow with the defendant for four months after surgery and seemed to be doing well. After the plaintiff left the defendant’s care, her left tibia went into further angulatory deformity which then required a subsequent surgical repair. Plaintiff claimed that the defendant negligently performed the surgery and negligently failed to recommend a corrective surgery in a timely fashion. At the time of trial, plaintiff claimed that she was restricted to a wheelchair because of our client’s alleged negligence. The plaintiff asked the jury to award $2 million. The jury deliberated for approximately 40 minutes before returning a verdict in favor of the orthopedic surgeon.

On September 21, 2006, a Cook County jury returned a verdict in favor of two ophthalmologists represented by Kent Mathewson.

The plaintiff had alleged that the antiarrhythmia drug amiodarone, prescribed by the patient’s cardiologist, had caused total vision loss in both eyes. Concerns over amiodarone associated optic neuropathy had been published in the medical literature for a number of years. In rejecting the plaintiff’s request for two million dollars, Mr. Mathewson successfully argued that the connection between amiodarone and optic neuropathy had not been proven and that the patient’s clinical picture did not match that of a toxic neuropathy.

In September 2006, Anthony M. Pinto received a directed verdict on behalf of his client, a physician.

Plaintiff’s decedent presented to the Emergency Department at Sherman Hospital with complaints of mid and right upper quadrant pain. The Emergency Department physician, concerned for an abdominal aortic aneurysm, ordered an abdominal CT scan. The CT scan was interpreted by the defendant physician, a Diagnostic Radiologist. The defendant physician ruled out an abdominal aortic aneurysm and found a gallstone that was subsequently removed in surgery, resolving his mid and right upper quadrant pain. The defendant physician did not report any significant findings in the distal colon and rectum, as those structures appeared to contain fecal material. Subsequently, the decedent was diagnosed with colon and rectal cancer, which led to his death. Plaintiff alleged that the defendant physician negligently failed to identify the colon and rectal mass. The defense argued that, while the mass is identifiable with the benefit of hindsight, a reasonably well-qualified diagnostic radiologist would not have identified the mass, as a mass and fecal material look similar on CT. At the conclusion of plaintiff’s case-in-chief, a directed verdict was entered in favor of the defendant physician. The basis of the court’s ruling was plaintiff’s failure to establish sufficient evidence of a proximate causal connection between the alleged negligence and plaintiff’s decedent’s course of treatment and ultimate outcome.

On August 21, 2006, a Cook County jury returned a verdict in favor of a physician represented by Kent Mathewson and Kathleen O’Connor.

The case was brought on behalf of a 42 year-old husband and father of three who died from a cerebellar stroke. In asking the jury to award between $4.5 and $7 million dollars, the plaintiff argued that the firm’s client failed to thoroughly examine the patient after he presented to the emergency department and failed to order timely and appropriate diagnostic testing. The defense successfully argued that the evaluation and management of the patient was appropriate and that this rare type of stroke has a high incidence of mortality. After a three-week jury trial and five days of deliberations, a jury returned a verdict in favor of the defendant physician.

On June 20, 2006, a Cook County jury returned a verdict in favor of the firm’s client, a rheumatologist, represented by Richard H. Donohue and James Sloan.

The plaintiff, a 48-year-old female, came under the care of the defendant rheumatologist in March 1995 for her relapsing polychondritis, an autoimmune disease treated with high dose corticosteroids (Prednisone). In June 1995, the rheumatologist ordered a plain x-ray to rule out avascular necrosis, a disease causing a decreased blood flow to the head of the femur. After the x-ray was reported as negative, the rheumatologist started the plaintiff on a short course of low dose Prednisone to treat her symptoms of hip pain. In August 1995, the plaintiff was diagnosed with Stage III avascular necrosis, requiring her to undergo bilateral hip replacement surgery in September 1995 and at least one if not two hip surgeries in the future. Plaintiff contended that the negative plain x-ray did not rule out avascular necrosis and that an MRI should have been ordered. The defense maintained that ordering a plain x-ray and blood test met the standard of care and that the defendant would have ordered an MRI if the hip pain persisted, which it did not. The defense also argued that, due to the plaintiff’s long term steroid use between 1982 and 1994, by June 1995, her avascular necrosis already had reached the point where hip replacement surgery was needed.

On May 19, 2006, a Cook County jury returned a verdict in favor of an ophthalmologist represented by Kent Mathewson and Kathleen O’Connor.

After two weeks of trial, the plaintiff’s attorney had requested between $1.5 and $3 million dollars based on allegations of permanent visual impairment caused by Lasik surgery. Plaintiff claimed that an intraoperative complication involving the corneal flap should have caused the surgeon to halt the surgery. Plaintiff also claimed that the patient was an inappropriate candidate for Lasik surgery under her particular circumstances. The firm’s lawyers successfully argued that the surgeon exercised his good judgment in deciding to continue with the surgery and that the intraoperative complication had no long-term consequences for this patient. Moreover, they persuaded the jury that this patient was an appropriate candidate for the surgery.

On May 19, 2006, a jury returned a verdict in favor of Ford Motor Company, represented by John Krivicich, in a Ford Explorer rollover case.

An 18 year-old driver of a 1994 Ford Explorer was killed, and her 19 year-old female passenger was seriously injured when they were involved in a single-vehicle rollover accident on Interstate 55 in Grundy County, Illinois. Plaintiffs claimed that the Explorer was defective and unreasonably dangerous because its suspension design raised the vehicle's center of gravity in foreseeable accident avoidance maneuvers at highway speeds. The defense denied that allegation and claimed that the driver's excessive steering maneuvers overwhelmed the vehicle's inherent stability, causing it to slide out of control on the interstate pavement before rolling over in a grass and dirt ditch in the median. Plaintiffs asked the jury to award between $6 and $11 million.

After a two-week trial, a Grundy County jury found in favor of Ford Motor Company and answered special interrogatories that the vehicle was not defective, and that the driver's conduct was the sole proximate cause of the accident.

On May 2, 2006, a jury returned a verdict in favor of Sherri M. Arrigo, Richard H. Donohue and the firm’s client, an orthopedic surgeon.

The plaintiff, a 38 year-old licensed practical nurse, was injured in a car accident on her way home from work. She had an obvious fracture of her femur shaft (thigh bone). She was transported to Northwestern Memorial Hospital where the defendant performed surgery to repair the femur shaft fracture. In the course of surgery, he also found and repaired a displaced fracture of the femur neck (hip bone). The femur shaft fracture healed well but within a couple of weeks after the defendant’s surgery, the femur neck fracture repair showed signs of failing. The plaintiff underwent a second surgery by another orthopedic surgeon to attempt to repair the femur neck fracture, which repair also failed. Ultimately, the plaintiff required a hip replacement. She also had knee arthroscopy surgery, allegedly related to the hip fracture and its treatment. Plaintiff has permanent activity restrictions and will require one to two additional hip replacement surgeries in her lifetime. Plaintiff claimed that defendant negligently caused the hip fracture during his surgery and negligently repaired it using inadequate hardware and leaving it in an improper position, dooming it to failure. Plaintiff argued that, in the alternative, if the hip fracture pre-existed the surgery, the defendant negligently failed to diagnose it pre-operatively and therefore caused it to become displaced in the surgery, leading to the complications and failure to heal. The defense contended that the hip fracture occurred in the car accident but was not diagnosed because it was a non-displaced occult fracture that could not be appreciated by exam or standard x-rays. The defense acknowledged that the hip fracture became displaced during the defendant’s surgery but maintained that it was timely recognized and appropriately treated, reducing the risk of complications. The defense successfully argued that the plaintiff’s injuries and subsequent complications were all caused by the motor vehicle trauma and the bad nature of the hip fracture and not by the conduct of the defendants.

On April 28, 2006, Richard Foster and Todd Stalmack received a directed verdict on behalf of their clients, two general surgeons.

The surgeons had been consulted by the emergency room at Christ Medical Center for a 49 year old female patient who was a smoker, was obese, had elevated cholesterol, and who presented with substernal chest pain that evolved into epigastric and right upper quadrant pain. The patient was diagnosed with gall bladder disease, and had surgery the next day. Two days later following her discharge, she was found dead, and death was attributed by the coroner to heart attack. After a one-week trial in April, the trial court directed a verdict in favor of the surgeons based upon the absence of proximate cause.

On March 21, 2006, Richard H. Donohue and the firm's client, an obstetrician, received a jury verdict of not guilty in Cook County, Illinois.

This case was tried for the first time in March 2005 and ended in a mistrial. The case again came to trial in February and March 2006 and lasted approximately one month.

The mother and father of a child filed suit against two obstetricians, among others, who assisted with the delivery of the child in 1998. The plaintiffs claimed that the defendants were negligent during the labor and delivery of the child and, as a result, the child sustained numerous injuries, including hypoxic-ischemic brain damage, which led to spastic, quadriparetic cerebral palsy, severe mental retardation and seizure disorder. The plaintiffs asked the jury to award upwards of $33,000,000 in damages.

The defense claimed that the actions of the obstetricians and other healthcare providers complied with the standard of care and that the mother's chorioamnionitis produced chemical toxins that led to hypoxia, ischemia and cellular damage to the fetal brain. The jury returned a verdict of not guilty as to all defendants.

On March 9, 2006, a DuPage County jury returned a defense verdict in favor of Sherri Arrigo, Timothy Hogan and the firm's client, Adventist GlenOaks Hospital.

In May 2001, plaintiff suffered a CVA and was treated at Adventist GlenOaks Hospital by her primary care physician, a gastroenterologist, and a neurologist. Upon discharge, plaintiff was started on Aggrenox, an anti-platelet medication, for stroke prevention. She was scheduled for an outpatient colonoscopy for an evaluation of a prior history of colon cancer. One day before her scheduled colonoscopy, plaintiff was admitted to the hospital with complaints of right-sided weakness and slurred speech. Plaintiff claimed that she was misinstructed by a nurse at the hospital to stop taking her Aggrenox two days prior to the scheduled colonoscopy as opposed to the night before the scheduled surgery as instructed by her primary care physician. Plaintiff underwent the colonoscopy and thereafter exhibited new neurological symptoms. A stroke was diagnosed.

Plaintiff alleged that her physicians were negligent in performing a colonoscopy when her condition was too unstable for the procedure. She further argued that she prematurely discontinued Aggrennox prior to the procedure based on misinstructions from hospital nurses. The plaintiff argued that the nurses failed to have an emergency medication, Atropine, available to treat her low heart rate and blood pressure during the colonoscopy. The plaintiff claimed that as a result, she now suffers from right-sided paralysis and is unable to speak or walk. She asked for over $1,000,000 in damages.

The jury returned a defense verdict. The defense successfully argued that plaintiff experienced new neurological symptoms on the Aggrenox and thus the best chance to prevent another stroke was to start the plaintiff on an anti-coagulant. The defendants further argued that, if the plaintiff was placed on an anti-coagulant, she had a high risk for bleeding and other gastrointestinal problems because of her colon history. The colonoscopy was necessary to determine whether it was safe to put the plaintiff on an anti-coagulant. The hospital argued that its nurses would never instruct a patient to discontinue prescription medications prior to an out-patient colonoscopy and would instruct a patient to follow their doctor's instructions. Further, Atropine, was available just outside the colonoscopy lab but was not necessary because the heart rate and blood pressure improved with other measures.

On February 17, 2006, a Cook County jury returned a defense verdict for Norman J. Barry and the firm's client, a family practitioner.

Plaintiff, a 56 year-old female who developed paraplegia secondary to an epidural abscess, sued her family practitioner for medical negligence. Plaintiff claimed that her doctor failed to conduct a neurological examination and failed to order appropriate diagnostic tests when she presented to his office with a fever and neck pain three days prior to the onset of paralysis. The defense successfully contended that the plaintiff's signs and symptoms during the office visit did not dictate the examination or testing claimed by the plaintiff's expert witness.

In January 2006, Mark M. Burden and Kathryn Markowsky received a defense verdict for the firm's client, a phlebologist, in Cook County, Illinois.

In late August 1999, plaintiff presented to the defendant's office for treatment of varicose veins in her left leg. Plaintiff had previous treatment on her both her left and right leg, which was successful. On this date, the defendant sclerosed a vein in plaintiff's left leg. Shortly thereafter, she developed a chemical burn that purportedly caused further complications, including ulcers and sural nerve damage.

Plaintiff alleged that the firm's client, a phlebologist, was negligent in performing sclerotherapy treatment that was not indicated. Plaintiff also alleged that the defendant failed to properly treat the leg burns and infection that occurred shortly after the treatment. Plaintiff further argued that she did not consent to the complication and that the defendant failed to properly treat her injury once the complication was recognized.

The plaintiff asked the jury to award $715,000. The defense successfully argued that the chemical burn was a recognized complication of the procedure and that the subsequent treatment was appropriate. The jury returned a defense verdict in a little over an hour.

On January 20, 2006, Mark M. Burden and Michael Borree earned a defense verdict for the firm's client in the Federal Court for the Northern District of Illinois.

On July 14, 2002, the decedent suffered from an allergic reaction and developed anaphylaxis. She was driven by her husband to the Provena Immediate Care Center where she presented to the defendant physician in sever anaphylactic shock. Upon arrival, the decedent was unconscious and in the front seat of the car. The decedent's husband ran into the Care Center and stated that his wife was having an allergic reaction. The physician and a nurse ran outside to the vehicle where they found the decedent in severe respiratory distress with excessive secretions. She was breathing spontaneously and making no sounds. A carotid pulse was present and she was hypotensive. After conducting his initial evaluation, the physician put in an oral airway and started to ventilate the decedent with an ambu-bag while she was in the car. Subsequently, a police officer arrived with an oxygen tank and an ambulance and fire truck arrived thereafter. The decedent was placed in the ambulance. The physician offered to intubate the decedent, which was denied. After attempting intubation, the ambulance crew transferred the decedent to Provena's emergency room.

The decedent suffered irreversible brain damage and survived in a comatose state for 2 1/2 years until her death. The decedent's husband sued the physician, the ambulance and fire service and Provena Hospital for professional malpractice. With respect to the physician, the decedent's husband argued that the physician failed to bring the decedent into the Care Center for immediate airway management; failed to supervise and ensure the decedent's airway was properly managed; and failed to ensure that the decedent's airway was intubated prior to her transfer to the emergency room. The case was sited in federal court based upon plaintiff's allegations that the deviations of the standard of care violated the federal Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA). The defense argued that the physician's care and treatment of the decedent complied with the standard of care and the EMTALA. The jury returned a verdict in favor of the physician and against the plaintiff.

Richard H. Donohue recently received a defense verdict for the firm's client, a general surgeon.

Plaintiff, as representative of a deceased patient, alleged that the defendant, a general surgeon, failed to remove a cancerous mass during surgery, but that the cancerous mass was actually removed during a subsequent second surgery. Plaintiff argued that the defendant general surgeon should have removed the cancerous mass during the first surgery and, after failing to remove the mass; the general surgeon should have waited for the patient to recover prior to performing the second surgery. Plaintiff argued that the patient died from complications from the two surgeries.

The defense argued that the defendant surgeon appropriately relied on a colonoscopist's report and that the mass removed during the first surgery was in the location described by the colonoscopist's report. The defense also successfully argued that it was appropriate to perform a second surgery a few days later in order to remove the cancerous mass. The jury returned a verdict in favor of the defendant general surgeon.

On December 16, 2005, Anthony M. Pinto received a defense verdict for the firm's client, Jiffy Lube International, Inc., in Cook County, Illinois.

On July 25, 2000, plaintiff was working as a commercial painter at a Jiffy Lube in Chicago, Illinois. Plaintiff was painting the interior bay walls on a 24-foot extension ladder when he fell to the concrete floor. Plaintiff claimed that Jiffy Lube was negligent in failing to properly clean the concrete floor of an oily residue, causing plaintiff's fall.

Plaintiff sustained a fracture to his right cheekbone and a comminuted fracture of his right distal radius into the joint space. The injury to his right distal radius required surgical intervention involving open reduction and internal fixation. Plaintiff contended that the fracture to his distal radius resulted in permanent loss of approximately 50% of his right wrist range of motion as well as ongoing pain and strength deficits.

Jiffy Lube contended that plaintiff failed to meet his burden of proof to show that an oily residue caused the ladder to slip. Jiffy Lube further contended that even if an oily residue was present, plaintiff's contributory negligence was the primary cause of his fall. Jiffy Lube finally argued that plaintiff failed to mitigate his damages by complying with the recommendations of his treating physicians and therapists. The jury agreed with Jiffy Lube after deliberating for just under 2 hours.

On December 1, 2005, an arbitration panel returned an award in the amount of $659,800 in favor of John Krivicich's clients.

John Krivicich represented a husband and wife as plaintiffs in a binding arbitration. Plaintiff Tracie was a restrained driver when her vehicle was broadsided by an SUV driven by the intoxicated defendant who failed to stop his vehicle at a stop sign. Tracie suffered a concussion and, more than four years after the accident, still suffered from post-concussion syndrome, consisting of headaches, confusion and memory loss. The defendant admitted that he failed to stop at the stop sign but denied that he was intoxicated and claimed that Tracie was a malingerer. Plaintiffs requested an award of $750,000 while the defendant argued that no more than $50,000 would be an appropriate amount of damages. The arbitrators awarded Tracie $609,800 and $50,000 to her husband Jeff for loss of consortium.

On October 27, 2005, a jury returned four defense verdicts in favor of John Krivicich's client, Ford Motor Company, in a motor-vehicle rollover case.

Plaintiffs claimed one severe injury and multiple deaths after their rented Ford Aerostar Extended 4x2 minivan experienced an early morning rollover on Interstate 74, outside of Indianapolis. The vehicle was traveling in the passing lane, due to construction in the driving lane. The driving lane was 5-7 inches lower than the passing lane. The right-side tires of the vehicle dripped off the passing lane and down into the driving lane, and the vehicle struck several construction barrels. The driver steered sharply to the left to bring the right-side tires back up onto the passing lane. This resulted in a sideways skid of the vehicle across the passing lane and into the dirt median. The driver then over-corrected the steering to the right. As the vehicle skidded back onto the road surface, it began to rollover. Four unbelted plaintiffs were ejected from the vehicle. Three out pf the four died from their injuries. The remaining plaintiff was rendered blind and brain-damaged.

Plaintiffs claimed that the vehicle was unstable and had a propensity to rollover in foreseeable driving situations. The Defense argued that the vehicle had reasonable resistance to rollover. Ford also claimed that many multi-passenger vehicles would have rolled over in the same situation and that the severe driving inputs were the sole proximate cause of the accident. Plaintiffs sought $29,900,000 in compensatory damages. The jury returned four defense verdicts against the four plaintiffs and in favor of Ford Motor Company within two hours, and found that the driver was the sole proximate cause of the accident.

In September 2005, James D. Sloan obtained a defense verdict for the firm's client, Ford Motor Company.

Plaintiff, State Farm, brought this subrogation action against Ford Motor Company after a 1995 Lincoln Town Car owned by State Farm's insured caught fire in December 1996. The vehicle sustained heavy damage and was deemed a total loss. State Farm alleged that the fire originated in the center of the dashboard and occurred as a result of a poorly-fastened wiring harness. State Farm's theory was that the wiring harness was allowed to chafe against a metal bracket in the center of the dashboard, and that, as a result, electrical arcing occurred between exposed harness wires and the metal bracket. The defense argued that the vehicle was too badly damaged for anyone to identify a cause of the fire; that there was no evidence to support plaintiff's chafing theory; and that no history of problems with the routing of wiring harnesses in 1995 Lincoln Town Cars exists. Ford also argued that a loose wiring harness would have caused a loud rattling in the dash panel but that there were no reported complaints of such rattling. The jury deliberated approximately 3.5 hours before returning a verdict in Ford's favor.