It's common to accommodate Medicare liens in personal injury liability claims. But must litigants also protect Medicare from future medical expenses? The author explores the issue.
On September 30, 2009, the Illinois Appellate Court, First District, reversed and remanded the order of the Circuit Court of Cook County, granting summary judgment in favor of the defendants, holding that a genuine issue of material fact existed as to whether a treadmill poses an open and obvious danger to a child.
On August 27, 2009, the Illinois Appellate Court, Fourth District, reversed and remanded the grant of summary judgment by the Circuit Court of Cook County in favor of the defendant power company, finding that there was a genuine issue of material fact as to whether defendant breached its duty to the plaintiff to respond to a downed power line with due care.
On May 29, 2009, the Illinois Appellate Court, Third District, affirmed the Circuit Court of Warren County's grant of summary judgment for the defendant after the plaintiff fell and injured himself on the defendant's property and sued defendant.
On May 29, 2009, the Illinois Appellate Court, First District, affirmed the judgment of the Circuit Court of Cook County ordering one of two defendants involved in two separate car accidents with the injured plaintiff to pay one half the total verdict, after the other defendant settled.
Plaintiff’s lawyers are cheering the removal of a notice requirement they say functioned “as a shield against unsuspecting plaintiffs” with legitimate claims against the CTA.
On April 29, 2009, the Illinois Appellate Court, First District, affirmed the judgment of the Circuit Court of Cook County granting summary judgment for the defendants.
On April 1, 2009, the Illinois Appellate Court, Third District, affirmed the judgment of the Circuit Court of Will County which granted summary judgment for the defendants after concluding that no genuine issue of material fact existed to establish negligence on the part of the defendants.
The Illinois Supreme Court held in Ready that settling defendants are excluded from the joint-and-several-liability equation, leaving nonsettling defendants at risk of higher payout.
The Illinois Supreme Court allows defendants in asbestos cases to introduce evidence that someone else's negligence was the sole proximate cause of a plaintiff's injuries.
On February 20, 2009, the Illinois Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Illinois Appellate Court, Third District, thereby affirming the decision of the Circuit Court of Cook County which dismissed the plaintiff's complaint because there was no genuine issue of material fact with regard to a defendant's enforcement of the Illinois Domestic Violence Act of 1986 (750 ILCS 60/101 et seq (2002)).
On December 31, 2008, the Illinois Appellate Court, Fourth District, affirmed the judgment of the Circuit Court of Logan County awarding damages to the plaintiffs for tortious damage to their dog and modifying the damage award to equal the total costs of veterinary care required.
UM/UIM provisions can salvage what would otherwise be a no-recovery case, but you need to understand your clients’ liability policies, not just the tortfeasors’.
On December 2, 2008, the Illinois Appellate Court, Third District, affirmed the judgment of the Circuit Court of Rock Island County granting summary judgment for the defendant in a negligence action.
The supreme court holds that good-faith settling tortfeasors can't be included in apportioning fault after verdicts to determine joint and several liability.
On October 24, 2008, the Illinois Appellate Court, First District, answered in the negative a question about the Illinois Wrongful Death Act certified by the Circuit Court of Cook County on interlocutory appeal.
In a recent case, the Illinois Supreme Court upheld - but reformulated - the risk-utility test, while declining to abandon the consumer-expectation test.
The Act should quell libel suits against those who legitimately petition government for redress. But does it also shield those who intentionally defame others?
The Illinois Appellate court rules that the Wrongful Death Act does not permit suits on behalf of human embryos allegedly destroyed before being placed in the womb.
The Illinois Supreme Court ruled that a restaurant owner has a duty to protect its patrons from an out-of-control car. So where does a premises owner's duty to the public end?
