Illinois Lawyer Blog

The Illinois Supreme Court recently released an opinion - Interstate Scaffolding v. The Illinois Workers' Compensation Commission - that provides some much needed protection to Illinois workers. Jeff Urban was an Interstate union carpenter. On July 2, 2003 he suffered a work-related injury to his head, neck and back. After he was injured, Urban underwent a significant amount of medical treatment that sometimes required him to remain off work. At other times, he was allowed to work "light duty".

On May 25, 2005, Urban was working "light duty" at Interstate's Hazel Crest facility. At some point that day he went to the office and advised payroll that that there was an error in his check. Additionally, he advised that a recent check had actually overpaid him. The information regarding the overpayment was relayed to the Jan Coffey, the assistant to the company president. Coffey became irate when she learned the news about the overpayment. A couple of weeks earlier Urban had drawn some religious symbols in a company storage room. Coffey felt that Urban, as a professed religious man, should not have accepted the overpayment. She confronted Urban and accused him of being a "hypocrite". Not surprisingly, Urban was angered by the confrontation and there was a brief heated argument. The local police were called but no arrests made.

After the police left, Coffey phoned Ron Fowler, the company president and advised him of what had occurred. Fowler then contacted Urban's supervisor and instructed him to fire Urban. Urban was fired that day. After the termination, the company refused to pay Urban temporary total disability [TTD] benefits to Urban. Under the Illinois Workers' Compensation Act, TTD [a percentage of the worker's average weekly wage] is to be paid until a worker's condition has stabilized. As of May 25, 2005, Urban's condition had not stabilized.

Urban then filed his a Workers' Compensation case with the Illinois Industrial Commission. On June 25, 2005, the arbitrator found that Urban was not entitled to TTD after his termination. Urban appealed and the Commission modified the arbitrator's ruling, extending TTD to June 28, 2005, the date of the hearing. Interstate appealed that decision to the Circuit Court, who confirmed the Commission decision. Interstate then took the case to the Appellate Court who ruled that Urban was not entitled to TTD. Urban then took the case to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court decision is brief and well-written. The Court noted that when a worker is seeking TTD, the critical inquiry is whether the condition had stablized. Urban's condition on the date of discharge HAD NOT stabilized. Consequently the employer's duty to pay TTD did not stop because Urban had been fired for cause. The Court established an important principle -when an employee entitled to TTD is terminated for conduct unrelated to the injury, the employer remains obligated to pay TTD until the employee's condition is stabilized.

Last week the Chicago Tribune ran an article by Ameet Sachdev on a sizable verdict recently handed down by the Chicago Commission on Human Relations. The case involved Dena Lockwood[pictured above] a working mom, who took a job with Professional Neurological Services in 2004. She paid a price because she was a parent. Lockwood's commission rate was lower than other sales personnel who did not have children. She had a tougher time getting time off than her single counterparts. And Lockwood felt ignored in sales meetings. Then in 2006, she had to take a day off because her 4 year old was sick. Her manager fired her.

Lockwood elected not to go to court, but to file a discrimination claim against Professional Neurological with the Commission And she won - in a big way. In July the Commission ruled awarded her over $213,000, including $100,000 in punitive damages. In addition, the hearing officer has recommended that Lockwood's legal team receive $87,000 in legal fees. Professional Neurological has indicated it intends to appeal the award.

Congrats to Lockwood and her attorney, Ruth Major.

A lawsuit growing out of a Twitter post has been tossed by a Cook County judge. Last summer Uptown resident Amanda Bonnen filed a Twitter post commenting on her "moldy apartment". Her landlord, Horizon Management Group Realty LLC got wind of the tweet and filed a libel lawsuit against her.

Bonnen's attorney, Leslie Ann Reis argued that the comments in the Twitter post were simply Bonnen's opinions. Judge Diane Larsen agreed, noting that "The Court finds the tween non-actionable as a matter of law." Congrats to Bonnen and Ms. Reis.

Almost missed this story coming out of Montana...

Last week, a Montana judge refused to toss a jury verdict against Hillerich & Bradsby, the manufacturer of the Louisville Slugger baseball bat. In 2003, Brandon Patch, an American Legion baseball player was killed when he was struck on the head by a ball hit off an aluminum Louisville Slugger bat. Brandon's parents sued in 2006, alleging the bat was "unreasonably dangerous". In addition, they alleged that the manufacturer failed to properly warn of the dangers associated with the bat.

In October, 2009, a Helena jury returned a jury verdict for Brandon's parents. The jury ruled that although the bat was not defective, the warnings were inadequate. In November, attorneys for Hillerich & Bradsby moved to throw the verdict out claiming that there was no evidence Patch would have acted differently had he been properly warned.

The trial judge denied the motion. The court ruled that "...the jury may have properly inferred from the evidence that a warning would have been heeded and the failure to warn caused the injury." No word on whether an appeal of the jury verdict is planned...but I can't imagine the bat manufacturer will simply give up. There are lots of aluminum bats being used on baseball diamonds all over America every spring and summer. The potential exposure is enormous.

The January 5, 2010 Chicago Tribune carried a follow up article on the very sad story of Christina Eilman. In the spring of 2006, Ms. Eilman was a 21 year old California woman suffering from bipolar disorder. Her disorder was getting worse - she dropped out of school and lost touch with family and friends. And then she took a trip to Chicago.

After landing at Midway Airport, Eilman remained in the airport for two days, acting in an erratic manner. The Chicago Police Department was called to the Airport on two separate occasions and eventually arrested Eilman and transported her to the Chicago Lawn station, located near the airport. One officer has claimed that he called Eilman's parents in California and was informed she was "probably" bipolar. The officer further claims that he passed that information to his Watch Commander. Chicago Police Department rules require officers transport persons suffering from mental illness to a hospital for an evaluation. The City claims it was not necessary because during one interview at the Chicago Lawn Station, Eilman was apologetic and lucid.

But there were certainly indications all was not well with Eilman. One Officer, Rosendo Moreno, told investigators that while Eilman was still at Chicago Lawn he heard the Watch Commander, Carson Earnest, instruct Officer Richard Cason to take Eilman to the hospital for an evaluation. According to Moreno, Cason told the Commander no car was available. Cason told investigators he does not recall the conversation. Earnest has denied ever being advised that Eilman was mentally ill. However, another officer, Yvonne Delia was sufficiently alarmed by Eilman's behavior that she called Eilman's parents in California was advised Eilman was mentally ill. Delia further claims she passed that information onto Earnest.

Eilman never got to a hospital. Instead, she was transported to the Wentworth District, commonly known as Area 2. The Wentworth District is located near the University of Chicago and recognized as a high crime area. Eilamn was escorted to the rear door of the station and allowed to leave. Eilman continued to act erratically as she wandered the streets. Eventually she ended up at a public housing high rise. Not long thereafter Eilman went to an empty 7th floor apartment with a group of people. At least one person tried to persuade Eilman to leave but she refused.

Eventually, Marvin Powell, a reputed gang member and convicted felon arrived. He ordered everyone out of the apartment but prevented Eilman from leaving. Eilman was heard screaming briefly. Shortly thereafter, she plunged from the 7th floor apartment to the ground below.

As a result of her fall, Eilman suffered multiple fractures, a shattered pelvis and a devastating brain injury. After years of treatment, she has now plateaued and has only a child-like comprehension of the world. She will need ongoing medical care for the rest of her life.

Marvin Powell was arrested and charged with abduction and sexual assault. He is in jail, awaiting trial.

Eilman's parents have filed a federal lawsuit against the City of Chicago seeking $100 million dollars in damages. The case is expected to go to trial in March.

From the Department of Fair Play...

On September 2, 2009, I posted about Dimitrios Biller, the former Toyota attorney who filed a whistleblower lawsuit against Toyota alleging that the car manufacturer had concealed and destroyed evidence that should have been produced in rollover cases. Not long after Biller filed his lawsuit, a class action was filed on behalf of all plaintiffs who had lost or settled rollover cases where Toyota had allegedly withheld evidence.

According to an article at Law.com, and a tweet from Craig Niedenthal, there may not be much substance to Biller's allegations. Lawyer E. Todd Tracy was allowed to review 9000 documents that Biller claimed supported his allegations that Toyota acted inappropriatedly in the rollover cases. Tracy represented a group of plaintiffs who had prosecuted cases against Toyota prior to Biller's allegations. He was hoping the Biller documents would help him re-open those cases. Tracy remarked that "...I did not see any type of concealment, destruction, or pattern of discovery abuse that affected my cases that I sought to reopen." Last week Tracy dismissed the lawsuit he had filed to resurrect the earlier cases.

A Toyota spokeperson said that Toyota was pleased that Tracy dismissed his action.

Last week the Illinois Supreme Court delayed the release of a long-awaited opinion dealing with the constitutionality of caps on damages in medical malpractice cases. The opinion in LeBron v. Gottlieb Memorial Hospital will rule on the constitutionality of the Illinois Medical Malpractice Act of 2005, which set limits on the amount of non-economic[i.e. pain and suffering]damages victims of medical malpractice can recover. The Act limits non-economic damages to $500,000 against doctors and $1 million against hospitals. No reason was provided for the delay, and no specific date was set when the ruling would be released.

On Monday, the United States Supreme Court refused to hear an appeal of an $83 million dollar verdict against Ford Motors resulting from injuries suffered when a Ford Explorer rolled over. In January of 2002, Brennetta Buell-Wilson was driving an Explorer on a California highway. She swerved to avoid an object in the road and the vehicle rolled over multiple times. She was left paralyzed.

Ms. Buell-Wilson and her husband sued Ford in California, alleging the Explorer's roof was defective and the vehicle was prone to rolling over. The jury returned an enormous verdict - $364 million dollars in total, with most of the award coming in the form of punitive damages. The jury's verdict was likely driven in part by evidence they heard that the roof could have been strengthened on the Explorer model for $20 per vehicle.

The trial court and Appellate Court reduced the verdict, and in 2006 the Appellate Court set the verdict at $27.6 million dollars in compensatory damages and $55 million in punitive damages.

Ford's appeal to the United State Supreme Court was only as to the punitive aspect of the award. Ford argued that the punitive damages were unfair as it had complied with industry and governmental safety standards. Ford was joined in its appeal by the United States Chamber of Commerce. The Chamber questioned the wisdom of allowing jurors to punish manufacturers for defective products.

The Supreme Court refused to hear the appeal, allowing the $83 million dollar verdict to stand intact.

Sears Roebuck & Co. recently agreed to a record settlement in an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission[EEOC] lawsuit alleging the retailer illegally fired disabled workers. The $6.2 million dollar settlement amount is the largest settlement for a disability-related case in EEOC history. The case arose from allegations made by John Bava, former Sears technician who was seriously injured after a fall at a customer's home. Bava took took some time off under Workers Compensation, but was still disabled when he tried to return to work. Sears refused to reinstate him, or make accomodations for his disability. When Bava's leave expired, he was terminated. EEOC lawyers indicated they uncovered 100 similar cases where injured employees sought accomodations upon their return, only to be terminated.

Sears issued a statement insisting that they reasonably accomodated employees and settled the case because of the cost of litigation. In other words, the tried and true "We are innocent but lawyers are just so damn expensive" explanation. Sears lawyers must be very, very expensive.

The Illinois Supreme Court recently handed down an opinion that poses a major hurdle for older victims of clergy sexual abuse. Separate and apart from the legal aspect of the opinion, the undisputed facts again demonstrate an appalling neglect on the part of the Church when faced with evidence they had an abuser in their ranks.

In Doe v. Dallas, the plaintiff was was sexually abused by Kenneth Roberts, a Catholic priest, in 1984. The plaintiff was just 14. At the time, he was an eighth grader at a Catholic school in Belleville, Illinois. Father Roberts was a guest lecturer at the school. Among his topics was sex education. Roberts was allowed to speak, even though church officials were aware he had previously engaged in the inappropriate sexual behavior on at least two occasions.

Roberts, a former flight attendant, was a prolific author, and well known in the Catholic community. His published works included books like Playboy to Priest and Nobody Calls It Sin Anymore. After hearing Roberts speak, plaintiff came to admire him and sought advice on how to become a priest. Roberts agreed to assist the victim, and then of course, abused him.

Plaintiff didn't disclose the abuse until 1998, when acute psychological problems forced him to leave work. He filed his lawsuit in 2003. Roberts moved to dismiss, arguing that the allegations were time-barred. Roberts argued that the case was governed by 735 ILCS 13-202.2(1994), which stated that in actions for sex abuse that took place before the plaintiff was 18, the case had to be filed within 2 years after the person abused discovered, or through reasonable diligence should discover the abuse. Roberts argued that as plaintiff disclosed the abuse in 1998, he had to file suit within 2 years of that date.

In response, plaintiff argued that his cause of action was governed by 13-202.2, as amended in 2003. The amendment provides that actions for sexual abuse must be commenced within 10 years of the 18th birthday or within 5 years of the date the person discovers (a) an act of childhood sexual abuse and (b) that an injury was caused by the abuse. Interestingly the amendment provided that it applied to all actions pending as of July 24, 2003, as well as all actions commenced after that date. Plaintiff argued that the suit was timely as it was filed within 5 years of when he first reported the abuse.

In response, Roberts argued that because plaintiff's suit was already time-barred under the prior law before the amendment, allowing the lawsuit to be revived violated his constitutional rights. The trial court agreed with Roberts and dismissed the case. On appeal, the Appellate Court held the the amendment was to be applied both retroactively as well as prospectively - and reversed the trial court's ruling.

The Supreme Court ruled that once a claim is time-barred, reviving it through subsequent legislation would offend the due process protection of the Illinois Constitution. The Appellate Court was reversed and the ruling of the trial court affirmed.

Attorneys involved in local and national sex abuse cases have suggested that victims in their 40's may face a significant obstacle in seeking recovery as a result of the ruling.

Be careful what you say in your Twitter posts.

Just ask Amanda Bonnen. According to recent Chicago Sun-Times article by Lisa Donovan, Ms. Bonnen was a tenant in an Chicago apartment complex run by Horizon Realty Group. Some water leaked into her apartment, as well as some other apartments in March, 2009. The leaks occurred after a contractor working on the roof made some mistakes. Horizon claims they contacted all affected tenants to assess and correct any damage. Horizon also stated that all tenant grievances were quickly and amicably resolved. With the exception of Ms. Bonnen. Bonnen filed suit against Horizon on June 2, 2009, alleging violations of the Chicago Residential Landlord Tenant Ordinance. She moved out on June 30, 2009.

After Bonnen's suit was filed, Horizon learned of a May 12, 2009 Twitter post by someone identified as Amanda Bonnen and using the name "abonnen". The tweet in question noted, "Who said sleeping in a moldy apartment was bad for you? Horizon thinks its okay".

On July 27, 2009, Horizon filed a libel lawsuit against Ms. Bonnen, claiming the post damaged the firm's reputation. Horizon has not spoken with Bonnen about the post. Jeff Michael, whose family has run Horizon for 25 years, commented that "We're a sue first, ask questions later kind of an organization".

There is now a second lawsuit on file against a Milan, Illinois McDonald's, where several people were allegedly exposed to Hepatitis A. The most recent lawsuit was filed last week by the parents of a 16 year old boy who allegedly was at the restaurant on July 12 to return a job application. After doing so he apparently ate at the restaurant. He then became ill, had aches and pains, and was severely jaundiced. He was admitted to a local hospital and tested positive for Hepatitis A. Typically, Hepatitis A is caused by the ingestion of fecal matter. The disease is usually transmitted by close person to person contact, or ingestion of contaminated food matter.

A class action case is already on file against the restaurant on behalf of those members of the general public who may have been exposed.

The owner of the restuarant, Kevin Murphy released a statement last week indicating the Rock Island County Health Department has not confirmed the source of the outbreak, and that there may be several sources.

Take a long hard look at that condo before you buy it. That is the moral of a recent Chicago Tribune article by John Bryne. The article focused on Dorothy Rush, an 86 year old woman who initially rented, and then purchased one of the condominium units at Village Centre, a 206 unit development in Mount Prospect. Rush thinks that water is seeping into the walls of her unit becuse of poor workmanship when the place was built in 2003. The mold she thinks is inside the walls irritated her eyes, throat and chest, eventually causing her to simply leave the unit.

And a 2007 assessment of the property by Raths, Raths & Johnson, an engineering firm, seesms to confirm Ms. Rush's suspicion. It was the recommendation of Raths, Raths & Johnson that the entire brick facade of the three building development be rebuilt in order to prevent widespead leakage and stop mortar and masonry deterioration.

Apparently, Rush is not alone. Lots of folks who purchased units during the building boom in the late 1990's are now having problems. Real Estate experts think that builders either 1) didn't do a good job building or 2) simply ran out of money. Either way, condo owners are caught in the middle, without many options.

There may however, be some hope for future condo buyers. Representative Harry Osterman, [D, Chicago] recently sponsored House Bill 3955, which required builders to set aside a portion of the sale amount of the unit for repairs. Not suprisingly however, the bill met with stiff opposition from those in the building industry and it died in Committee. But the Association of Condominium, Townhome and Homeowners Association is vowing to continue fighting for legislation protecting the buyer in the next session.

As for Ms. Rush, she no longer lives in the unit and is paying to live in an apartment. She is reluctant to move possessions out of the condo as she is afraid they may be contaminated by mold. Ms. Rush is part of a lawsuit filed by the Condominium Association th against a variety of defendants, including the general contractor, developer and eight subcontractors. The Association is seeking $8 million dollars in damages. Presently the parties are in mediation.

The July, 2009 ABA Journal recently had a blurb about an interesting ruling from a federal court judge in Philadelphia. Donna Donovan went to Idant Laboratories in New York to purchase sperm in order to have a child. [Didn't know you could purchase that item]. In any event, after the purchase, Donna gave birth to daughter who is mentally disabled. Donna sued Idant, on behalf of her child, claiming that the sperm she purchased was defective, as it contained a genetic defect known to cause mental impairment and other problems.

Judge Thomas O'Neill recently ruled that Brittany's mother could sue Idant on both a product liability and contract theory. Judge O'Neill held that the a contract was created between Donovan and Idant in New York. In addition, he found that Idant's screening of the semen also took place in New York. Consequently, New York law would apply to Donovan's claims.

O'Neill's ruling was particularly critical as to the products case. New York, unlike many other states, does not have a broad "blood shield law" excluding providers of sperm from product liability actions.

According to New York University law professor Mark Geistfield, O'Neill's decision is the first to hold that semen is product subject to strict liability.

Idant has filed a motion to reconsider.

The Journal's article, written by Mark Hansen includes an interesting graphic - a bunch of men lined up in front of a "DEPOSIT' sign. Nice.

According to an article by Abdon M. Pallasch in todays Chicago Sun-Times, Bob Rohrmann,
the owner of 26 Honda, Toyota and Lexus automobile dealerships in Illinois and Indiana, is suing a plastic surgeon who carried on an affair with his wife for "alienation of affection." Rohrmann[famous for his signature roar at the end of commercials] and his third wife Ronda, were married in 2002. They had met at the Rohrmann's Oak Brook Toyota dealership.

At some point after the marriage, Rohrmann saw some emails that had been exchanged between his wife and the surgeon. He concluded they were having an affair and filed for divorce. The couple reconciled, but several months later Rohrmann again spotted some suspicious emails between his wife and the surgeon. Not long thereafter, Ronda Rohrmann filed for divorce.

In response, Rohrman filed his "alienation of affection" lawsuit. These types of cases are not the easiest to prove. Rohrman will have to demonstrate: 1) that his soon to be ex-wife did in fact have love and affection for him; 2) overt, wilful acts on the part of the surgeon which caused Rohrman's wife to lose her feelings for Rohrman and 3) actual damages. The question becomes whether the fondness Ms. Rohrman had for her husband simply died on the vine, or was spirited away by the plastic surgeon.

Some lawyers don't place much stock in alienation cases, saying they are nothing more than an means to harass a former spouse's new love. Rohrman's attorney, Enrico J. Mirabelli, however, indicated that under the right circumstances, alienation cases have their place. Mirabelli noted that "If you play in a lion's den, you're gonna get mauled". [Excellent use of the whole lion/roar theme by Mr. Mirabelli].

Ironically, Rohrman has indicated he would still like to reconcile with his wife.

Eric Zorn of the Chicago Tribune, did not have a favorable impression of this lawsuit, as noted in his blog, Change of Subject.

The Illinois Appellate Court[First District] recently released the Clark v. Children's Memorial Hospital decision, which clarifies what parents may recover in a "wrongful birth" case. "Wrongful birth" refers to the claim of parents who allege they would have avoided conception, or terminated a pregnancy but for the negligence of those charged with genetic counseling as to the likelihood of giving birth to an impaired child.

In the Clark case, the plaintiffs, Amy and Jeff Clark had a son, Brandon, in 1997. At 15 months of age, Brandon began showing signs of developmental problems, including poor head growth and difficulty walking and talking. In 2001 Amy sought genetic counseling from Dr. Barbara Burton to determine if Brandon suffered from Angelman Syndrome - a disorder caused by the abnormal function of the gene UBE3A , located in a small region of chromosone 15. In about 80% of those with Angelman syndrome, this small region is deleted from the maternally derived chromosone due to a mutation.

Dr. Burton informed Amy that all known genetic mutations for Angelman Snydrome in Brandon had been ruled out. That information was incorrect - in November, 2000, an analysis of Brandon's DNA had been done at Baylor College of Medicine. The analysis showed that Brandon did indeed suffer from Angelman Syndrome. Siblings of children with the mutation of the UBE3A gene[like that shown in Brandon] have a 50% risk of being borne with Angelman Syndrome.

Dr. Burton never obtained the Baylor College of Medicine results, and never informed Amy that Brandon did suffer from Angelman, due to the UBE3A mutation. As Dr. Burton incorrectly advised Amy that all known genetic mutations for Angelman Syndrome in Brandon had been ruled out, Amy planned to have another child.

On Marcy 27, 2002, Amy gave birth to another son, Timothy. In June, 2002, Amy had some concerns regarding Timothy's development. In September, 2002, Amy contacted Dr. Soma Das at the University of Chicago to discuss Timothy's symptoms. Dr. Das indicated that Timothy and Brandon should be entered into a study of Angelman syndrome, but that boys could not enter without a complete set of Brandon's records. Shortly thereafter, Amy contacted Baylor College of Medicine to get Brandon's records. On September 30, 2002 she learned for the first time that Brandon's UBE3A analysis was not normal. Subsequently, Timothy was diangosed with Angelman Syndrome.

The Clarks filed suit ffor wrongful birth, seeking damages for the extraordinary costs of caring for Timothy during his minority, and when he became of age. In addition, they sought recovery for lost wages. The trial court determined that plaintiffs could only recover damages for the extraordinary costs for caring for Timothy until age 18. The plaintiffs then appealed that decision. After a careful review of the relevant caselaw, the Appellate Court ruled that the plaintiffs could plead a cause of action for wrongful birth to recover damages for the extraordinary costs of caring for the unemancipated, disabled child beyond the age of 18.

The retaliatory discharge case recently filed by Paul Liska against his former employer, Motorola, is getting nasty. According to Wailin Wong's April 16, 2009 article in the Chicago Tribune, Motorola recently filed a motion with the trial judge alleging that Liska destroyed evidence on a Motorola laptop he used after his termination.

In a Memorandum filed with their Motion, Motorola detailed that Liska was informed on January 28, 2009 that he was being replaced. Liska was apparently last in his Motorola office on January 29, 2009. Motorola alleged that when Liska left that day, he took a company laptop and some documents. Motorola subsequently requested that the laptop be returned. When Motorola got it back it was a "blank slate". Motorola then went out and hired a forensic computer firm to analyze the laptop. The forensic experts concluded....[cue dramatic music] that a date destruction program had been run on the computer several times between January 30 and February 12.

Motorola is also asking the trial judge for permission to examine any computers Liska may have acccessed in the past year. Liska had earlier denied he took any Motorola property.

Wow. A recent Chicago Tribune by Wailin Wong detailed how a corporate marriage can go bad. Very bad.

By way of background, in early 2008, Motorola, hired Paul Liska as the new Chief Financial Officer. Motorola's flagship mobile phone unit, which once was on the cutting edge with innovations like the Razr cellphone, had taken on water and needed to get back on track. The plan was to separate the mobile phone division from the other Motorola business groups. The thought was that Liska's background as a corporate dealmaker would prepare Motorola for the eventual separation of the phone unit.

Things apparently came to a boil in January of 2009. An important meeting was scheduled for January 28, 2009. Liska was to make a presentation at that meeting. According to Liska, he was concerned that certain Motorola financial forecasts were flawed and that Motorola had limited credibility with credit ratings agencies. Liska claims he shared those concerns with CEO Greg Brown prior to the presentation. At the January 28, 2009 meeting, Liska included those concerns in his presentation.

The next day, January 29, 2009, Lisak was shut out of a scheduled board meeting. That same day CEO Brown advised Liska that he was being replaced. And now the fur has begun to fly. Liska has filed suit against Motorola for retaliatory discharge, alleging that he was fired for attempting to bring his concerns about the flawed financial forecasts to a Motorola audit committee. Motorola, for its part, claims that Liska misrepresented his presentation to Brown and that his conclusions were misguided. In addition, Motorola claims that Liska had not been keeping abreast of the mobile business operations.

Recently unsealed court documents and filings provide some additional details on a business marriage gone bad. There was, according to Motorola, jealousy. Motorola alleged that Liska was jealous of the compensation package enjoyed by Chief Executive Sanjay Jha. Motorola additionally claims that as a result of that jealousy, Liska developed a "vendetta against Dr. Jha and the Mobile Business Devices business". And, according to Motorola, there was pettiness. Liska failed to prepare for meetings and acted "abrasive and dismissive". [I was under the impression that titans of commerce were supposed to be abrasive and dismissive - you know, like Donald Trump].

Finally, according to Motorola, the parties inevitably grew distant. Liska started talking to a headhunter and working at a private office.

Liska on the other hand, claims he was blindsided. He insists he received praise for his performance and was given additional responsibilties on the job. He denies he ever discussed the need for a new job with the headhunter.

Lastly, and not suprisingly, the parties, apparently argued about money. Lots of money. Motorola claims Liska tried to "fleece" Motorola by demanding a settlement of $37 million. Liska denies doing so. This facet of the case is particularly astonishing to me. They weren't arguing about the keys to the Executive washroom or a primo parking spot. They are arguing about whether someone demanded $37 million dollars. I repeat, $37 million dollars. Hard to imagine any ambiguity when it comes to $37 million dollars.

I suspect there will be further interesting revelations as this one winds it way through the litigation process.

Recently saw an interesting article about a multi-million dollar settlement resulting from devastating injuries suffered by a little boy at a Burger King restuarant in Southern California. Back in August of 2005, Jacob Buckett,[pictured below, before the incident] then only 8, accompanied his dad and younger sister to lunch at a Burger King in Temecula, California. The particular restuarant they chose had an attached play area, with a jungle gym[known as "soft-contained playgrounds" - like the one in the photo above]. Jacob went to play on the Jungle Gym and climbed up one of the horizontal support poles. He lost his balance and fell, cracking his head on the tile floor.

Jacob suffered a traumatic brain injury which kept him in a coma for two months. He was hospitalized for a full six months. The brain damage he suffered left him partially paralyzed and with severe emotional and cognitive defects. Although Jacob is now 12, he has the maturity level of a 6 year old.

Jacob's parents sued, claiming that the franchise owner, The Breckenridge Group, and the parent company, Burger King, knew the Jungle Gym was dangerous, but didn't address the problems. Specifically, the Bucketts argued that the play area lacked "no-climb netting" and floor padding. They further alleged that the defendants were on notice about these defects because of previous incidents. The Bucketts also alleged that the owner of the franchise, failed to post warning signs and refused to retrofit the structure.

The article suggested that the defendants in their responsive pleadings suggested the Jacob's father was at least partly responsible for failing to properly supervise the child. That assertion was neutralized by videotapes showing numerous children misusing the equipment on a regular basis prior to Jacob's accident.

The parties settled the case for $20 million, which will pay for enormous and on-going medical bills, rehabilitation therapy and 24 hour attendant care for Jacob.

A Chicago man will receive a $2.7 million settlement from the City of Chicago after being wrongfullly imprisoned for 27 years. In 1977, Paul Terry and Michael Evans[then both only 17] were prosecuted for the abduction, rape and murder of 9 year old child. They were both released in 2003 after DNA testing showed that the rape had been committed by someone else. They were then pardoned by former Governor Rod Blagojevich.

Evans sued the City and elected to go to trial with his case. The jury rejected his request for $60 million dollars.

The City of Chicago Finance Committee recently signed off on the $2.7 million dollar payout to Terry[pictured below] whose mental capacity had diminished while he was in prison. The only piece of evidence linking Terry to the crime was an identification by a female witness. Lawyers for Terry claimed that Area 2 detectives manipulated the witness and other evidence to secure the convictions.

Corporation Counsel Mara Georges admitted that the witness didn't identify Terry until 10 months after the crime. In addition, Georges acknowledged that "...her mental capacity is declining a bit as she advances in age, so were weren't sure what kind of witness she would make."

On Wednesday, the United States Supreme Court upheld a multi-million dollar Vermont verdict, and in doing so preserved an important right for consumers - the right to sue drug manufacturers for injuries caused by defective drugs. The case that started it all began in Vermont in the year 2000, when Diana Levine[shown below] went to a clinic near her home complaining of a severe headache. She was given Demerol and an injection of Phenergan. The drug is usually given orally or through an IV drip. What Ms. Levine did not know was that there could be devastating side effects if the drug reached an artery. The maker of the drug, Wyeth, was however, fully aware of that fact. At least 20 other person had lost limbs as a result of the being given the drug prior to Levine.

Shortly after being given the injection[which apparently reached an artery]gangrene developed and Ms. Levine lost her right hand. Then she lost part of her right arm. She sued and settled against the clinic. She then brought suit against Wyeth for failing to warn consumers of the dangers presented by the drug. A Vermont jury agreed, and awarded her $6.7 million dollars.

Wyeth appealed, arguing that it had disclosed the risks to the Food and Drug Administration[FDA]which went ahead and approved the warning label. Wyeth argued that the FDA approval preempted the right of Ms. Levine to sue. Wyeth's preemption argument was made possible by the recently departed Bush administration. Three years ago Bush and his co-horts reversed a long-standing FDA policy by announcing that FDA approval of a drug barred any suit against the manufacturer.

The Supreme Court however, shot the Bush preemption doctrine down. The opinion noted that Congress had regulated drugs for many years and had never barred consumers from suing drug manufacturers. In addition, the Court also noted that lawsuits like those filed by Ms. Levine exposed dangerous drugs - thereby making the market safer.

Every consumer should thank Ms. Levine for staying the course these nine long years. If the case had gone the other way, tens of thousands of consumers pursuing cases in the courts for injuries suffered because of defective drugs would have been out of luck.

Dave Weiner commented on this story on the Huffington Post this a.m...

Nigel Haskett was working at a Little Rock, Arkansas McDonald's last summer when he saw an individual physically assaulting a woman in the restuarant. Mr. Haskett immediately rushed to the woman's aid and struggled with the scumbag who was assaulting her. Unfortunately, during the course of the struggle, Haskett was shot several times. As a result of his injuries, he has undergone multiple operations and incurred medical expenses of approximately $300,000.

Not surprisingly, Haskett went forward with a Workers' Compensation claim against the fast food giant. McDonald's however, has taken a very hard line. Ramsey, Krug, Farrell & Lensing, McDonald's insurer, has notified the Arkansas Workers' Compensation Commission that "...we have denied this claim in its entirety as it is our opinion that Mr. Haskett's injuries did not arise out of or within the course and scope of his employment."

In effect, McDonald's is asserting that they pay Haskett to flip burgers, make fries and pour drinks, NOT to intervene in altercations in the restuarant. Apparently, the corporate policy is to call the police and let them handle the situation. Okay, but a customer, in the restuarant, is being assaulted by a man with a gun. The police aren't around. With no regard for his own safety, Haskett jumps in, chases the bad guy outside and probably saves this woman's life.

You would think McDonald's would be thrilled that they have somebody like Haskett working for them. He risked his life to protect a customer. He's a hero. Most companies would love to have somebody like that on the payroll.

And McDonald's can't seriously be worried about the $300,000. They've sold lots of burgers over the years - $300,000 is chump change.

Let's hope this story gets some legs and McDonald's is shamed into doing the right thing.

A federal lawsuit filed after the death of a young man at Cook County jail is raising a number of questions about how that facility is run. John Lambert[pictured below] was incarcerated in Cook County jail in June of 2007. Lambert had previously had some run-ins with law enforcement agencies, but they were all relatively minor. He was placed in a maximum security division of the jail. Lambert's cellmate, David Jamison, had been in incarcerated for years, awaiting retrial of a rape conviction that had been overturned. Lambert was found unconscious in his cell with massive head trauma on June 26, 2007. He lingered for 12 days in the hospital and then died. A pathologist concluded that he had been beaten to death. Just days before the murder, other prisoners had observed Lambert and Jamison arguing. Given those facts, seems pretty clear that Jamison would be arrested and charged with murder. Nope.

In the fall of 2008, a Chicago Tribune article written by Gary Marx criticized the handling of the investigation into Lambert's death. After the article appeared prosecutors re-opened the case. Finally, on Tuesday, February 11, 2009, Jamison was charged with the murder.

Lambert's parents have filed a federal lawsuit against Sheriff Tom Dart and Cook County jail officials. The complaint alleges that paramedics failed to immediately respond to calls for help after Lambert was found in his cell. The complaint alleges that 90 minutes passed before Lambert was taken to the hospital and underwent surgery. The Lamberts are alleging that prompt action may have saved their son's life. The Lamberts have also raised questions about why their son, a non-violent petty crime offender, was incarcerated with violent felons.

Jamison has denied any involvment, and gave a statement to investigators that Lambert was injured when he fell out of bed. An inmate with a cell near Jamison's provided a statement that Jamison later boasted that he "...punched Lambert in the back of the head...and beat his brains in.."

Lambert's death was just one of a number of examples in a 2008 Justice Department report that was critical of the level of violence at Cook County jail.

A man previously convicted of murder for setting a fire that caused multiple deaths, now stands to collect a multi-million dollar payout arising out his prosecution and conviction. Madison Hobley was initially charged with setting a 1987 fire the killed seven people - including his wife and young son. He was convicted in 1990 and sentenced to death. Hobley spent 13 of the next 16 years on Death Row. All the while Hobley claimed he had been tortured by Jon Burge and other Chicago Police Officers. In 2003, Hobley was pardoned by former Governor George Ryan . Hobley then sued the City for the prosecution and imprisonment. That lawsuit was settled for 1 million dollars. In addition, the City agreed to pay another $6.5 million if Hobley wasn't indicted again for the crime by January 3, 2009.

The FBI and federal prosecutors re-opened the case in 2007. The agents obtained police department records and interviewed several of Hobley's relatives. In addition, Hobley spoke with investigators and prosecutors for several hours. The decision was made not to re-indict Hobley.

Under the terms of the previous settlement, the City had 60 days to pay Hobley, who has since relocated to North Carolina. A spokesman for the City of Chicago indicated that the payment process has already been started.

Saw an online article from the Chicago Tribune the other day, discussing an unusual lawsuit recently filed against a local radio station. The article, written by Emily S. Achenbaum, detailed how a Chicago woman[identified only as "Jane Doe"]is suing WXLC, a Waukegan radio station, and its parent company, Next Media Group, Inc. after she won a contest run by the station - and ended up being sexually assaulted. The station ran a a "Win a Date with Travis" contest. The "Travis" in question was Travis Harvey Jr. of Gurnee, Illinois[pictured below]. He was described, in connection with the contest, as "a great guy". He claimed that due to his busy schedule as a single father, he just didn't have time to date. So on January 30, 2007, WXLC sponsored a "Win a Date with Travis" contest at an area sports bar. Contestants were invited to drop by the bar and sit and chat with Harvey. The plaintiff eventually won the contest, and Harvey promised a night out at the House of Blues in downtown Chicago. On the scheduled day though, Harvey spoke with Jane Doe and advised that he was too tired to go downtown - he suggested she come over for pizza. Jane Doe showed up, had a drink of some sort, and then felt drowsy. She claimed that Harvey then sexually assaulted her. Jane Doe went to the police several days later but there was physical evidence indicating any drugs were used or that Jane Doe had been sexually assaulted. Nonetheless, Harvey was apparently arrested and recently pled guilty to the assault and was sentenced to probation. The complaint also pointed out that prior to the assault upon Jane Doe, Harvey had twice been convicted of violating orders of protection. The complaint is alleging that the radio station was negligent in failing to check Harvey's record and promoting his as a safe and desirable companion.

A Cook County jury recently awarded $16.5 million dollars to the family of a Cicero woman who died of a drug overdose while using a pain-killer skin patch. Janice DiCoslo was using a prescribed Duragesic patch when she died on February 15, 2004. In a normal patch, a gel containing fentanyl is released into the body slowly through a layer of film. Some of the patches were defective however, and the layer of film didn't completely cover the gel. As a result, the gel would leak out. Users of defective patches were vulnerable to overdoses of fentanyal, which can cause complications ranging from drowsiness to death.

The very day that DiCosolo's husband reported his wife's death, a recall of the defective patches was announced. The patch DiCosolo was wearing at the time of her death came from the recalled batch. Jurors reportedly found that the manufacturers of the patch, Janssen Pharmaceutical, Inc and ALZA Corporation were aware of the problems with the patch. the defendants have vowed to appeal the award.

Kara Spak had an article in the November 18 Chicago Sun-Times about the horrible consequences suffered by a young woman after kidney transplant surgery at the University of Chicago Hospital. The 33 year old woman, indentified only as Jane Doe, received a kidney from a male donor in January of 2007. The donor was reportedly a homosexual who died in an auto accident. Shortly after the transplant, Ms. Doe was diagnosed with HIV and hepatitis C.

Ms. Doe recently sued the hospital and surgeon. She is alleging that the surgeon, Dr. Richard J. Thistlewaite as well as others, knew the donor was gay but did not advise Ms. Doe. Male to male sexual contact is considered by the Centers for Disease Control[CDC] to be high risk behavior and must be revealed to the potential recipient, unless the transplant surgery takes place in an emergency situation.

Ms. Doe had previously rejected two kidneys and her condition at the time of transplant in question was not life-threatening. Ultimately, her body rejected the kidney from the gay donor as well. She is now on dialysis, and receiving HIV treatment. According to the lawsuit, had Ms. Doe known that the donor was a homosexual, she would have declined the transplant.

Three other patients received organ donations from the same donor who provided the kidney to Ms. Doe. All four have been diagnosed with HIV and hepatitis C.

According to a report in today's Chicago Tribune both federal regulators and Graco Children's Products withheld warnings about potentially dangerous bassinets being marketed under the Graco name. The article, written by Patricia Callahan, explains that on August 27, 2008, the U.S. Consumer Products Safety Commission had issued a urgent warning, advising consumers not to use Simplicity Bassinets, as a design flaw had already resulted in the strangulation deaths of two infants. Both children had become entrapped in metal bars contained in the product's framework.

The article goes on to detail how Graco officials saw the warning on August 28, 2008, and, that same day, told officials with the Safety Commission that some Simplicity Bassinets had been marketed under the Graco name and were identical to those models identified in the safety alert. Additionally, on August 28, 2008, Nancy Cowles, executive director of Chicago-based Kids in Danger, saw an Internet posting from a consumer that her Graco product looked exactly like the Simplicity model. Cowles then contacted the Safety Commission to inquire about the Graco models. According to Cowles, a spokesman for the agency brushed her off.

Neither Graco nor the Safety Commission issued an immediate recall for the Graco models. Graco indicated that "matters were complicated" by a change in ownership at Simplicity. An outfit called SFCA Inc. had purchased Simplicity's assets in May and had been "uncooperative" with the Safety Commission. Graco did issue a safety alert on its website today, identifying 17 Simplicity models that may have carried the Graco name. Consumers may return them retailers for refunds or store credit.

The Safety Commission did not respond to repeated requests for comments.

According to a recent story in the ABA Journal, employers are now spying on employees to make sure the workers are not abusing employment leave policies. The story explains that employers are becoming increasingly frustrated by what they consider to be abuses of leave granted to employees under the Family Medical Leave Act. More and more employers feel they need a new weapon - like surveillance - to combat malingerers who are abusing their leave under FMLA. And, in some instances, the surveillance has been successful. One employee on sick leave was caught bowling, while another was actually taped working at a second job. Lawyers for workers, on the other hand, are arguing that the surveillance amounts to harassment and will have a chilling effect on other workers who won't take necessary leave because they are afraid of surveillance. And, employee rights attorneys suggest that the surveillance may lead to independent causes of action, such as retaliation or harassment against the employer.

Another entry from the Truth is Stranger than Fiction Department...

A Chicago-area man is claiming that some undercooked fish he ate as a patron at Shaw's Crabhouse had rather horrifying repercussions. Franz recently filed a lawsuit against Shaw's and is claiming that as a result of eating the fish he became violently ill for several days. And that is the less disgusting part of his damages. In addition, Franz is claiming that due to the undercooked salmon, he later passed a NINE FOOT TAPEWORM[yes, you read that correctly].

In the lawsuit, Franz quotes a Chicago-area pathologist, who opined that the origin of the tapeworm was likely undercooked fish, such as salmon. Franz is suing Shaw's and its parent company, Lettuce Entertain You Enterprises for pain and suffering and loss enjoyment of life.

I have attached a picture of a tapeworm I snagged off the internet. Tough to imagine someone yanking nine feet of this stuff out of you...

A Florida Federal District Court judge recently refused to dismiss the lawsuit that accuses CNN's Nancy Grace of driving a young woman to commit suicide. The lawsuit, filed by the parents of Melinda Duckett, arises out of an appearance Ms. Duckett made on The Nancy Grace Show shortly after Duckett's son, Trenton, went missing in August of 2006. The Ducketts contend in their lawsuit that Grace lured their daughter onto the show under false pretenses, by suggesting that an appearance on the show could help locate her son.

On the show however, Ms. Grace, a former prosecutor, allegedly accused Ms. Duckett of hiding something, and asked pointed questions about why Duckett had refused a lie detector test. Ms. Grace also pointed out that several of Ms. Duckett's answers were not particularly specific. Bethann Eubank, the mother of Melinda Duckett, has indicated that after the appearance, her daughter was very distraught, and ultimately shot herself, shortly before the pre-recorded show aired.

CNN and Grace had moved to dismiss the lawsuit, arguing that permitting it to go forward would "chill" coverage of missing persons cases. Judge William Terrell Hodges disagreed however, and refused to dismiss the case. Nancy Grace spokesperson Janine Iamunno recently commented that "This is only a procedural ruling about whether the case should be allowed to go forward. It does not mean that the claims are likely to succeed".

To date, Trenton has not been found.

According to any number of recent reports, Crocs, the popular rubber shoe every kid seems to be wearing these days, may present a danger when worn on escalators. The report mentioned a recent situation involving a young girl injured at an airport. The girl[who was three at the time] and her mother were making their way through an airport on their way to a Disney vacation. At some point in the airport, they had to utilize an escalator. The young girl was weaing Crocs and one of her shoes became entangled in the escalator. It took emergency personnel a full 15 mintues to free the little girl. As a result of the incident the child suffered three broken toes and had to endure surgery where pins were placed in her foot. The girl's mother filed suit against the maker of the shoes, alleging the manufacturer knew the shoes could cause harm and didn't warn consumers.

And the manufacturer is already battling a lawsuit involving injuries to another small child when that child's Croc became entangled in an escalator at JFK Airport.

In a May 20, 2008 post on the Consumer Reports blog, Consumer Products spokesperson Julie Vallese noted Crocs are a new product on the market that "...poses a risk." [Unfortunately technical difficulties precluded a link to the blog].

The Consumer Product Safety Commission recommends following certain steps in order to avoid injures on escalators. I have summarized some of those recommendations below:

1) Make sure any laced shoes are properly tied;
2) Stand in the center of the step, as entrapment can occur on the side;
3) Always hold the hand of any small child riding with you;
4) Do not permit children to play or sit on the step;
5) Do not bring strollers, walkers or similar contraptions onto the escalator;
6) Always face forward and hold the handrail;
7) Know the location of any shut-off mechanism.

The Chicago Sun Times reported Monday on the tragic story of a 3 year old girl who died as a result of E. Coli poisoning - even though she had not ingested the tainted meat. The child, Brianna Kriefall, had eaten with her family at a Sizzler Restuarant in South Milwaukee, Wiconsin, sometime in 2000. Brianna didn't eat any of the tainted meat, but her lawyers argued she became sick after eating watermelon that had been tainted by the meat. The little girl died just a week after being exposed. Brianna's lawyers secured a $13.5 million dollar settlement from Sizzler's meat supplier, as well as other defendants.

The United States Supreme Court recently struck a blow for those employees who claim they were retaliated against after complaining of racial discrimination at their workplace. The case, CBOCS[Cracker Barrel Old Country Stores]West v. Humphries, arose out of treatment the plaintiff, Hedrick Humphries endured at an Illinios Cracker Barrel Restuarant. Humphries worked there for nearly three years as an assistant manager. He alleged that he was fired after he complained about allegedly discriminatory disciplinary action taken against him and another black employee. In addition, he had complained about allegedly racist remarks made by another manager. Humphries filed a lawsuit under 42 USC 1981, claiming both discrimination and retaliation. [Section 1981 prohibits race discrimination, but does not specifically mention retaliation]. Cracker Barrel argued that since Section 1981 doesn't specifically outlaw retaliation, no cause of action for retaliation existed under the statute. Not suprisingly, business groups across the United States, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, supported Cracker Barrel. The trial judge agreed with Cracker Barrel and both the retaliation claim and discrimination claim were dismissed. Humphries elected to appeal only the dismissal of the retaliation claim. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit held that Section 1981 provides a cause of action for retaliation. Cracker Barrel then appealed that decision to the Supreme Court, but to no avail. On June 3, 2008, the Supreme Court ruled that that Section 1981 does indeed provide a cause of action for retaliation following complaints about discrimination on the basis of race. As noted by Cynthia Hyndman, Humphries attorney, the decision "...allows workers and contracting parties to go and say 'you're discriminating against me on the basis of race, and this isn't right, let's fix it' without fear of losing their job".

A federal jury recently returned a verdict against Carlos Estes in his sexual harassment suit against Teyonda Wertz, his boss at the Illinois Department of Human Services. Estes was a driver/special assistant for Wertz, who is Chief of Staff for the Illinois Department of Human Services. The portion of the case that got the most attention arose out of a trip Estes and Wertz made down to Springfield, Illinois for a conference.

According to Estes, he learned upon his arrival to Springfield that he had to share a hotel suite with Wertz. Estes testified that after getting settled into the room, Wertz ordered him into the bedroom and then ordered him to take off his clothes and make love to her. Estes testified that he refused to have sex with Wertz, but did change into pajamas and laid down on the bed, where he eventually fell asleep next to Wertz.

Wertz testified that Estes volunteered to share the suite. She further testified that she stayed in the bedroom portion of the suite the entire time[alone]with the door shut.

In summing up the trial, one of the jurors noted, "...speaking for myself, I didn't believe either one of them."

Pharmaceutical giant Merck has agreed in principle to settle all remaining Vioxx lawsuits. The company has agreed to pay $4.85 billion to plaintiffs in 27,000 pending cases. The settlement was cobbled together after juries from New Jersey to California had heard about 20 cases. In the very first case a jury awarded $253 million dollars, but Merck had prevailed in the other cases.

According to published reports, Merck's legal bills for the Vioxx litigation were running over $600 million dollars a year. The proposed agreement has to be accepted by 85% of those persons with pending cases. Lawyers involved in the litigation have indicated they are confident the deal will be finalized. Each plaintiff will receive an amount of money commensurate with the severity of his injuries. Published reports have estimated that the remaining 27,000 cases involve 47,000 plaintiffs. On average, each plaintiff then would receive approximately $100,000. Those persons who don't want to take the deal can pursue their own claims.

The settlement does not, however, terminate pending criminal investigations against Merck. Several states, as well as the Department of Justice, are investigating Merck's behavior. Although Merck withdrew the drug from the market in 2004, internal Merck documents showed the Merck scientists had voiced concerns about potential adverse health consequences years earlier. In addition, a large clinical trial in 2000 raised concerns about Vioxx.

The kicker? The settlement represents less than one year's profits for Merck.

The Chicago Police Department is not having a particularly good month when it comes to lawsuits. Just a week after a 4 million dollar settlement to a man who claimed he was brutalized with a screwdriver, the Department was back in a federal courtroom in another civil case. This one didn't work out well for the CPD either.

The case originated from a 2001 incident. An unidentified man had approached an 8 year old girl near her home and and offered to take her on a "field trip". The girl's mother overhead the discussion, raced outside and chased the guy away. She then called police and provided a description of the suspect. In addition, posters, which included a drawing of the suspect, were put up in the Southwest side neighborhood where the incident occurred.

The police then got a tip. Someone called in and said the guy on the poster looked like a guy he had gone to school with - Tim Finwall. Finwall was then arrested, although there was evidence he was bartending at a local tavern at the time of the incident. Finwall was placed in a lineup with four cops. The girl came in and told police the suspect could be "the short one" or the "tall one". Not exactly a positive identification. Nonetheless, the police, in their reports, indicated that the girl had identified Finwall. Finwall was then charged with attempted child abduction. The case went to trial, and thankfully Finwall was acquitted. Interestingly, there was some evidence that perhaps the police had targeted Finwall because of an earlier incident. Apparently a police officer was drinking in the bar where Finwall worked and got into it with another patron. The officer allegedly made some threatening remarks to the patron and Finwall took the cop's gun. Finwall was then charged with some sort of offense dealing with disarming a police officer, tried and convicted. He served no time.

After the jury heard all the evidence, Finwall was awarded $2 million in damages. The City is of course very disappointed in the verdict, and evaluating their options. Perhaps the City should carefully evaluate its options BEFORE the multimillion dollar verdict.

A St. Louis county jury recently awarded a St. Louis woman $95,000 in punitive damages in a whistleblower trial Michelle Fleshner, 35, had sued Pepose Vision Institute, claiming that she was terminated by Dr. Jay Pepose because she had coooperated with a U.S. Department of Labor investigation of Pepose Vision Institute regarding wage and overtime practices. Ms. Fleshner talked to investigators on May 21, 2003. She was fired two days later. The defendant claimed Fleshner's discharge was coincidental and that a plan had been in place for months to reduce staff.

Ms. Fleshner also claimed at trial that Pepose even managed to get her fired from a subsequent job with different eye doctors. Pepose insisted he was simply enforcing a non-compete contract that Fleshner had signed with him.

Earlier the jury had awarded Fleshner $30,000 in compensatory damages. The results of the Labor Department investigation were not revealed at the trial.

A St. Louis county jury recently awarded a St. Louis woman $95,000 in punitive damages in a whistleblower trial Michelle Fleshner, 35, had sued Pepose Vision Institute, claiming that she was terminated by Dr. Jay Pepose because she had coooperated with a U.S. Department of Labor investigation of Pepose Vision Institute regarding wage and overtime practices. Ms. Fleshner talked to investigators on May 21, 2003. She was fired two days later. The defendant claimed Fleshner's discharge was coincidental and that a plan had been in place for months to reduce staff.

Ms. Fleshner also claimed at trial that Pepose even managed to get her fired from a subsequent job with different eye doctors. Pepose insisted he was simply enforcing a non-compete contract that Fleshner had signed with him.

Earlier the jury had awarded Fleshner $30,000 in compensatory damages. The results of the Labor Department investigation were not revealed at the trial.

A south suburban teenager, Travis Alexander, has agreed to settle his lawsuit against a south suburban Chicago Police Department. Alexander sued the Riverdale Police Department after he was tasered and attacked by a police dog. Alexander was 17 at the time of the incident. He and a friend were walking home from a store when they were stopped by a police officer. The police maintained they had received a tip that Alexander's friend was involved in a drug deal.

Alexander and his friend ran, claiming that they were scared of the Police. Alexander was only two doors from his house when caught. He was then handcuffed and tasered. In addition, the plaintiff alleged that the police allowed a German Shepherd Police dog to attack Alexander, causing him injuries on the leg and head. Although no contraband was found on Alexander, he was charged with resisting arrest and trespassing. He was ultimately exonerated of those charges. As a result of the incident, Alexander suffers from post-traumatic stress disorder. The Riverdale Police department agreed to pay Alexander $345,000 to dismiss the case.

As reported last week, a New York jury recently hammered Madison Square Garden[MSG] and its chairman, James Dolan in a sexual harassment suit. Anucha Browne Sanders had sued MSG, Dolan and New York Knicks coach Isiah Thomas, claiming she had been subjected to a hostile work environment due to crude comments and sexual advances from Thomas. She also alleged that Dolan had fired her after she made complaints about Thomas. The defendants denied the allegations and portrayed Brown as a malcontent employee. That strategy backfired - badly. The jury awarded found that the Thomas had indeed created a hostile work environment, and awarded Browne $6 million dollars. Interestingly, the jury assessed those damages only against MSG and Dolan. Zero damages were assessed against Thomas.

In addition, the jury whacked MSG and Dolan for another $5.6 million for their discharge of Browne after she made her complaints. The defendants have vowed to appeal.

And MSG and Dolan aren't finished with courtrooms just yet. A New York Rangers cheerleader has sued them after being told she should look more "doable"

According to a recent article in the Chicago Sun-Times, the next fight for Chicago heavyweight Andrew Golota might take place in a Chicago courtroom. Golota is being sued by a Chicago woman after a traffic accident in April, 2007. The woman, Juliet Mendez, is claiming that Golota blew a stop sign and slammed into her car. The lawsuit claims that Mendez suffered permanent injuries to her back and neck. Golota's wife, attorney Mariola Golota, claimed that the accident was a simple fender bender. According to the Sun-Times article, no ambulance was called to the scene, and the accident report referred only to property damage.

According to a recent Chicago Sun-Times article by Bill Bird, Michael Flatley, the Irish dancer, also known as the Lord of the Dance, has prevailed in his lawsuit against a Joliet woman and her attorney. The woman, Tyna M. Robertson had accused Flatley of raping her in Las Vegas in October of 2002. No criminal charges were ever filed. Some five months later, Robertson filed a lawsuit against Flatley in Lake County, Illinois, seeking $35 million dollars in damages. Dean Mauro acted as her attorney. Mauro directed a letter to Flatley demanding millions of dollars to settle the case and accused Flatley of rape. Flatley then countersued Mauro and Robertson for extortion and defamation. The case was concluded several weeks ago, with Mauro paying Flatley more than $400,000. A default judgment has been entered against Robertson.

Robertson subsequently had a son with Chicago Bears star linebacker Brian Urlacher and was involved in litigation involving visitation rights in October of 2006.