News & Events

Sharon L. Stanzione and Anna Mandula Lecture at the Accelerated Physician MBA Program

Shareholder Sharon Stanzione and Associate Anna Mandula were invited lecturers at the Accelerated Physician MBA Program put on by Compass Integrated Solutions. On Saturday, March 3, 2012, at the Hilton Doubletree Hotel in Oakbrook, Illinois, Attorneys Stanzione and Mandula lectured to physicians from a variety of specialties practicing in both Illinois and Indiana on the topic of Preventing a Medical Malpractice Lawsuit. The seminar was a huge success, and Attorneys Stanzione and Mandula were invited to continue lecturing on this topic at future physician classes..

The Seventh Circuit Grants Summary Judgment for Johnson & Bell, Ltd. Defendants

The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals recently affirmed the granting of summary judgment in a case that had significant ramifications on proximate cause in motor vehicle accidents in Illinois. Johnson & Bell represented VH-1 and certain other defendants in a lawsuit filed by David Blood in the Southern District of Illinois. The claim arose from a motor vehicle accident involving a truck being operated for VH-1 on I-57 in southern Illinois. The accident occurred at approximately 5pm and resulted in I-57 being closed for a period of time and resulted in a lengthy traffic jam that lasted for several hours. The plaintiff, David Blood, was a passenger in a stopped motor vehicle due to the traffic jam, and the car that he was in was struck by a truck four hours after the initial accident. He suffered personal injuries as a result of the incident. The defendants were sued for causing the initial accident and the plaintiff’s claimed that but for the initial negligent acts of the defendants, the second “Blood” accident, would not have occurred because there would have been no closure of the highway or traffic jam. The District Court granted summary judgment and the plaintiff appealed contending that a jury should decide the question of proximate cause. The Seventh Circuit affirmed the trial court noting that the “Blood” accident occurred four hours after the initial accident and at a different location. The Seventh Circuit opinion noted: “To allow this case to continue beyond summary judgment opens the door to endless liability, such that the first wrongdoer in a highway accident will forever be liable to all other drivers that follow. This is plainly a result that proximate cause analyses are designed to avoid.” VH-1 and the other defendants were represented by Johnson & Bell attorneys John W. Bell, Robert McNamara, Sean Hardy in the trial court and Dave Macksey in the appellate court.

To view the full summary judgement, please click here.

Elected Equity Shareholder: Sammi L. Renken concentrates her practice in health care professional liability including medical malpractice, legal malpractice involving underlying health care litigation, medical product liability, and nursing home litigation. Ms. Renken has also successfully defended a variety of practitioners on licensure issues before the Illinois Department of Financial and Professional Regulation (IDFPR). Ms. Renken has defended multiple area hospitals, clinics, long term care facilities, urgent care centers, group homes for minors with developmental disabilities, same day surgery centers, individual physicians and nurses. She has defended claims across the spectrum of health care litigation including: birth injury, pharmaceutical and medical device product liability claims, cardiac care, emergency medicine, EMTALA claims, anesthesia related complications, surgical perforation and retained sponge claims, delay in cancer diagnosis, decubitus ulcer/wound care, plastic surgery claims, spinal cord injury, psychiatric care, restraints, organ transplantation, and medication error claims. Ms.Renken has participated in all aspects of cases that have gone to verdict in the Circuit Court of Cook County and the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.

Elected Shareholder: Paul Gamboa concentrates his practice in general negligence, transportation litigation, and premises liability. Mr.Gamboa has successfully tried, as first chair, both jury and bench trials to verdict. He also has considerable experience in representing clients at arbitration. Mr. Gamboa was recognized by Chicago Magazine and Illinois Super Lawyer Magazine as a Rising Star for 2011. Rising Stars are lawyers under the age of 40 who have been in practice for 10 years or less, and it is a distinction given to approximately 2.5 percent of attorneys in the state. Mr. Gamboa is a member of the Illinois State Bar Association, the Chicago Bar Association, and the Fenwick Bar Association. He has also provided pro bono services to the Community Economic Development Law Project, assisting local entrepreneurs with the start-up of their small business.

Elected Shareholder: Katie E. Gorrie concentrates her practice in construction and general negligence. She defends owners, construction managers, general contractors, and subcontractors in construction litigation involving personal injury, property damage, and construction defects. She also represents health clubs and fitness facilities for general litigation needs including personal injury and property damage. Besides a focus on state and federal courts, Ms. Gorrie also has experience practicing before the Illinois Court of Claims on construction-related litigation. She has served as both first and second chair for numerous jury trials that were taken to verdict in the Law Division of the Circuit Court of Cook County, as well as litigated several cases pending in the U.S. District Court in the Northern District of Illinois.

Elected Shareholder: Eric W. Moch concentrates his practice in insurance law with an emphasis in coverage, insurance fraud and bad faith litigation. Mr. Moch represents businesses, municipalities, attorneys and individuals in a variety of litigated disputes. He has extensive civil litigation experience in Illinois state and federal courts, including numerous jury verdicts and published appeals. Mr.Moch also has held numerous claims roles in the insurance industry, including the evaluation of legal malpractice claims and the investigation of suspicious and fraudulent claims across a wide range of insurance lines. Mr. Moch is Board Member and Newsletter Editor of the Illinois chapter of the National Society of Professional Insurance Investigators (NSPII). Mr. Moch is also a member of the Illinois Association of Defense Trial Counsel and the Aurora Regional Chamber of Commerce. He has authored numerous articles on critical developments in the law and he speaks frequently at legal seminars.

18 Shareholders Named as Illinois Super Lawyers for 2012 and Six Attorneys Named as “Rising Stars”

Johnson & Bell, Ltd. is pleased to announce that 18 shareholders have been acknowledged as 2012 Illinois Super Lawyers. The following lawyers who have been acknowledged and their specific practice areas are:

William G. Beatty - Personal Injury Defense: General
John W. Bell - Civil Litigation Defense
Robert M. Burke - Civil Litigation Defense
John A. Childers - Civil Litigation Defense
Robert J. Comfort - Personal Injury Defense: General
Gregory D. Conforti - Transportation
Glenn F. Fencl - Insurance Coverage
Brian C. Fetzer - Civil Litigation Defense
Scott W. Hoyne - Civil Litigation Defense
Matthew L. Johnson - Personal Injury Defense: Medical Malpractice
William V. Johnson - Civil Litigation Defense
Joseph R. Marconi - Business Litigation
William K. McVisk - Insurance Coverage
H. Patrick Morris - Class Action/Mass Torts
Daniel C. Murray - Business Litigation
Charles P. Rantis - Personal Injury Defense: Products
Jack T. Riley - Civil Litigation Defense
Joseph F. Spitzzeri - Construction/Surety

Super Lawyers selects attorneys using a rigorous, multiphase rating process. Peer nominations and evaluations are combined with third party research. Each candidate is evaluated on 12 indicators of peer recognition and professional achievement. Selections are made on an annual, state-by-state basis.

The objective is to create a credible, comprehensive and diverse listing of outstanding attorneys that can be used as a resource for attorneys and consumers searching for legal counsel. Since Super Lawyers is intended to be used as an aid in selecting a lawyer, we limit the lawyer ratings to those who can be hired and retained by the public, i.e., lawyers in private practice and Legal Aid attorneys.

The Super Lawyers selection process involves three basic steps: creation of the candidate pool; evaluation of candidates by the research department; and peer evaluation by practice area.

Additionally, the following attorneys have been selected as 2012 Rising Stars:

Garrett L. Boehm, Jr. - Appellate
Jenna L. Buda - Health Care
Anthony E. Derwinski - General Litigation
Gina M. Rossi - Personal Injury Defense: General
Martha C. Szatkowski - Health Care
James V. Tomaska - Personal Injury Defense: Products

Lawyers are asked to nominate the best attorneys who are 40 or under, or who have been practicing for 10 years or less. They are instructed to nominate lawyers they have personally observed in action — whether as opposing counsel or co-counsel, or through other firsthand courtroom observation. The Rising Star honor is given only to the top 2.5 percent of Illinois lawyers.

Johnson & Bell, Ltd. Obtains Defense Verdict for Hospital in HIV Transplant Case - Plaintiff Sought $45+ Million

On November 16, 2011, firm president, William V. Johnson, obtained a defense verdict in favor of the University of Chicago Medical Center following a two-week jury trial in which damages in excess of $45 million were sought. The lawsuit arose out of allegations that proper informed consent was not obtained by a transplant surgeon prior to a 2007 kidney transplant surgery where in the plaintiff was later found to have contracted HIV and Hepatitis C that was transmitted from the deceased donor. Plaintiff was one of our four individuals in the Chicago metropolitan area to have contracted HIV from transplants of organs from this deceased donor. These transmissions were the first to have occurred in the U.S. since 1986, and the case garnered national publicity.

At trial, plaintiff argued that the hospital’s transplant surgeon failed to inform the plaintiff that the donor kidney was characterized by the Centers for Disease Control (“CDC”) as “high-risk” due to the donor’s history of homosexuality and that, had plaintiff been properly informed, she would not have accepted this organ and thus would not have contracted HIV and Hepatitis C.

Mr. Johnson argued that the standard of care at the time of this transplant did not require transplant surgeons to inform transplant recipients regarding organs characterized as “high-risk” by the CDC because the transmission of HIV and Hepatitis C from a sero-negative donor had not occurred in the modern era of HIV testing and with over 400,000 transplants. After this occurrence, the standard of care was changed to require the documentation of a specific informed consent relative to an organ recipient’s acceptance of a CDC-designated “high risk organ.” Moreover, the defense argued that the transplant nurse involved in the case told the patient that the donor was a homosexual, although this was not documented anywhere in the medical record. Experts testified on behalf of the defense from Johns Hopkins Medical Center in Baltimore, and Harvard University School of Medicine. After two hours of deliberations, the jury returned a defense verdict. A.M. v. UCMC, Court No. 08 L 12783 (Hon. Judge Thomas L. Hogan, presiding)

Mr. Johnson was assisted at trial by shareholder, Matthew L. Johnson, and associate, Erin E. Blake. For more information about the case, please contact Kathy Starbuck, Director of Marketing, Johnson & Bell, Ltd., at 312.984.0273.

For more information, please click here.

Effective January 1, 2012, the State of Illinois’ Supreme Court appointed Johnson & Bell, Ltd. Shareholder Joseph R. Marconi as Advisor to the Judicial Conference Committee on Discovery Procedures. Mr. Marconi is the chair of the Business Litigation/Transactions group at the firm.

The Committee is comprised of circuit court judges from around the state and is chaired by Justice Maureen E. Connors of the First District Appellate Court. As directed by the Supreme Court, the Committee “shall investigate and make recommendations on innovative means of expediting pretrial discovery and ending any abuses of the discovery process so as to promote early settlement discussions and encourage civility among attorneys.” The Committee reappointed Advisors Eugene Pavalon of Pavalon & Gifford (Chicago), Paul E. Root (Chicago), and David Mueller of Cassiday & Mueller (Peoria). Professor Marc D. Ginsberg of The John Marshall Law School was also reappointed as “Professor-Reporter” to the Committee.

For more information, please click here.

William V. Johnson Recieves Professional Achievement Award from Chicago-Kent on November 19, 2011

William V. Johnson, President/Shareholder, Johnson & Bell, Ltd. is a 1966 graduate of Chicago-Kent, Mr. Johnson is an acclaimed litigator who has tried many high-profile catastrophic injury and mass tort cases in Chicago and across the United States. A co-founder of Johnson & Bell, Ltd., Mr. Johnson has also served as the firm’s president since 1979 and during this tenure, the firm has grown to 120 attorneys. The firm, founded in 1975, has continually received national recognition for its trial and appellate advocacy, and has been acknowledge by American Lawyer’s Corporate Counsel Magazine as one of the Top 100 Law Firms in client satisfaction. Over the years, Mr. Johnson has tried virtually every type of civil injury case and has also defended many commercial liability, professional liability and trade secret cases throughout his career.

An active member in nearly a dozen professional organizations, Mr. Johnson is past president of the Chicago Society of Trial Lawyers and is a fellow of the American College of Trial Lawyers, the International Academy of Trial Lawyers and the International Society of Barristers. In April 2011, he was inducted into the 2011 Illinois State Bar Association’s Class of Laureates, joining a group of only 102 distinguished Illinois attorneys with this selection. Bill has been listed in “The Best Lawyers of America” since 1989, “Who’s Who in American Law” since 1987 and “The International Who’s Who of Product Liability Defense Lawyers.”

The Professional Achievement Award is given to an individual who has made an outstanding contribution to one or more of the following fields: 1) the practice of law, 2) the judiciary, 3) public service/government, 4) business/commerce, or 5) the media.

For more information please click here.

On November 7, 2011, shareholder, Sharon L. Stanzione, and associate, Anna Mandula, obtained a verdict in favor of Community Hospital, following a six-day jury trial wherein damages in excess of $2.6 million were sought. The lawsuit arose out of allegations surrounding the wrongful death of a 25-year-old patient, with a condition called Hereditary Angioedema (HAE)—a very rare and potentially life-threatening genetic condition, causing episodes of swelling in various body parts. Patients with HAE often have bouts of excruciating abdominal pain, nausea, and vomiting caused by swelling in the intestinal wall. The patient in this case was frequently hospitalized due to severe abdominal pain caused by her HAE condition and this was the very reason for the admission to Community Hospital from September 2 through 12, 2001. Throughout the admission, the patient constantly complained of severe abdominal pain, nausea, and vomiting, and by day seven, the physicians decided to transfer the patient to a tertiary care center for treatment by a physician specializing in HAE. A transfer to Rush University in Chicago, Illinois, was arranged on September 11, but did not take place due to the terrorist attacks. On the morning of September 12, the patient was found unresponsive just minutes after the nurse left the room to speak with the patient’s physician. A Code Blue was immediately called, but efforts to resuscitate the patient were unsuccessful. The autopsy showed the patient died from a pulmonary embolism (PE) and this suit ensued thereafter against Community Hospital and the patient’s attending pulmonologist.

At trial, plaintiffs argued that the hospital’s nurse failed to appropriately monitor the patient and recognize an emergency situation on September 12 and in turn call a physician sooner. Plaintiffs further argued that said breaches in the standard of care caused the patient’s untimely death.

Attorneys Stanzione and Mandula argued that the nurse acted reasonably on September 12 by performing a head-to-toe assessment of the patient, which revealed that the patient was in ten out of ten abdominal pain. The patient was in so much pain that she even refused scheduled breathing treatments. The fact that the patient had conversations and refused her breathing treatments was significant since plaintiffs argued that the patient was in a respiratory emergency. However, and as explained by defense expert, Dr. Michael Ehrie, patients in crisis do not have conversations nor do they refuse breathing treatments. Moreover, because the nursing assessments involved interaction and conversation with the patient, the nurse certainly would have recognized an emergency. Stanzione and Mandula also argued that the nurse appropriately followed the physician’s care plan by working with the patient on breathing exercises, which helped the patient’s condition improve. After completing the assessments, the nurse appropriately followed all physician orders pertaining to the patient, obtained lab results, and paged the physician with a condition report. After making the page, the nurse even returned to the room to re-assess the patient and provided additional care. As far as causation, Stanzione and Mandula argued that the nurse’s conduct was not a proximate cause of the patient’s death since there was no evidence that the nurse caused the PE or that the nurse should have diagnosed a PE. After deliberating for just over two hours, the jury returned a defense verdict.

For more information about the case, please contact Kathy Starbuck, Director of Marketing at 312.984.0273.

In Bielskis v. Louisville Ladder, the Seventh Circuit affirmed summary judgment in defendant's favor. On appeal, the Seventh Circuit considered whether the district court properly struck plaintiff's expert's report under the Daubert standard and then whether summary judgment was properly entered in Defendant's favor. The Plaintiff had fallen from a three-foot-high mini-scaffold when it collapsed at a worksite. Plaintiff had obtained the mini-scaffold seven years prior when his former employer gave it to him fully assembled. Plaintiff filed suit against Louisville Ladder under a product defect theory and alleged that Defendant failed to properly test and inspect the threaded stud of the caster stem that failed. In support of his theories, Plaintiff retained an expert who concluded that the stud failed due to a brittle facture caused by excess stress brought by over-tightening of the threaded caster stem. The District Court struck the expert because the expert's conclusions were not supported by data or testing to support the brittle facture theory. On appeal, the Seventh Circuit affirmed. The Court of Appeals held the District Court "was within its discretion to conclude that [the expert's] methodology sounded more like the sort of '[t]alking off the cuff' -- without data or analysis -- that we have repeatedly characterized as insufficient." Without expert testimony, Plaintiff could not prove his case and summary judgment in Louisville Ladder's favor was affirmed.

Gregory D. Conforti gave a presentation entitled Settlement Negotiations and Alternative Dispute Resolution: Using the ADR to Minimize the Impact of Trucking Litigation on December 5-6, 2011 at the American Conference Insititute: Trucking Litigation in Orlando Florida.

Daniel S. Nathan was invited by Illinois Appellate Court Justice Robert J. Steigmann to guest lecture his Illinois Civil Procedure and Evidence course at the University of Illinois College of Law on November 11, 2011. Mr. Nathan spoke on the topics of dispositive motions, discovery procedures, and the practice of law in Cook County.

Mr. Nathan is an Associate at Johnson & Bell, Ltd. For more information on Mr. Nathan please click here.

Jonathan W. Goken spoke at the 2011 PLRB/LIRB Regional Adjusters Conference on November 8-9, 2011 in Sacramento, CA. Mr. Goken presented to a group of insurance professionals on the topic of Foreclosure and Bankruptcy Issues with Property Claims.

Mr. Goken is a Shareholder at Johnson & Bell, Ltd. For more information on Mr. Goken and his practice contact him at gokenj@jbltd.com or call 312.984.0225.

On October 26, 2011, the Law Bulletin’s Cook County Jury Verdict Reporter held its annual awards ceremony and luncheon. Among an elite group of attorneys honored with a Trial Lawyer Excellence Award were Johnson & Bell, Ltd. shareholders John W. Bell and Charles P. Rantis.

A Trial Lawyer Excellence Award was presented to Mr. Bell and Mr. Rantis as a result of a “not guilty” federal products liability case where plaintiff sought $10-18 million. The plaintiff had previously rejected a settlement offer of $3 million. The awards reception was held at the University Club in Chicago and was attended by more than 200 of Illinois’ most prestigious attorneys.

John W. Bell is co-founder and vice president of Johnson & Bell, Ltd., as well as one of the firm’s managing partners. He concentrates his practice in product liability and defense of complex/catastrophic litigation, with a focus on defense of personal injury litigation. Mr. Bell’s extensive experience includes numerous high-profile cases which have led him to be featured in many reputable law journals. Mr. Bell has been in The Best Lawyers in America each year since 1995. He has also been named one of the Top 20 Tort Defense Lawyers in Chicago by Chicago Lawyer magazine. In 2009, he was named one of the Top 10 Attorneys in Illinois in the Chicago Magazine Super Lawyers.

Charles P. Rantis concentrates his practice in construction and product liability. Mr. Rantis has successfully represented owners, general contractors, and subcontractors in construction negligence cases involving serious injury and death. He also has extensive experience in defending traumatic brain injury claims filed against his clients. Mr. Rantis has written a number of articles relating to his practice areas. His success as a trial attorney has been recognized by his peers, who have honored him with an AV-rating from Martindale-Hubbell.

Johnson & Bell, Ltd. is a law firm with over 120 attorneys and offices in Illinois and Indiana. The firm specializes in complex civil disputes and has 17 distinct practice groups. The firm has received national recognition for its trial and appellate advocacy, including American Lawyer’s Corporate Counsel Magazine’s acknowledgement as one of the Top 100 Law Firms in the country in client satisfaction.

Johnson & Bell, Ltd. has been selected as the 2011 Member Firm of the Year for ALFA International, the global legal network. This award is given in recognition of Johnson & Bell’s outstanding contribution to ALFA International throughout the year.

ALFA International is a global network of independent law firms. Its focus is to provide legal services to businesses throughout the country. Founded in 1980, ALFA International is the oldest legal network and remains one of the largest and strongest. The ALFA organization is comprised of 145 member firms with 85 members in the United States and 60 members in Latin and South America, Canada, Mexico, Europe, Africa, Australia/New Zealand, and throughout Asia. Johnson & Bell, Ltd. is ALFA’s Chicago member.

According to Richard Hetke, CEO of ALFA International, “Johnson & Bell has consistently been a major contributor to the ALFA International organization. Johnson & Bell lawyers are active in virtually every ALFA Practice Group with many assuming key leadership roles. The award is richly deserved.”

Joseph R. Marconi is one of the ALFA International contact shareholders for Johnson & Bell, Ltd. According to him “the entire firm deserves credit for this award. Not only our attorneys but also our management team and staff have been part of our effort and deserve recognition.”

Johnson & Bell, Ltd. is pleased to announce that shareholder, James E. Phelan, has been named one of the “Forty Illinois Attorneys Under Forty to Watch” for 2011 by Law Bulletin Publishing Company, publishers of Chicago Lawyer Magazine and the Chicago Daily Law Bulletin.

Law Bulletin Publishing’s “40 Under 40” honors Illinois attorneys who show a passion for their profession, stand out among their peers, and above all, demonstrate a dedication and commitment to the legal profession. Johnson & Bell shareholder Scott W. Hoyne added, "Jim is an excellent trial attorney with an impeccable verdict record. His preparation and dedication, together with his ability to relate to jurors, are evident in the results he has obtained. His success as a trial attorney will continue to grow in the years ahead.”

Honorees are chosen in a nomination process that evaluates career achievements, advancement in respective practice fields, and community involvement. Mr. Phelan was selected from over 1200 nominees statewide.

Mr. Phelan concentrates his practice in construction defect litigation, transportation litigation, and product liability litigation in State and Federal Court. He has an exceptional trial record, and has first chaired numerous jury trials to verdict in Cook and Grundy Counties. He has also successfully handled appeals before the Illinois Appellate Court. Mr. Phelan is a member of the Defense Research Institute and Illinois Defense Counsel.

Mr. Phelan earned his B.S. from Loyola University in 1994 and his J.D. from DePaul University College of Law in 1997.

For more information on Mr. Phelan’s practice, please, click here.

Gregory D. Conforti and Adam Sidoti Obtain Not Guilty Verdict - Plaintiff Sought $3.3. Million

Gregory D. Conforti and Adam Sidoti of Johnson & Bell, Ltd. obtained a not guilty verdict in favor of all defendants, including a waste-removal trucking company and its driver from a jury in Cook County, Illinois.

The plaintiff, a 34-year-old male, had pre-existing paraplegia from a gunshot to the back when he was 15 years old. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant driver pulled out of an alley and t-boned him. With the assistance of accident reconstruction testimony, the defendants were able to argue that the plaintiff had actually side-swiped the front of the truck. The defense began by discrediting the plaintiff’s expert in demonstrating that he was actually disclosed before reviewing any materials relevant to the case and by creating actual simulations from the plaintiff's expert's data that plaintiff failed to show the jury during trial.

The defense leveraged the plaintiff's expert's accident reconstruction data to demonstrate to the jury that the accident simply could not have occurred as described by the plaintiff and the plaintiff's expert. The defense created actual simulations from the data which showed the jury that the accident occurred as described by the defendant driver. The plaintiff used still drawings with their expert and showed no actual simulations, which proved damaging to their expert’s credibility. The photographic evidence of the damage to the plaintiff's van also proved beneficial in this regard.

The plaintiff claimed he sustained neck and back injuries that aggravated his underlying paraplegia. His three treating physicians said there would be some permanent components to his injury, but were unable to specifically outline treatment. The plaintiff's current treating doctor testified at trial that the plaintiff's pain condition was likely permanent and that this could affect his ability to care for himself resulting in the potential need for in home care. Using the medical records, the defense was able to show that the plaintiff had a history of back pain complaints before the accident and that he had actually applied for home health assistance within months of the occurrence. The plaintiff asked for $3.3 million in closing, accounting for a significant claim for future medical and home health assistance ($1.25 million) and future pain and suffering and disability ($2 million). After deliberating for more than five hours, and asking several questions, the jury returned a unanimous "not guilty" verdict in favor of all defendants.

Richard B. Levy and Reiko Satoh Obtain Not Guilty Verdict for Chicago Police Officers

Richard B. Levy and Reiko Satoh of Johnson & Bell, Ltd. obtained a not guilty verdict on behalf of nine City of Chicago police officers and the City of Chicago in a trial pending in the United States District Court of the Northern District of Illinois.

The case arose out of the execution of a search warrant on the Chicago's West Side on April 14, 2008. When the defendants executed a search warrant they recovered an unregistered loaded 12-gauge shotgun, shotgun shells, an unregistered loaded 9 mm handgun, bullets for the handgun, a large amount of illegal narcotics and other items. The plaintiffs, who were individuals living at the residence when the search warrant was executed, alleged that their constitutional rights were violated by the officers, specifically, that the officers illegally seized, and illegally searched their persons and residence.

Through summary judgment, Johnson & Bell attorneys whittled down the plaintiffs' case to a single plaintiff and three specific issues. Judge Samuel Der-Yeghiayan found the remaining issues to be tried were whether the officers knocked and announced their office and purpose before entering the residence, whether two specific officers unreasonably damaged personal items of the one remaining plaintiff, and whether two specific officers stole personal property of the plaintiff. After two and a half days of trial and less than an hour of deliberation, the jury returned a verdict in favor of all defendants on all counts.

Joseph B. Carini, III of Johnson & Bell, Ltd. successfully defended his client in a lawsuit brought against it in which the estate of a 21-year-old killed in an auto accident alleged that the failure to properly maintain the traffic signals contributed to cause the accident. The plaintiff, a 21-year-old father of a 15-month-old son, was killed in an auto collision with a semi-tractor truck that entered an intersection against a red light. One of the two red lights was not illuminated. The plaintiff contended the other red light was obscured by a telephone pole. The plaintiff also contended that the light malfunction made the signals impossible to see which contributed to the crash, and contended that the condition existed for a lengthy period of time in violation of the defendant's maintenance contract with the State of Illinois. The plaintiff survived the crash for eight days and sought in excess of $11 million for the benefit of the child. Mr. Carini successfully argued that the sole proximate cause of the accident was the negligence of the non-party truck driver. The jury sided with Johnson & Bell's client and reached a not guilty verdict.

Frank P. Nowicki and Alexandria L. Bell of Johnson & Bell, Ltd. successfully defended ten Chicago police officers accused by the plaintiffs of false arrests, excessive force, failure to intervene and conspiracy. At trial, the judgment was entered as a matter of law in favor of two officers on all counts and in favor of all defendants as to the conspiracy claim. During a hearing on a motion for judgment as a matter of law before Honorable John Grady, the defense argued that there was no legally sufficient evidentiary basis for the jury to find that there was an agreement among the officers to falsely arrest the plaintiffs and they did not proffer any evidence as to the personal involvement of the two officers in the arrests of the plaintiffs.

At the conclusion of the trial, the plaintiffs failed to prevail on any of the twelve counts submitted to the jury. The jury's verdict was in favor of the defendants on nine of the counts and the jurors were hung as the remaining three. During the trial the defense argued that the officers had probable cause to arrest the plaintiffs and used force that was necessary and reasonable under the circumstances to effectuate the arrest.

Johnson & Bell, Ltd. Attorneys Obtain Defense Verdict in Birth Injury Case $65+ Million Sought

William V. Johnson and Sammi L. Renken of Johnson & Bell, Ltd. obtained a defense verdict in favor of University of Chicago Hospitals, a doctor, and a nurse, in an alleged birth injury case. During trial, the defense obtained a directed verdict in favor of a second nurse. The jury was hung, 9-2 in favor of the defense, as to one remaining physician. The plaintiff's counsel sought damages in excess of $65+ million.

The lawsuit arose out of alleged negligence during the labor and delivery of the child in June of 1995. The plaintiff alleged that the child was injured due to lack of oxygen for 22 minutes prior to delivery and further injured by inappropriate maneuvers used to relieve head entrapment at the time of delivery. The plaintiff also argued that there was lack of informed consent for delivery via vaginal delivery rather than cesarean section. The defense experts opined that all of the care complied with the standard of care in all respects. The defense argued that the child's cerebral palsy, g-tube dependence, and developmental delay were a result of her prematurity and fetal inflammatory response syndrome.

Attorneys Successfully Defend A/V Equipment Manufacturer in Preliminary Injunction Hearing

Moyenda Mutharika Knapp of Johnson & Bell, Ltd. obtained a defense verdict following a jury trial in a case in which the plaintiff claimed property damages to his home under the Adjacent Landowner Excavation Protection Act ("Act") and for private nuisance. The plaintiff claimed that an excavation on his defendant neighbors' property performed by a demolition company resulted in over $127,000 in damages to his house.

During trial, Ms. Knapp argued on behalf of the demolition company that the Act did not apply to the facts of the case because the demolition company performed demolition for the defendant neighbors and not excavation, to which the Act applied. Ms. Knapp also argued that there was no nuisance created because there was an insufficient vibratory process caused by the work that the demolition company performed at the neighbors' home to lead to damages to the plaintiff's home. Both the plaintiff and client retained expert witnesses to testify about whether a demolition was performed at the defendant neighbors' home and whether or not any activity by the demolition company resulted in damage to the plaintiff's property.

Johnson & Bell, Ltd. Attorneys Obtain Not Guilty Verdict for Client, Louisville Ladder

Charles P. Rantis and Meghan Sciortino of Johnson & Bell, Ltd. received a verdict of not guilty for their client, Louisville Ladder, in a Cook County jury trial. The plaintiff, a journeyman electrician, fell from an 8-foot fiberglass stepladder manufactured by Johnson & Bell's client, sustaining several serious injuries. The plaintiff’s fellow employee witnessed the accident, and claimed that the stepladder collapsed. The ladder had been in service at the plaintiff’s employer for 4½ years before the accident, and was provided to the plaintiff by the his foreman. Following the accident, the right front rail of the ladder was found to be bent below the bottom step.

The plaintiff contended that the accident was a result of a structural collapse of the ladder under normal use, and contended that the ladder lacked sufficient stability. The plaintiff also argued that the subject model ladder had a design defect and was never properly tested pursuant to the ANSI protocol. During trial, Mr. Rantis and Ms. Sciortino established with expert and other testimony that the real cause of the accident was a loss of balance by the plaintiff, who was working at the 4th or 5th step installing conduit above an open ceiling grid. They also established that the damage to the right front rail was due to a side impact from the plaintiff as he fell. Additionally, the defense established that the ladder had been properly tested and complied with the ANSI requirements. The defense also successfully argued that the ladder had pre-existing damage and should have been taken out of service by the plaintiff’s employer before the accident occurred.

The plaintiff's counsel asked the jury for an award of $900,000.00. After deliberating for just over an hour, the jury returned its verdict of not guilty.

The Illinois State Bar Association’s Academy of Illinois Lawyers inducted William V. Johnson into its 11th class of Laureates during a luncheon on Tuesday, April 26, 2011, at The Standard Club in Chicago.

The 2011 Class of Laureates was recognized during a ceremony conducted by John G. O’Brien of Arlington Heights, chancellor of the Academy Board of Regents. Seven attorneys were chosen this year, bringing the total to 102 distinguished Illinois attorneys.

Mr. Johnson, co-founder and president of Johnson & Bell, Ltd. was recognized for his many accomplishments in the legal community. He is an acclaimed litigator who has tried many high-profile catastrophic injury and mass tort cases in Chicago and across the United States. During his tenure as president since 1979, the highly-regarded firm has grown to 120 attorneys. Over the years, Mr. Johnson has tried virtually every type of civil injury case. He has also defended many commercial liability, professional liability and trade secrets cases during his career.

Mr. Johnson has been listed in The Best Lawyers in America since 1989, Who’s Who in American Law since 1987 and The International Who’s Who of Product liability Defense Lawyers. He is a fellow of the International Academy of Trial Lawyers, the International Society of Barristers and the American College of Trial Lawyers, among other groups, and is a past president of the Chicago Society of Trial Lawyers.

“Since 1999, the Academy has honored lawyers who have established and maintained the highest principles of the profession as demonstrated by their pervasive record of service to the law and the public,” said Mark D. Hassakis, ISBA president.

The Laureates are selected by the Board of Regents from submitted nominations. To be eligible, candidates must have practiced law primarily in Illinois for at least 25 years, must be a member of the Illinois State Bar Association, and must have demonstrated a commitment to the highest principles of the legal profession and to serving the public.

Lynn M. Reid and Jennifer T. Rose of Johnson & Bell, Ltd. obtained a favorable verdict for their clients, a daycare facility and attendant. The plaintiff, a 3-year-old under the care of the daycare center, was lifted up and accidentally struck in the head by a ceiling fan, receiving a laceration and a depressed skull fracture. The defendants admitted liability and offered $100,000 to the plaintiff to cover past and future medical expenses, pain and suffering and disfigurement. The amount was rejected by the plaintiff’s father, who was demanding upwards of $300,000.

During the three day trial the defense admitted liability but denied the nature and extent of the damages. The plaintiff asked the jury for as much as $758,977.14, but ultimately received $98,977.14, an amount less than the original offer made by the defense.

Johnson & Bell, Ltd. Attorneys Obtain Verdict in Favor of Major Ladder Manufacturer, Damages in Excess of $18 Million Sought

John W. Bell and Charles P. Rantis obtained a verdict in favor of a major ladder manufacturer following a two weeklong jury trial in which damages in excess of $18 million were sought. The plaintiff rejected a settlement offer of $3 million. The lawsuit arose out of allegations that a 2006 ladder accident in which the plaintiff suffered a severe traumatic brain injury which left the plaintiff, a 64-year-old retiree, with significant residual impairments including quadraparesis; seizure disorder; cognitive dysfunction; swallowing difficulty; spasticity; contractures; decubitis ulcers; and bowel and bladder dysfunction, requiring institutional 24/7 care in a nursing home. The plaintiff’s experts testified that this accident was the result of a structural overload failure of the ladder under normal usage. These experts testified that the right lower rail and/or gusset below the bottom step buckled because of inadequate buckling resistance and overstressing beyond the yield strength of the 5-foot type III duty rated aluminum stepladder which was manufactured in 1994. The plaintiff’s experts contended that a 1995 design change to the gusset which made the gusset longer, thicker, and shaped differently as well as a change of its attachment point to the lower rail, resulted in a stronger ladder which would have prevented the subject accident. The plaintiff’s experts relied on witness testimony which placed the ladder on its right side following the accident.

In contrast, the defendant’s experts contended that the plaintiff’s experts could not demonstrate by testing or experimentation how the ladder failed. The defendant’s experts disputed the overstress or overload theory and contended that the cause of the fall was a loss of balance, overreaching, and failure to follow the safety decals affixed to the ladder. The defendant withdrew its affirmative defenses of assumption of the risk of injury and contributory negligence and proceeded on a sole proximate cause theory. The defense contended that the ladder complied with the national ladder design standards and was a reasonably safe ladder. The defendants contended that the resulting ladder damage was caused by an impact blow to the right front rail by the plaintiff hitting the ladder as he fell. The defendant’s experts contended that the ladder tipped over and landed on its left side, not its right side as asserted by the plaintiff’s experts.

William V. Johnson Obtains Verdict in Favor of Chicago Medical Center, Obstetrician in Birth Injury Case

William V. Johnson of Johnson & Bell, Ltd. obtained a verdict in favor of a major Chicago medical center and its obstetrician following a weeklong jury trial in which damages in excess of $4 million were sought. The lawsuit arose out of allegations that a 1996 birth at the medical center was handled inappropriately, leaving the child, now age 14, with a brachial plexus injury in the left shoulder and arm. The plaintiff argued that the obstetrician and a resident in training were negligent with respect to maneuvers utilized to relieve a shoulder dystocia that occurred during the child's birth, and that as a result of inappropriate traction on the baby's head during delivery, certain nerves near the baby's spine were stretched or partially torn, resulting in the injury. Mr. Johnson argued that the physicians utilized the appropriate maneuvers to alleviate the shoulder dystocia, and the jury was shown a videotape created by the American College of Obstetricians & Gynecologists which matched the maneuvers utilized by the obstetricians. After an hour of deliberations, the jury returned a defense verdict. Mr. Johnson was assisted at trial by Matthew L. Johnson.

Isaac Melton of Johnson & Bell, Ltd. successfully defended his client who was hit by another vehicle whose driver sustained $17,000 in medical costs and other specials. The plaintiff presented two medical experts via evidence deposition and one live medical provider. Prior to trial, the plaintiff demanded $75,000 and rejected a $15,000 offer. The jury returned a verdict of $11,000.

Not Guilty for Johnson & Bell Client, Louisville Ladder

Practice group members Charles P. Rantis and Meghan Sciortino received a verdict of Not Guilty for Johnson & Bell client, Louisville Ladder, in a recent Cook County jury trial. Plaintiff, a journeyman electrician, fell from an 8-foot fiberglass stepladder manufactured by Johnson & Bell's client, sustaining several serious injuries. Plaintiff’s fellow employee witnessed the accident, and claimed that the stepladder collapsed. The ladder had been in service at plaintiff’s employer for 4½ years before the accident, and was provided to the plaintiff by the his foreman. Following the accident, the right front rail of the ladder was found to be bent below the bottom step.

Plaintiff contended that the accident was a result of a structural collapse of the ladder under normal use, and contended that the ladder lacked sufficient stability. Plaintiff also argued that the subject model ladder had a design defect and was never properly tested pursuant to the ANSI protocol. At trial, Mr. Rantis and Ms. Sciortino established with expert and other testimony that the real cause of the accident was a loss of balance by the plaintiff, who was working at the 4th or 5th step installing conduit above an open ceiling grid. They also established that the damage to the right front rail was due to a side impact from the plaintiff as he fell. Additionally, the defense also established that the ladder had been properly tested and complied with the ANSI requirements. Finally, the defense also successfully argued that the ladder had pre-existing damage and should have been taken out of service by the plaintiff’s employer before the plaintiff’s accident.

Plaintiff's counsel asked the jury for an award of $900,000.00. After deliberating for just over an hour, the jury returned its verdict of not guilty.

Jury Verdict in Favor of the Defense

Johnson & Bell, Ltd. attorneys, Lynn M. Reid and Jennifer T. Rose, obtained a favorable verdict for their clients, a daycare facility and attendant. The plaintiff, a three year old under the care of the daycare center, was lifted up and accidentally struck in the head by a ceiling fan, receiving a laceration and a depressed skull fracture. The defendants admitted liability and offered $100,000 to the plaintiff to cover past and future medical expenses, pain and suffering and disfigurement. The amount was rejected by the plaintiff’s father, who was demanding upwards of $300,000.

During the three day trial the defense admitted liability but denied the nature and extent of the damages. The plaintiff asked the jury for as much as $758,977.14, but ultimately received $98,977.14, an amount less than the original offer made by the defense.

Bell and Rantis Obtain Verdict in Favor of Major Ladder Manufacturer, Damages in Excess of $18 million Sought

On March 9, 2011, firm vice president, John W. Bell and shareholder, Charles P. Rantis, obtained a verdict in favor of a major ladder manufacturer following a two weeklong jury trial in which damages in excess of $18 million dollars were sought. The plaintiff rejected a settlement offer of $3,000,000. The lawsuit arose out of allegations that a 2006 ladder accident in which plaintiff suffered a severe traumatic brain injury which left the plaintiff, a 64 year-old retiree, with significant residual impairments including quadraparesis; seizure disorder; cognitive dysfunction; swallowing difficulty; spasticity; contractures; decubitis ulcers; and bowel and bladder dysfunction, requiring institutional 24/7 care in a nursing home. Plaintiff’s experts testified that this accident was the result of a structural overload failure of the ladder under normal usage. These experts testified that the right lower rail and/or gusset below the bottom step buckled because of inadequate buckling resistance and overstressing beyond the yield strength of the 5-foot type III duty rated aluminum stepladder which was manufactured in 1994. Plaintiff’s experts contended that a 1995 design change to the gusset which made the gusset longer, thicker, and shaped differently as well as a change of its attachment point to the lower rail, resulted in a stronger ladder which would have prevented the subject accident. Plaintiff’s experts relied on witness testimony which placed the ladder on its right side following the accident.

In contrast, the defendant’s experts contended that the plaintiff’s experts could not demonstrate by testing or experimentation how the ladder failed. The defendant’s experts disputed the overstress or overload theory and contended that the cause of the fall was a loss of balance, overreaching, and failure to follow the safety decals affixed to the ladder. The defendant withdrew its affirmative defenses of assumption of the risk of injury and contributory negligence and proceeded on a sole proximate cause theory. The defense contended that the ladder complied with the national ladder design standards and was a reasonably safe ladder. The defendant’s contended that the resulting ladder damage was caused by an impact blow to the right front rail by the plaintiff hitting the ladder as he fell. The defendant’s experts contended that the ladder tipped over and landed on its left side, not its right side as asserted by plaintiff’s experts.

Johnson Obtains Verdict in Favor of Chicago Medical Center, Obstetrician, in Birth Injury Case

On March 4, 2011, firm president, William V. Johnson, obtained a verdict in favor of a major Chicago medical center and its obstetrician following a weeklong jury trial in which damages in excess of $4 million dollars were sought. The lawsuit arose out of allegations that a 1996 birth at the medical center was handled inappropriately, leaving the child, now age 14, with a brachial plexus injury in the left shoulder and arm. Plaintiff argued that the obstetrician and a resident in training were negligent with respect to maneuvers utilized to relieve a shoulder dystocia that occurred during the child's birth, and that as a result of inappropriate traction on the baby's head during delivery, certain nerves near the baby's spine were stretched or partially torn, resulting in the injury. Johnson argued that the physicians utilized the appropriate maneuvers to alleviate the shoulder dystocia, and the jury was shown a videotape created by the American College of Obstetricians & Gynecologists which matched the maneuvers utilized by the obstetricians. After an hour of deliberations, the jury returned a defense verdict. Johnson was assisted at trial by shareholder Matthew L. Johnson.

Favorable Case Result for the Defense

Johnson & Bell, Ltd. attorney, Moyenda Mutharika Knapp, obtained a favorable result for her client, an oncology nurse, after a jury trial in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois. The plaintiff, a teacher, was rear-ended by the defendant nurse in an automobile collision. The defendant admitted at trial that the front of her vehicle came in contact with the rear of the plaintiff's vehicle. The plaintiff claimed that as a result of the collision she suffered a right internal carotid artery dissection, with almost complete blockage of the artery, and a left internal carotid artery dissection. The plaintiff was hospitalized for three days and underwent additional procedures. The plaintiff called two treating physicians to testify. One treating physician, an endovascular neuroradiologist, testified that the dissections were evident on cerebral angiogram and were caused by the accident. The plaintiff's medical bills of $43,073.90 were reduced to $5,900.35 at trial. At trial, Ms. Knapp disputed the cause, severity, and extent of the plaintiff's injuries. The plaintiff asked the jury for an award of $55,900.35. The jury awarded the plaintiff $5,900.35.

Favorable Result for the Defense

Johnson & Bell, Ltd. attorneys, Katie E. Gorrie and James E. Phelan, obtained a successful result for their client, a private social club, after a two week trial in the Law Division for the Circuit Court of Cook County. The plaintiff, a Chicago personal injury attorney, was a member of the club for over a decade. He suffered injuries after being thrown from a treadmill while working out in the club's fitness center. The plaintiff alleged the club was negligent because the treadmill was located too close in proximity to other treadmills. The plaintiff also alleged a product liability action against the treadmill manufacturer for defective design. At trial, the plaintiff testified the treadmill improperly accelerated and threw him into the treadmill behind him, causing a severe laceration to his leg. Due to the plaintiff's pre-existing medical condition, he was taking a blood thinner, and suffered medical complications after the incident. The plaintiff's expert opined that the club failed to institute the treadmill manufacturer's recommendations for spacing. The defendant club denied these allegations. The club's Athletic Director, with multiple degrees and certifications in exercise science, testified the area was not hazardous, and industry custom and practice reflected similar equipment placement in other facilities throughout the city of Chicago. Other club employees testified the area was appropriately spaced. Further, Gorrie and Phelan emphasized the lack of qualifications of the plaintiff's expert, who had no specialized education in the field of exercise science, and had never been employed in the field. The defense also emphasized the plaintiff's original reporting of the incident, in which he did not make any mention of the spacing of the treadmills, but rather indicated he lost his footing on the treadmill and was unaware of how he suffered the lacerations to his leg. The plaintiff's medical bills totaled over $130,000. As to the defendant club, the plaintiff demanded $850,000 prior to trial, but on the first day of trial, increased his demand to the club's policy limit of $1,000,000. On behalf of the club, no offer was given. The plaintiff asked for $1,100,000 from the jury during closing argument. The jury returned a verdict against Johnson & Bell, Ltd.'s client in the amount of $50,100.

Successful Case Result for the Defense

Johnson & Bell, Ltd. attorneys, Richard B. Levy and Brian P. Gainer received a favorable verdict for their clients. The plaintiff claimed that the defendant, a Chicago Police Sergeant, fabricated the story of her arrest for Obstructing a Peace Officer and Aggravated Assault of a Police Officer. Her testimony at trial focused on the fact that she was simply requesting information from the Sergeant and other arresting officers when they arrested her for no reason and charged her with these offenses. The defendant denied these claims, and testified that, while the officers were conducting a routine traffic stop, the plaintiff became irate and verbally abused the officers while they were arresting her companion for traffic violations. The defendant further testified that the plaintiff attempted to spit in his face once she was taken into custody on the Obstructing charge, and this was why she was charged with Aggravated Assault. In the end, the jury believed the defendant, and after slightly more than an hour of deliberations, returned a verdict in favor of the defendant on the plaintiff's claims of False Arrest and Malicious Prosecution.

Favorable Verdict in Municipal Liability Case

Johnson & Bell, Ltd. attorneys, Richard B. Levy and Reiko Satoh, obtained a verdict in favor of their clients, four Chicago Police Officers. The plaintiff filed suit under Section 1983, alleging counts for excessive force, false arrest, conspiracy, failure to intervene, and malicious prosecution. The plaintiff contended that, although he wasn’t gambling, he did take off running when others who were gambling near him started running. The plaintiff claims to have run into an alley and jumped into a back yard where the defendant officers hit him in the back of the head with a gun until he lost consciousness. When the plaintiff regained consciousness, he was handcuffed and another defendant officer was kicking him in the stomach. The plaintiff also claimed that two other defendant officers were standing in the area and did not stop the officers or help him. After his arrest, the plaintiff was taken to the hospital for treatment, where his wound was cleaned and bandaged. The plaintiff asked of the jury $128,950.

The defendant officers contended that the plaintiff was gambling earlier and given a warning, the same officers later returned to the area and again found that the plaintiff was gambling. As the defendant officers approached, the plaintiff took off running, where he then threw garbage cans into the alley and jumped into a back yard. Upon finding the plaintiff hiding in the yard, the defendant officers handcuffed him and brought him back to the patrol car to be transferred to the local district for processing. While the plaintiff was placed in a holding cell he began hitting the back of his head on the wall and door of the holding cell until he drew blood. The police officers notified the sergeant and lieutenant and the plaintiff was taken to the hospital for treatment. While the plaintiff suffered a minor cut on the back of his head, scans of his abdomen and pelvis revealed no abnormalities. The jury returned a verdict for the defense on all counts.

Johnson & Bell Enjoys Successful Partnership with City Defending Claims Against Chicago Police Department

Johnson & Bell’s Municipal Law Group has recently partnered with the City of Chicago to defend the numerous lawsuits that are filed each year against the City’s Police Department and its officers alleging excessive force, unlawful arrest, and other Constitutional violations. The City’s retention of Johnson & Bell is part of its new strategy of taking these cases to trial and not settling them (as it had in the past). The goal of the new strategy is to save millions of dollars that the City previously disbursed to settle these matters.

Thus far, the City’s strategy is working due in large part to the success of Johnson & Bell’s lawyers trying these cases. Johnson & Bell’s lawyers have tried nine cases to verdict in federal court on behalf of the City of Chicago Police Department since April and have achieved favorable results in all of them, including seven verdicts of “not guilty.” The change in the City’s legal strategy and the dividends it is paying were recently detailed in an article in the Chicago Sun Times. As stated in the article, the City of Chicago anticipates that 50 percent fewer police misconduct cases will be filed this year than in 2009. The share of cases resolved through settlements has fallen from about 67 percent in 2009 to about 24 percent this year through the end of September, officials said. According to the article, the results achieved thus far have been “astonishing.”

Richard B. Levy, Frank P. Nowicki, Brian P. Gainer and Alexandria L. Bell, comprise the team of Johnson & Bell lawyers that are defending the City’s Police Department in these matters.

Two Johnson & Bell, Ltd. Shareholders Honored with Trial Lawyer Excellence Award

Johnson & Bell, Ltd. shareholders, William V. Johnson and Brian C. Fetzer, were recently honored for their outstanding achievements as trial lawyers at the Jury Verdict Reporter’s 50th Anniversary Gala. The event was held on October 21, 2010 at the Hilton Chicago Hotel.

Mr. Johnson and Mr. Fetzer were recognized as part of a select group of Chicago attorneys who have attained five or more verdicts of at least $5 million in the last 20 years. Johnson & Bell was the only law firm that had two recipients of the Trial Lawyer Excellence Award.

Johnson & Bell is a law firm with over 120 attorneys and offices in Illinois and Indiana. The firm specializes in complex civil disputes and has 17 distinct practice groups. The firm has received national recognition for its trial and appellate advocacy, including American Lawyer’s Corporate Counsel Magazine’s acknowledgement as one of the Top 100 Law Firms in the country in client satisfaction.

Johnson & Bell, Ltd. Contact Information: Kathy L. Starbuck, Director of Marketing, 312.984.0273.

Johnson & Bell, Ltd. Relocates & Expands Indiana Office

Johnson & Bell, Ltd. is pleased to announce the relocation and expansion of its Indiana office to 11051 Broadway, Suite B, Crown Point, Indiana. The move will be effective November 12, 2010. Johnson & Bell’s President, William V. Johnson, recently made the announcement adding that “the increased capacity and resources of the new facility affirm and enhance Johnson & Bell’s commitment to being a premiere law firm in northern Indiana.”

Johnson & Bell’s Indiana office has tripled in size since its opening in 1997 and the firm anticipates expanding its Indiana practice even further in the coming years. Mr. Johnson noted that “the demand for quality legal services in the Indiana market has increased significantly. Our new offices create a highly functional and efficient space that will allow us to meet that demand.”

Johnson & Bell, Ltd. is a Midwest law firm with offices in Indiana and Illinois and over 120 attorneys specializing in complex civil disputes. The firm has received national recognition for its trial and appellate advocacy, including American Lawyer’s Corporate Counsel Magazine’s acknowledgement as one of the Top 100 Law Firms in the country in client satisfaction.

Johnson & Bell, Ltd. Contact Information: Kathy L. Starbuck, Director of Marketing, 312.984.0273.

Not Guilty Verdict Awarded to the Defense

Johnson & Bell, Ltd. Shareholders Scott W. Hoyne and James E. Phelan received a not guilty verdict on behalf of their client, Gutman Enterprises, Inc. following a two week jury trial. The case involved over $6 million in property damage to a condominium building at 1418 North Lake Shore Drive in Chicago, Illinois, after a sprinkler fitting of a fire suppression system in the penthouse unit burst, flooding the entire building. One of the building tenants was Scottie Pippen, former All-Star of the Chicago Bulls.

Gutman Enterprises was hired to perform rerouting and reconfiguring of an existing fire suppression system in the penthouse unit as part of an overall renovation of the unit. The general contractor for the renovation, Tip Top Builders, Inc., was sued along with Gutman Enterprises and other Defendants by the condominium building association and the various tenants. The insurance carrier for Tip Top Builders, General Casualty, settled with all of the Plaintiffs for approximately $3.6 million, and then maintained a contribution action against Gutman Enterprises, arguing that it was at fault for the sprinkler fitting burst. General Casualty argued that Gutman Enterprises violated the City of Chicago Building Code by failing to protect the fire suppression pipes from freezing, and also argued that it improperly reconfigured the fire suppression system, which added stress to the fitting that failed. At trial, Gutman Enterprises maintained it had no duty under the code to protect the fire suppression pipes from freezing, and also argued that it reconfigured and reinstalled the fire suppression system in accordance with the applicable standard of care and pursuant to the custom and practice in the industry. During closing arguments, counsel for General Casualty asked the jury to apportion 50% to 75% of fault to Gutman Enterprises, which was an amount between $2 million and $2.7 million. The jury returned a verdict finding Tip Top Builders 100% liable, and Gutman 0% liable for the loss.

Gainer/Levy Win

Plaintiff alleged that two Chicago Police Officers stopped him for no reason, and used excessive force against him while handcuffing him, breaking his left arm. Plaintiff also alleged that the defendant officers committed a battery against him. Defendants denied the plaintiff's allegations, and claimed that the plaintiff, who was acting intoxicated and belligerent, was a danger to himself and others when they stopped him on the street to conduct a field interview to determine whether he was able to get himself home from the scene. Defendants denied handcuffing the plaintiff, denied that they used any force against him, and denied that they caused his injuries.

At the close of the case, the plaintiff asked the jury for $75,000 in compensatory damages, and $100,000 in punitive damages against each officer, for a total of $275,000. The jury deliberated for two hours and cleared the defendants of five of the six claims against them. The jury awarded the plaintiff $1,000 in compensatory damages and did not award the plaintiff any punitive damages from either defendants.

Not Guilty Verdict Awarded to the Defense

Johnson & Bell, Ltd. shareholder, Joseph B. Carini, III, received a not guilty verdict on behalf of his client, Meade Electric Company. The plaintiff, a hoisting engineer, was performing work in connection with a water main repair when the backhoe he was operating came to a sudden and violent stop after striking an object in the street. The plaintiff contended that the object was an I-beam used to support Commonwealth Edison Company ducts, which had been negligently installed above grade by Meade Electric Company. The plaintiff suffered post-concussion syndrome, a shoulder injury requiring SLAP lesion repair, and claimed low back injuries ultimately resulting in fusion surgery four years post-accident. The plaintiff claimed he had lost over $220,000 in past income and $1.5 million in future income, in addition to over $210,000 in medical expenses. The plaintiff asked $6.4 million of the jury.

The defense contended that the beam it installed was properly installed below grade, and that the plaintiff struck another object, not that installed by the defendants. The defendants also contended the plaintiff was at fault for traveling too fast for conditions, such that he was catapulted from the operator’s position of his vehicle upon impact with the unknown object. The defendants also contended that the low back surgery was not related to the incident. The jury returned a not guilty verdict in favor of the defense finding the plaintiff was more than 50% at fault for causing the accident and injury.

Favorable Verdict Awarded to the Defense

Johnson & Bell, Ltd. attorneys, Richard B. Levy and Alexandria L. Bell, obtained a verdict in favor of their clients, two Chicago Police Officers. The plaintiff alleged that while waiting outside of his mother’s house with his brother and two friends, two undercover police officers unlawfully stopped and searched everyone. During that time, six to eight other undercover Chicago tactical unit officers arrived on the scene and proceeded to illegally search the plaintiff’s mothers home and, after the plaintiff protested to the search, the officers cuffed him, relocated him to the alley where he was violently beaten which resulted in a broken nose, a deep laceration to the forehead and extensive bruising to his entire body. The plaintiff asked the jury for $450,000 in compensatory damages as well as $20,000 in punitive damages.

The defense contended that the defendant police officers were on a routine patrol when they observed two individuals fighting and a couple other individuals standing around them. The officers stopped and separated the two individuals who were fighting, handcuffed them and gave them a quick pat-down. One of the officers recognized the two individuals as brothers that he knew from the neighborhood, he also observed one of the brothers was bleeding from his forehead. At this point the mother arrived to the scene and pleaded with the officers not to arrest her sons. Due to the mother’s pleas and since neither brother was looking to press charges against the other, the defending officers did not place them into custody. The jury returned a verdict for the defense on all counts.

Appellate Court Affirms “Not Guilty” Verdict in $19 Million Legal Malpractice Case

The Illinois First District Appellate Court has affirmed a “not guilty” verdict obtained by Johnson & Bell shareholders Joseph R. Marconi and Victor J. Pioli in a $19 million legal malpractice case. Johnson & Bell defended a lawyer and her firm that had previously represented a start-up company and its incorporators in setting up the company and pursuing a corporate opportunity of one of the incorporator’s former employers. The start-up company and its incorporators charged that the lawyer had negligently advised them with regard to their duties to the former employer in establishing a competing enterprise and pursuing the corporate opportunity. The former employer sued the start-up company and its former employee in a case that was eventually settled for a substantial sum. The start-up company and its incorporators then sued their attorneys for $19 million in damages, including $14 million in lost profits.

The trial court granted a motion for directed verdict filed by the defense arguing that the $14 million lost profits claims was too speculative under Illinois law. The trial allowed the case to go to the jury on the remaining $5 million of the claim. After three weeks of trial, the jury returned a verdict of “not guilty."

On appeal, the start-up company and its incorporators argued that trial court improperly admitted defendants’ expert’s testimony, the jury was improperly instructed on the standard of care, and that the jury’s verdict was against the manifest weight of the evidence. The appellate court rejected these arguments and ruled that the jury was properly allowed to consider the testimony of defendant’s expert and that the jury’s verdict was supported by the evidence. The appellate court did not consider plaintiff’s claim that the trial court’s ruling on the $14 million lost profits claim was erroneous. The appellate court ruled it was moot since the court was affirming the jury verdict on liability. The appeal was handled on behalf of defendants by Mr. Marconi and Mr. Pioli.

Victor Energy Operations, LLC v. Connelly, Roberts & McGivney, LLC, Illinois Appellate Case No. 1-09-1116 (September 23, 2010)

Appellate Court Affirms Insured’s Duty to Cooperate

Edward Hearn, managing partner of Johnson & Bell Ltd.'s Indiana Office, was recently able to obtain summary judgment in favor of a Johnson & Bell client in an employment discrimination/wrongful termination lawsuit pending in the U.S. District Court, Northern District, Indiana.

As the country's economic situation has worsened, employers who are forced to layoff employees are now being met with a slew of employment-related claims by former employees. J&B client, Digger Specialties, Inc., out of Bremen, Indiana, is a manufacturer of fencing products for the housing industry. When the housing market collapsed three years ago, Digger was forced to lay off a significant portion of its workforce. Two of those employees, Ron and Donna Young, claimed that their layoff/termination violated federal employment laws. Specifically, the Youngs alleged that they were singled out by Digger's management since they were not Amish (i.e.: religious reasons) or because they were older employees (i.e.: age discrimination), or both. The Youngs pointed to the relatively few complaints regarding their past work performance as alleged evidence of discriminatory intent on the part of their employer in terminating them. Mr. Hearn, on behalf of the employer, filed a motion for summary judgment in the federal court case arguing that the basis for the Youngs' terminations was the economic downturn and that, due to this downturn, the Youngs were no longer meeting their employer's expectations.

The federal court agreed and dismissed the Youngs' case entirely. Importantly, the district court recognized that, while normally a lack or paucity of disciplinary complaints may be used by an employee to show a discriminatory basis for termination, that is not necessarily true in the wake of an economic downturn. Specifically, the court reasoned that, when the economy changes, so does an employer's expectation with regard to the performance of an employee such that an employee who is meeting expectations during an economic boom, might not be meeting the employer's expectations in an economic crisis. The court found that this was the case especially for an employer with business operations tied so heavily to the housing industry.

The court granted Mr. Hearn's motion and dismissed the case. For a copy of the court's decision, click here.

Summary Judgment Obtained by the Defense

The Illinois First District Appellate Court recently affirmed the dismissal of an insured’s lawsuit against his insurer for breach of contract and vexatious and unreasonable delay in refusing to pay his claim. The insured claimed that the insurer wrongfully denied his claim arising from the theft of his custom motorcycle. Johnson & Bell attorney Eric W. Moch, on behalf of the insurer, obtained a dismissal of the plaintiff’s claims as a result of his failure to sign a financial release for a credit report, appear for an examination under oath, and produce certain documentation related to the insured’s financial status.

Garrett L. Boehm, Jr. and Justin H. Volmert handled the appeal. The insured argued that he substantially complied with the insurer’s requests by sitting for a lengthy unsworn interview and by producing most of the requested financial documentation. The Appellate Court rejected his argument, reaffirming the insured’s strict duty to comply with an insurer’s requests for information and cooperation during the course of an investigation. The Court held that the insured’s failure to produce all requested documentation and sit for an examination under oath constituted a violation of the policy’s cooperation clause and barred his claim.

Inquiries regarding this case can be directed to Eric W. Moch, a member of Johnson & Bell's insurance group, Justin H. Volmert, a member of the firm’s appellate group, or Garrett L. Boehm, Jr., co-chair of the appellate group.

Shareholder Sharon L. Stanzione Receives “20 Under 40” Award in Indiana

Johnson and Bell, Ltd. is pleased to announce that Shareholder, Sharon L. Stanzione, has been named one of the “20 Under 40 Indiana Professionals” for 2010 by The Times of Northwest Indiana and BusINess magazine.

The Times of Northwest Indiana and BusINess magazine’s 20 Under 40 awards is an annual program that identifies and honors individuals who have shown outstanding leadership and have already become key players in the growth and development of Northwest Indiana. This prestigious award serves to encourage young entrepreneurs, business owners as well as those who serve in government and non-profit sectors to develop their potential, reinforce their values and become role models for others. Each of The Times and BusINess magazine’s 20 Under 40 has an inspiring success story and Ms. Stanzione, who was selected from hundreds of upstanding nominees, stands proudly among those individuals selected for this year’s honor.

President William V. Johnson said “We are very pleased that Sharon has received this honor. She has earned it with her diligence and hard work in representing her clients.” Shareholder, Edward W. Hearn added, “Sharon is one of the few trial lawyers today that litigates cases to verdict regularly with excellent results for our clients. Her recognition is well-deserved.”

Ms. Stanzione concentrates her practice in civil trial and appellate litigation with an emphasis in medical malpractice. She is experienced at navigating Indiana’s unique medical review panel system and her work has helped establish malpractice law in the State of Indiana. Ms. Stanzione has successfully tried cases to verdict throughout Indiana, and has argued cases in the Indiana Supreme Court and Indiana Court of Appeals, resulting in published opinions that have helped shape Indiana health care law. Just recently, the Indiana Court of Appeals ruled in favor of Ms. Stanzione’s client on a case of first impression in Indiana. The case has created favorable law for health care providers by protecting them from liability for the good faith reporting of suspected child abuse and neglect even in the event the underlying diagnosis, which leads to the report of suspected abuse, is determined to be inaccurate.

Along with her appellate work and litigation practice, Ms. Stanzione is a Registered Civil Mediator and she is able to provide her clients with expert legal counsel. Ms. Stanzione is experienced and available to speak on issues such as risk management, business start-up, trademark and health care law. Ms. Stanzione is an adjunct faculty member of Purdue University where she teaches Conflict Management and Organizational Leadership to undergraduate students.

Ms. Stanzione is a member of the Chicago, Illinois State, Indiana State, and Lake County Bar Associations, and currently serves on the Board of Directors of the Lake County Bar Association. She was a member of the Indiana State Bar Association’s Ethics Task Force from 2000 to 2001. Ms. Stanzione is also a current member of the Calumet American Inns of Court where she has served as an officer.

Shareholder Sammi L. Renken Selected as “40 Under 40” Attorney in Illinois

Johnson and Bell, Ltd. is pleased to announce that shareholder, Sammi L. Renken, has been named one of the “Forty Illinois Attorneys Under Forty to Watch” for 2010 by Law Bulletin Publishing Company, publishers of Chicago Lawyer magazine and the Chicago Daily Law Bulletin.

Law Bulletin Publishing’s “40 Under 40” honors Illinois attorneys who show a passion for their profession, have had a series of successful verdicts, and above all, demonstrate a dedication and commitment to the legal profession. Honorees are chosen in a nomination process that evaluates candidates’ career achievements, advancement in their fields and community involvement. Ms. Renken was selected from over 1000 nominees statewide. Shareholder, Joseph R. Marconi said “Sammi Renken is a lawyer’s lawyer. She has the drive to find the nugget in every case she handles. That is what separates her from the crowd.”

“Sammi is an excellent young attorney and is well deserving of this honor,” said William V. Johnson, President of Johnson and Bell, Ltd. Brian C. Fetzer, a shareholder at Johnson and Bell, Ltd. added “Sammi has a sharp analytical eye for the nuances of defending health care professionals and this has allowed her to quickly gain the trust and confidence of our clients.”

Ms. Renken has defended multiple area hospitals, clinics, long term care facilities, urgent care centers, group homes for minors with developmental disability, same day surgery centers, individual physicians and nurses. She has defended claims across the spectrum of health care litigation including: birth injury, pharmaceutical and medical device product liability claims, cardiac care, emergency medicine, EMTALA claims, anesthesia related complications, surgical perforation and retained sponge claims, delay in cancer diagnosis, decubitus ulcer/wound care, plastic surgery claims, spinal cord injury, psychiatric care, restraints, organ transplantation, and medication error claims. Ms. Renken has participated in all aspects of cases that have gone to verdict in the Circuit Court of Cook County and the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.

Ms. Renken earned her B.A. from the University of Texas at Austin in 1995 and her J.D. from the University of Texas School of Law in 1999.

For more information on Ms. Renken’s practice, please, click here.

Johnson & Bell, Ltd. Shareholders Contribute Feature Article to DRI Legal Newsletter

Johnson & Bell, Ltd. shareholders, H. Patrick Morris and David F. Fanning , co-wrote, Illinois Appellate Court Reverses Trial Court: Madison County Asbestos Case Does Not Belong in Illinois, which is featured in the September 22, 2010 issue of DRI In the Voice: Legal News. To read the article, please click here.

Mr. Morris and Mr. Fanning are both members of Johnson & Bell's Toxic Tort practice group. To learn more about their practice please contact Patrick Morris at morrisp@jbltd.com, 312.984.0244; or David Fanning at fanningd@jbltd.com, 312.984.0289.

Not Guilty Verdict Awarded to the Defense

Congratulations to Johnson & Bell, Ltd. attorney, Anthony Derwinski, for successfully defending his client in an alleged assault and battery case involving a customer and a drugstore employee.

The plaintiff claimed she was assaulted and battered by a store employee while she was waiting in line at the pharmacy counter. The plaintiff’s complaint and testimony at trial indicated that the store’s employee “Karate chopped” her neck causing neck, back and shoulder pain. The plaintiff also claimed she had permanent injuries due to the Karate chop. The drugstore, through its employee, testified that the employee was merely tapping the plaintiff on the shoulder to get her attention and advise her that her grandson was stealing candy. The defense contended the employee had no intent, did not cause a harmful or offensive touch and that the plaintiff had no damages.

The jury was out less than 40 minutes and returned a not guilty verdict in favor of the defense. For more information on this case contact Mr. Derwinski at derwinskia@jbltd.com.

Johnson & Bell Welcomes New Attorney

Attorney Stephen A. Tyler joins Johnson & Bell, Ltd. as a shareholder for the Merrillville, Indiana office and brings over 25 years of litigation experience. Mr. Tyler is admitted to practice before the Supreme Court of Indiana, the United States District Court for the Nortern District of Indiana, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, and the United States Supreme Court. He has received the highest rating for legal ability and ethics in a peer survey conducted by Martindale Hubbell, Inc.

Mr. Tyler is a Northwest Indiana native and began his career in 1980 when he received his J.D. degree cum laude from Indiana University. He has previously served as an adjunct instructor in Evidence, Trial Courts and Medical Malpractice, teaching both undergraduate and graduate level classes in the School of Public and Environmental Affairs at Indiana University Northwest in Gary, Indiana.

For more information on Mr. Tyler and his practice click here.

Favorable Verdict Awarded to the Defense

Johnson & Bell, Ltd. attorneys, Gregory Conforti and Genevieve LeFevour, received a favorable verdict for their client in a case that involved a construction site accident that resulted in the death of an independent contractor. The plaintiff asked of the jury $9.5 million to cover pain and suffering, past and future lost wages, and loss of society. The jury awarded $1.4 million, but found the plaintiff was 49% liable and reduced the verdict to $734,000.

The case developed from an accident that occurred on April 27, 2001. The plaintiff's decedent was working as an independent contractor performing torch cutting work on the defendant's premises. The decedent was torch cutting a portion of a single deck rail car when a piece of steel fell on him causing his death by asphyxiation. The decedent was fifty-one years old at the time of his death and left a wife and four children. The plaintiff's expert, Eugene Holland, testified that the defendant did not provide a safe place for the decedent to work and that the defendant should have recognized the hazard involved in the torch cutting work being performed by the decedent and should have taken reasonable steps to guard against it. Further, Holland contended that the defendant was in control of the work the decedent was doing at the time of his death.

Mr. Conforti and Ms. Levefour were transferred to the case in 2008, a month before trial, for the sole purpose of handling the trial. At this point, they saw an opportunity to file a Motion for Summary Judgment based on the fact that the decedent was a true independent contractor and no duty was owed to him by the defendant under the law and the exceptions to this rule under Section 414 of the Restatement Second of Torts did not apply. The trial court agreed and granted the defendant's Summary Judgment. The plaintiff appealed and the Appellate Court for the First District of Illinois reversed the defendant's Summary Judgment, finding that there was a question of fact that should go before the jury regarding whether the defendant owed a duty to the decedent under Section 414 of the Restatement Second of Torts.

At trial, it was determined that the information gathered by the defendant in the initial discovery phase of the case with respect to the incident was incorrect; therefore making most of the evidence presented at trial moot. Despite having no expert and limited evidence to work with, the defense counsel argued that the decedent was an independent contractor and the defendant did not control the means, manner or methods by which the decedent did his work. They further, argued that the decedent was responsible for the safety of his work and based on his thirty years of experience doing torch cutting work should have recognized any hazard that existed in performing his work.

The jury awarded $1.4 million, but found that the plaintiff was 49% contributorily liable, thus reducing the verdict to $734,000. Before the first trial, defendants had offered $1.25 million at trial with indications of 1.5 million.

Defense Receives Directed Verdict in General Negligence Case

Johnson & Bell, Ltd. attorneys, Anthony Derwinski and Daniel Nathan, successfully defended their clients, Chicago property owners, in an alleged general negligence case. The plaintiffs claimed property damage from a large tree that fell from the defendants’ property. The plaintiffs’ theory was that the defendants negligently maintained the property and the tree and failed to have it removed prior to the occurrence. The plaintiffs submitted pictures attempting to show that the tree was rotted and was in danger of falling. In addition, the plaintiffs obtained invoices from several tree removal services attempting to show that the tree was rotted.

At the close of the plaintiffs’ case the defense counsel moved for directed verdict arguing that the plaintiffs failed to show notice, constructive or otherwise, and that the defendants knew or should have known of problems with the tree in question. The court agreed with the defense counsel and a directed verdict was entered in favor of the defendants. In addition, the defendants were also awarded their costs.

Verdict Returned in Favor of the Defense

On August 6, 2010, after a five-day jury trial, a Cook County jury returned a verdict in favor of State Farm Insurance Company ("State Farm") in a breach of contract, insurance fraud and bad faith case. State Farm was represented by Johnson & Bell, Ltd. attorney, Jonathan W. Goken, at trial.

The case centered around an alleged theft and subsequent intentional burning of a high end automobile that was insured by State Farm on the date of loss. State Farm had denied the plaintiffs' claim based upon the insurance policy's "Concealment or Fraud" exclusion and the plaintiffs sued. At trial, Mr. Goken contended that the policy's "Concealment or Fraud" exclusion was applicable to the facts at issue and operated to bar coverage due to certain material misrepresentations the plaintiffs had made to State Farm during State Farm's pre-suit claim's investigation. Mr. Goken further argued that the loss was more likely than not intentionally caused by the plaintiffs, as the plaintiffs had the best, if not the only, means, motive and opportunity to intentionally cause the loss in question.

After five days of trial, Mr. Goken successfully convinced the jury that State Farm had correctly excluded coverage to the plaintiffs under the policy's "Concealment or Fraud" provision. In light of the jury's verdict on the plaintiffs' contractual claim, Judge Haddad entered judgment in State Farm's favor on the plaintiffs' alleged bad faith claim and dismissed that claim with prejudice as well.

Not Guilty Verdict Awarded to the Defense in Municipal Liability Case

Johnson & Bell, Ltd. attorneys, Richard B. Levy and Brian P. Gainer, obtained a not guilty verdict in favor of their clients, two Chicago Police Officers. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant police officers used excessive force against him, unlawfully searched and seized his vehicle, conspired to violate his civil rights, and failed to provide him medical care.

The defendant officers were responding to a 911 battery report, which named the plaintiff as the offender. The plaintiff resisted arrest and a struggle ensued, and ultimately, the plaintiff was attested after he was pepper sprayed by the officers. Because of the alleged excessive force, the plaintiff claimed he suffered headaches, reoccurrence of a pre-existing shoulder injury, chemical burns, pain and suffering, and emotional distress. The plaintiff asked the jury upward of $200,000 for recompense. The defense argued that the plaintiff violently resisted arrest, and that they acted reasonably under the circumstances. The jury returned a verdict for the defendants on all counts.

J&B Attorneys Published in DRI Newsletter

Johnson & Bell, Ltd. attorneys, Scott D. Braun and Jenna L. Buda, co-wrote, Insurers' Retention of Outside Counsel, which is featured in the July 2010 issue of DRI: For the Defense. To read the article, please click here.

Mr. Braun and Ms. Buda are both members of Johnson & Bell's Insurance Group. To learn more about their practice please contact Mr. Braun at brauns@jbltd.com and Ms. Buda at budaj@jbltd.com.

Not Guilty Verdict Awarded in Contribution Action

Johnson & Bell, Ltd. attorneys, James E. Phelan and Katie E. Gorrie, recently received a not guilty verdict in favor of their client, a Chicago cab driver and taxi company. The case involved an insurance carrier seeking contribution to a previously settled $1.5 million claim relating to an automobile accident.

In January 2006, the plaintiff, traveling southbound, was attempting a left hand turn. As he entered the intersection, the defendant cab driver, traveling northbound, had crossed into the intersection when his vehicle collided with the plaintiff. As a result of the collision, the plaintiff’s vehicle went up onto the sidewalk, ran into a fire hydrant and light pole, and struck and seriously injured a pedestrian standing nearby. Plaintiff’s insurance company settled with the injured pedestrian in 2008 for $1.5 million. Plaintiff’s insurer then demanded $200,000 from the defendant cab driver and taxi company, alleging defendant was speeding immediately prior to the collision, which caused plaintiff’s vehicle to be forced up on the sidewalk after the collision. During the trial, Mr. Phelan and Ms. Gorrie presented evidence contesting plaintiff’s theory, contending the sole cause of the accident was the plaintiff’s improper left hand turn in front of the defendant cab driver, and that defendant was not speeding. A number of eye witnesses testified as to their recollection of the occurrence, and both sides retained accident reconstruction experts who testified at trial as to their analyses of the collision. The jury awarded a verdict of not guilty to the cab driver and taxi company, assessing 100% of the fault for the occurrence on plaintiff.

Successful Case Result in Breach of Contract Dispute

On July 15, 2010, after a two day bench trial before Judge James P. McCarthy, judgment was entered in favor of Fireman’s Fund Insurance Company (“FFIC”) in a breach of contract dispute wherein the Third-Party Plaintiff (antique store) alleged that FFIC had breached its duty to pay for certain rental equipment and clean up services provided by the plaintiff (service provider) to the antique store after a large scale gas loss arose. FFIC was represented by Johnson & Bell, Ltd. attorneys, Jonathan W. Goken and Christopher W. Loweth at trial.

Mr. Goken and Mr. Loweth successfully argued at trial that the antique store, and not FFIC, was legally obligated by contract, to pay for all costs incurred for the use of the rental equipment and clean up services that were incurred after the loss. In entering judgment in FFIC's favor, Judge McCarthy specifically ordered the antique store to satisfy all alleged contractual damages incurred by the service provider, as well as pay applicable interest and attorneys fees incurred in the case.

Not Guilty Verdict Awarded to the Defense

Johnson & Bell, Ltd. attorneys, Frank P. Nowicki and Brian P. Gainer, received a not guilty verdict for their clients, two Chicago Police Officers. The plaintiff alleged a false arrest and unlawful search and claimed emotional distress and mental anguish as a result of the arrest and for time spent in Cook County Jail.

The on-duty Officers overheard a conversation about the sale of narcotics coming from an apartment and charged the plaintiff with possession of a controlled substance. The plaintiff claimed that the defendants did not recover drugs from her and lied so that they could send her to prison. The charges against the plaintiff were later dismissed. The defendants maintained that they had probable cause to arrest the plaintiff because they observed her with narcotics in her possession . The jury returned its not guilty verdict in just over an hour.

Not Guilty Verdict Awarded in Favor of the Defense

Johnson & Bell, Ltd. shareholder, Marilyn M. Reidy, successfully defended her client, an oral surgeon, in a recent dental malpractice trial. The plaintiff contended that the defendant's extraction of an impacted mandibular third molar resulted in damage to the inferior alveolar nerve causing permanent anesthesia to the lip and chin of the plaintiff. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant failed to order a pre-surgical CT scan, failed to perform an alternative surgical procedure and failed to provide informed consent to the plaintiff prior to surgery.

The defendant contended that the nerve injury was a known risk of the procedure, that the plaintiff was at increased risk because of his age and the proximity of the nerve to the tooth in this instance, and that the plaintiff was informed of this prior to surgery but still agreed to proceed. The jury returned a not guilty verdict in favor of the defense.

J&B Client Awarded Not Guilty On All Counts

Johnson & Bell, Ltd. attorneys, Richard B. Levy and Alexandria L. Bell, received a not guilty verdict in the defense of their clients, two Chicago Police Officers, in a case involving allegations of false arrest and unlawful search.

On March 2, 2007 the defendant Officers responded to “a person with a gun” call on the south-west side of Chicago. Upon arrival, the Officers discovered a medicine container containing two baggies of suspected cocaine. The defendants arrested the plaintiff and charged her with possession of a controlled substance. The plaintiff denied the medicine container recovered at the location of her arrest belonged to her and was eventually released from the custody of Cook County Department of Corrections after her case was dismissed. Subsequently, the plaintiff filed a Section 1983 action against the City of Chicago and the arresting Officers, alleging false arrest and unlawful search.

The defense contended that one of the Officers had observed the plaintiff drop an orange medicine container to the ground. While that Officer detained the plaintiff, his partner recovered the medicine container, which contained two baggies of suspect cocaine. These observations and the items recovered provided the Officers with probable cause to arrest the plaintiff, which nullified both her claim for false arrest and her claim for unlawful search. The plaintiff was charged with possession of a controlled substance.

Not Guilty Awarded to the Defense

Johnson & Bell, Ltd. attorneys, Richard B. Levy and Alexandria L. Bell, received a not guilty verdict for their clients, two Chicago Police Officers. The plaintiff alleged a false arrest and claimed emotional/mental pain and suffering. The defendant officers contended a probable cause for arrest.

The Officers, who were on routine patrol, observed a van traveling at a high rate of speed run a solid red light. After the pursuit of the vehicle for some distance, the Officers stopped the van for the purpose of issuing a traffic violation ticket. The Officers ordered both the driver and passenger/plaintiff to exit the vehicle for their safety. The search of the driver revealed some marijuana. While outside the vehicle, in plain view, one of the Officers observed a butt of the gun protruding underneath the driver’s seat of the van. When asked about the gun, the passenger admitted ownership, at which point the arrest was made and the plaintiff was charged with unlawful use of a weapon. At trial, the plaintiff denied that there was a gun in the van or that police recovered one and that he never made a confession admitting ownership of the gun. After a two-and-a-half day jury trial, the jury found in favor of both police officers and sent the plaintiff home empty-handed.

Summary Judgment Granted in Favor of the Defense

On May 13, 2010, a Cook County Circuit Court Judge granted summary judgment in favor of defendant Liebert Corporation in the case of Tricia Matalas-Dibble vs. Liebert Corporation. The plaintiff filed a product liability action based on strict liability in tort against Liebert Corporation which designs and manufactures commercial HVAC units. The plaintiff was injured when attempting to replace the middle horizontal panel on the Liebert HVAC unit. The plaintiff lost control of the panel which fell on her foot, causing severe injuries. Liebert moved to bar the plaintiff from calling any retained expert witnesses. This motion to bar was granted. Subsequently, Liebert Corporation filed a motion for summary judgment, contending that the plaintiff could not prove her prima facie case of a product liability theory based on strict liability in tort because the plaintiff had no qualified and competent expert testimony to prove that the Liebert HVAC unit was defective and unreasonably dangerous.

Liebert relied on appellate decisions from Illinois which have held that a witness who has not been qualified as an expert witness is unable to give a personal opinion as to the safety of a product or device as designed. These Illinois cases essentially mirror the rationale of Federal Rule of Evidence 701 which emphasizes that lay opinion testimony is limited to those observations of a lay witness that are not based on scientific, technical, or specialized knowledge within the scope of Federal Rule of Evidence 702.

For more information on this case contact Johnson & Bell shareholders, John W. Bell or Charles P. Rantis at bellj@jbltd.com or rantisc@jbltd.com respectively.

Johnson, Kennedy Obtain Defense Verdict for Bloomington, IL, Ob/Gyn in Medical Malpractice Case

Johnson & Bell, shareholders, Matthew L. Johnson and Julie M. Kennedy, obtained a unanimous "not guilty" verdict in favor of a Bloomington, IL ob/gyn from a 12-person jury impaneled in McLean County, IL, on May 21. 2010. Plaintiff, a 31-year-old female horse trainer, claimed that the defendant surgeon violated the standard of care throughout two surgical procedures which he performed on her in May, 2005, and that she suffered a bowel obstruction which required a third surgery to correct, and permanent episodes of abdominal pain and gastrointestinal (GI) issues for which there is no effective treatment. Plaintiff's counsel sought an award of over $700,000, and argued that the defendant ob/gyn negligently perforated plaintiff's bowel during the course of the initial procedure, admitted doing so to the patient and her friend after the surgery, and then made a negligent attempt at repairing the perforation during a second procedure two days later. Plaintiff claimed that she suffered from painful peritonitis for a period of three weeks, until she underwent a third surgery with a general surgeon. who found several pelvic abscesses. Medical specials were claimed in excess of $80,000.

The defense argued that, in retrospect, plaintiff sustained a thermal injury to the bowel during the injury as a result of the ob/'gyn's use of electrosurgical scissors which were used at that time to remove scar tissue, and that such an injury is a rare but known complication of the procedure. The physician testified that he did not "admit" to patient that he accidentally perforated her bowel, and testified that his attempt to repair the small hole in her bowel was appropriate and within the standard of care. He further testified that his post-surgical care of the patient was appropriate, that she did not have peritonitis for 3 weeks, and that the condition which necessitated the third surgery was a partial small bowel obstruction, which is a known and recognized complication of the bowel repair he performed. The defense also argued that plaintiff was not injured to the extent claimed, and that her treating surgeon had released her for resumption of her normal activities within 2 months of the third surgery. The jury deliberated for approximately 3 hours prior to coming to its verdict.

Favorable Verdict Awarded to the Defense

Johnson & Bell, Ltd. shareholder, Moyenda Mutharika Knapp, obtained a favorable result before the Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, which upheld the dismissal with prejudice and without leave to re-file of plaintiff’s breach of contract and bad faith lawsuit against an insurance company that Ms. Knapp procured before the trial court. On appeal, Ms. Knapp argued that the plaintiff failed to state a cause of action for breach of contract because he failed to cite to the proper policy provisions that he contended were breached by the insurer. Ms. Knapp further argued that the allegations in the bad faith claim evidenced nothing more than a bona fide dispute regarding coverage, for which bad faith damages could not be had.

J&B Shareholder Obtains Dismissal in Favor of the Defense

Johnson & Bell, Ltd. shareholder, Moyenda Mutharika Knapp, recently obtained the dismissal with prejudice and without leave to re-file of plaintiff’s cause of action for breach of contract and negligence against his insurance broker. The plaintiff’s lawsuit alleged that the defendant failed to properly procure insurance to cover a parking lot at which a cargo loss occurred. The plaintiff initially filed suit for contribution, and Ms. Knapp successfully had that claim dismissed with, arguing that the plaintiff improperly asserted a third-party action against the defendant. The plaintiff then filed suit as an independent action. The plaintiff argued that the Illinois Contribution Act saved the cause of action and extended the statute of limitations period. Ms. Knapp argued, in part, that the Contribution Act did not apply to an indemnity claim and that the plaintiff failed to effectively preserve his contribution rights in the original action, waiving the right to contribution.

J&B Shareholder Elected as Officer, Secretary of CHRMS

Johnson & Bell, Ltd. shareholder, Sammi L. Renken, was recently elected as Officer, Secretary of the Chicagoland Healthcare Risk Management Society (CHRMS) for 2010-2012. CHRMS, an affiliated chapter of the American Society for Healthcare Risk Management (ASHRM), provides its members with educational, networking and professional development opportunities within healthcare and risk management.

For more information on Ms. Renken and her commitment to CHRMS, please contact her at renkens@jbltd.com.

Favorable Negotiation Settlement for the Defense

Johnson & Bell, Ltd. attorneys, Joseph F. Spitzzeri and Genevieve M. LeFevour, have negotiated a favorable defense settlement for a security company in a collective action brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Illinois Minimum Wage Law and the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act. The three named plaintiffs claimed they were denied overtime pay for mandatory training, waiting for replacement security officers to take their posts and donning and doffing of uniforms. The Circuit Court of Cook County recently approved the settlement which limited the number of overtime hours to substantially less than claimed by the named plaintiffs as well as reducing the time period involved in order to limit the number of potential claimants. Notice to potential claimants is now proceeding.

For more information contact Mr. Spitzzeri at spitzzerij@jbltd.com.

Favorable Verdict Awarded to the Defense

Johnson & Bell, Ltd. attorneys, Terry A. Takash and Matthew K. Wollin, received a favorable verdict for their client in a case of admitted liability. The case was transferred to Johnson & Bell three weeks before trial from another firm. Prior to the trial the defense offered $125,000; the plaintiff’s demand was $400, 000, specials were around $75,000 plus future damages. The plaintiff asked the jury for an award up to $1.10 million. The jury returned the verdict in the amount of $110,000 after deliberating for less than two hours.

Not Guilty Verdict Awarded in Favor of the Defense

Johnson & Bell, Ltd. attorneys, Richard B. Levy and Brian P. Gainer, received a not guilty verdict for their client after a two day, federal trial before Judge Amy St. Eve. The plaintiff alleged that the defendants, Chicago police officers, used excessive force and failed to intervene to prevent the use of excessive force when he was being taken into custody for an armed robbery. The plaintiff claimed injuries included a broken wrist and slashes and scars to his back. The plaintiff asked for compensatory and punitive damages in an amount to be determined by the jury. The jury returned a verdict in favor of the defense in just over one hour of deliberations.

Summary Judgment Granted in Favor of J&B Client

Johnson & Bell, Ltd. attorneys, John W. Bell, Charles P. Rantis and Meghan M. Sciortino, received a summary judgment order from Judge Leinenweber of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois in favor of their client, a ladder manufacturing company. This product liability suit was brought by the plaintiff for injuries he allegedly suffered as a result of a fall from a mini-scaffold, which was manufactured by the defendant. Under Illinois law, in product liability actions, a plaintiff must demonstrate that the product was defective at the time it left the manufacturer’s control. The evidence provided by the defense showed that the scaffold had left the defendant’s control almost eight years before the accident in an unassembled condition. The defendant moved to bar the plaintiff’s engineering expert from testifying at trial. The judge granted the motion to bar pursuant to the Daubert case. In addition, the cause for the fall was found in the failure to assemble the scaffold in accord with the product warnings and instructions. Since the plaintiff was barred from presenting any expert witness testimony and since there was no evidence in the record to support the plaintiff’s claim, the court granted the defendant’s motion for Summary Judgment. The plaintiff has appealed.

Appellate Court Clarifies and Affirms Tort Claims were Properly Dismissed

The opinion, Westfield Insurance v. CNH America, No. 3-09-0501 (Ill.App.Ct. March 17, 2010), issued by Illinois' Third District Appellate Court, clarifies application of the economic loss doctrine where a plaintiff pleads incidental damages to "other" personal property. In this case, Johnson & Bell's client, CNH America, manufactured a tractor that was sold by Birkey's Farm Store to the plaintiff, Sandrock Farms. While employees of Sandrock Farms were operating the tractor, a fire occurred, which damaged the tractor and certain items of personal property left in the tractor including tools, after market items added to the tractor including a CB radio, employee clothing, employee time, and employee injury. The Appellate Court held that the tort claims were properly dismissed. Westfield Insurance, as subrogee of Sandrock Farms, lacked standing to assert personal injury or property damage claims for Sandrock Farms' employees. Furthermore, the Appellate Court upheld prior precedent that lost employee time is an economic loss not recoverable in tort. Finally, the Appellate Court held that the loss of a fire extinguisher and equipment are the exact type of property one would expect to be damaged as a direct or incidental consequence of a tractor fire, and are therefore barred by the economic loss doctrine.

Dismissal of the tort claims was obtained by Johnson & Bell shareholder, Charles P. Rantis, and associate, Meghan M. Sciortino. The appeal was successfully defended by Johnson & Bell shareholder Garrett L. Boehm, Jr.

"And The Defense Wins" J&B Featured In DRI

Johnson & Bell, Ltd. shareholders and Defense Research Institute (DRI) members, John W. Bell and Robert R. McNamara, were featured in the March 3, 2010 issue of DRI The Voice within the And The Defense Wins section. The article highlighted Mr. Bell's and Mr. McNamara's successful results for an alleged retaliatory discharge case tried in January of this year. To view this article please Click Here.

Johnson & Bell Successfully Defends Lawyers in $17 Million Legal Malpractice Case

Attorneys from Johnson & Bell’s Professional Liability Practice Group (Joseph R. Marconi, Victor J. Pioli, Michael Siavelis, and Reiko Satoh) successfully defended a Chicago real estate law firm and its partners against a $17 million legal malpractice claim. The law firm had represented Oak Brook Bank (later merged into MB Financial) in a loan transaction for the acquisition and construction of a residential condominium building at 60 West Erie Street. The borrowers on the loan subsequently submitted fraudulent draw requests on the loan and defrauded the bank out of $17 million.

The bank sued its lawyers claiming that had the bank been appropriately advised that proper zoning and other requirements set forth in its loan committee approval were not fulfilled by the time of the closing of the loan, it would not have closed the loan and sustained the losses it did. The lawyers countered that the bank was fully apprised and consented to the fact that certain conditions would not be fulfilled at closing and that the conditions were only to be waived for the initial draw for the acquisition of the property under the terms of the construction loan agreement. The lawyers further argued that had the bank simply followed the terms of the construction loan agreement, it would not have sustained its losses.

The trial court granted the lawyers’ motion for partial summary judgment to limit the damages claimed by the bank to the amount of the initial draw on the loan (i.e., $4.5 million). A three week trial ensued to determine the lawyers’ potential liability on the initial draw. After short deliberations, the jury returned a verdict of “not guilty.”

Not Guilty Verdict Awarded in Favor of the Defense

Johnson & Bell, Ltd. shareholders, John W. Bell and Robert R. McNamara, successfully defended their client, Commonwealth Edison, in an alleged retaliatory discharge case in the Circuit Court of Cook County. The trial was held between January 12, 2010 and January 27, 2010 which resulted in a verdict in favor of Commonwealth Edison.

The plaintiff was employed at a unit of Commonwealth Edison called IES that provided back up generators and related services to commercial customers. The business involved the use of outside contractors to do the actual installation work. There were allegations made against the plaintiff that he was pushing his employees to use an outside contractor who ran a company that was later discovered to be owned by the plaintiff’s brother. The plaintiff subsequently alleged that an IES engineer was being bribed in return for business by another outside contractor. The allegations were investigated and found to be without merit. At the close of 2002, the IES business was struggling and a corporate decision was made to lay off a manager and engineer. The plaintiff was the lowest performing manager and was laid off which he claimed was in retaliation for his good faith report of bribery.

After suit was filed by the plaintiff, it was discovered that he had misrepresented his employment background when he applied to Commonwealth Edison. He claimed to have been a Vice President of a large electrical contracting firm when, in fact, he had operated sixteen companies between 1984 and 2000 that had either failed or been dissolved in bankruptcy. This evidence was presented to the jury to establish an affirmative defense that had Commonwealth Edison known the material misrepresentations, they never would have hired him. The jury deliberated for four hours before returning a verdict in favor of Commonwealth Edison.

Lebron Opinion Issued by Illinois Supreme Court; 2005 Med-Mal Caps Declared Unconstitutional

By Adam Sidoti

The Illinois Supreme Court, in an opinion issued on February 4, 2010 ruled that the Illinois law (Public Act 94-677) that placed limits on awards for noneconomic damages such as pain and suffering in medical malpractice cases is facially invalid. The statute capped noneconomic damages at $1 million for hospitals and their personnel and $500,000 for doctors. The Court ruled that the damage limitation violates the constitutional principle of separation of powers by interfering with the authority of the judicial branch to reduce verdicts. The ruling, which totaled 52 pages, was written by Chief Justice Fitzgerald, with whom Justices Freeman, Kilbride and Burke concurred. Justices Karmeier and Garman concurred in part and dissented in part, while Justice Thomas took no part in the decision.

The test case involved a baby born by Caesarean section who was found to have numerous permanent injuries. Suit was filed against Gottlieb Memorial Hospital, the doctor, and an assisting nurse. This litigation is the lead case in a number of lawsuits consolidated in Cook County which raised the same issue.

This highly anticipated ruling, with amicus curiae briefs filed by over 20 different organizations, groups and individuals on behalf of plaintiff and defense, was the Illinois legislature’s third attempt at passing tort reform, and this version suffered the same fate as the previous two. The limitation on noneconomic damages was one of several reforms, which were enacted due to the rising cost of medical liability insurance and the resulting impact on physicians and hospitals. Other aspects of the act affected by this decision include portions of the Illinois Insurance Code, Medical Practice Act of 1987, the Good Samaritan Act, as well as other changes to the Code, including the “Sorry Works (program).”

The Illinois Supreme Court, while giving great deference to legislative findings on the impact of caps on noneconomic damages, stated that its task was to determine the “constitutionality of the statute (as opposed to) its wisdom.” In doing so, the Court held that the purpose of the separation of powers clause is to ensure that “the whole power of two or more branches of government” will not “reside in the same hands.” The Court explained the doctrine of remittitur, which allows a Court to correct a verdict and is determined on a case-by-case basis reliant on particular evidence and facts. The Court ultimately ruled that although the legislature may statutorily limit damages recoverable in statutory actions, the limitation on non-statutory actions (such as medical malpractice claims) violated the separation of powers clause.

The above-described arguments are identical to those made in the prior case which held caps on non-economic damages to be unconstitutional. Best v. Taylor Machine Works, 179 Ill.2d 367 (1997) established the precedent relied upon by the circuit court in finding the present statute unconstitutional, and the Illinois Supreme Court’s analysis supported this finding. The Court, though, noted that the Best damages cap applied to all actions, whether based on common law or statute, whereas the cap at issue applied only to medical malpractice actions. The Court implicitly adopted the Best analysis, ultimately finding that any infringement on noneconomic damages represented a patent violation of separation of powers.

The Court recognized the General Assembly’s ability to alter the common law, but held it may not do so in a manner which would run afoul of the separation of powers clause. The defendants had cited to other statutes which limit common law liability, arguing that if this section were invalidated, they too must also be declared unconstitutional. These acts (such as the portions of the Recreational Use of Land and Water Areas Act and Good Samaritan Act), however, do not require a court to reduce a jury’s award of noneconomic damages, irrespective of the facts of the case.

The Court also examined statutes from other states which limit noneconomic damages. The defense argued the limits in the Illinois caps were “well within the range of reasonable limits adopted by (other) states.” However, the Court noted that such limitations vary widely (focusing on California and Florida), and that the Court refrained from deciding whether a particular limit is in fact reasonable. Rather, the Court found that regardless of whether the limits are reasonable, this provision still runs afoul of the constitution, noting that an “everybody is doing it” standard is not the proper litmus test.

The dissent criticized the majority opinion as being rushed, contending that while it purports to defend the constitution, it stands as an obstacle to the legislature’s efforts to find an answer to the “healthcare crisis.” The dissent implied that the majority opinion is an affront to the health-care reform efforts of the Obama Administration. The majority denied this contention, criticizing the dissent for what it deemed to be “emotional and political rhetoric.”

In fact, the concurrence/dissent spent a significant portion of the opinion outlining the Obama administration’s efforts at passing a health care reform act. However, it also echoed the defense’s essential arguments that (1) other states have limits, and (2) if this statute is found unconstitutional, then so must other similar acts be declared unconstitutional. The dissent argued that this ruling represents an impermissible encroachment upon the inherent power of the judiciary to correct jury verdicts through remittitur. The dissent also argued that the Plaintiffs lacked standing in this matter, a charge that the majority opinion stated was ineffective and decided not to address. The dissent’s basic point with respect to standing and ripeness was that none of the Plaintiffs in any of the consolidated cases had yet prevailed in the medical malpractice claims.

In addressing the majority’s reliance on the principles found within the Best decision (i.e., the separation of powers), the dissent stated that while it is admirable not to do something just because others are doing it, “it can be no dishonor to learn from others when they speak good sense.” The dissent acknowledged that the Court must allow the legislature to enact its constitutional powers to make, amend, alter, and abolish the laws of the state. The dissent contended that the act limiting noneconomic damages in medical malpractice claims will in no way usurp the judiciary’s powers. The dissent relied on the rulings of other states which have upheld the constitutionality of similar statutes.

While the central issue was of the opion the caps on non-economic damages in medical malpractice, the majority struck down the rest of the legislation on inseverability grounds, but stated that the General Assembly could reenact any other provision it deemed appropriate. The entire act, found at section 2-1706.5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, was adopted as part of Public Act 94-677. For purposes of this ruling, the Court issued no opinion on the other components of the Act.

For a copy of the court's decision email Kathy Starbuck, Director of Client Relations, at starbuckk@jbltd.com.

Johnson & Bell Attorneys Receive Favorable Result in Premises Liability Case

On November 24, 2009, attorneys Matt Johnson and Bill Young obtained, in the Circuit Court of Cook County, a favorable result for a national restaurant chain in a premises liability case. Plaintiff claimed Complex Regional Pain Syndrome (CRPS) stemming from a fall inside a restaurant which occurred while plaintiff, a 39-year-old beer delivery man, was transporting 2 kegs of beer plus a cylinder of beer (300 + lbs.) up a ramp inside of the restaurant. Plaintiff and his wife claimed that plaintiff was unable to find employment since the date of the occurrence, 1/28/04, and that he lived with constant pain and required a cane to ambulate. Plaintiff's attorneys asked the jury to award damages in excess of $2.8 million dollars. Plaintiff argued that the slip-and-fall accident was caused due to water that the restaurant manager admitted that he tracked in from outside after shoveling snow and that he did not clean up prior to the time plaintiff attempted to enter the restaurant. The defense argued that plaintiff was contributorily negligent for transporting the 2+ kegs of beer up a ramp, backward, in inclement weather, in violation of his employer's policy which prohibited the transport of more then one keg at a time for safety reasons. The restaurant also filed a third-party action against plaintiff's employer for failing to properly train and supervise plaintiff. At the conclusion of trial, the jury awarded plaintiff $200,000. This was reduced to $100,000 based upon the jury's finding that plaintiff was 50% contributorily negligent. As to the third-party claim, the jury found that plaintiff's employer was 30% negligent, thus the employer will have to contribute $30,000 to plaintiff's judgment. Plaintiffs have filed a post-trial motion. Prior to trial, plaintiffs demanded $6,000,000 to settle the case. Michael and Michelle Mielak v. TGI Friday's, Inc., v. Skokie Valley Beverage Company, Court No. 06 L 000953. For more information about this case and about Johnson & Bell, Ltd.'s Retail Practice Group, please contact Matt Johnson at johnsonm@jbltd.com, or at 312/984-0245.

Not Guilty Verdict Awarded in Favor of the Defense

Johnson & Bell, Ltd.  Shareholder, James E. Phelan, received a not guilty verdict in favor of his client, an insulation sub-contractor, in a case  involving   allegations of  mold in the insulation found within the plaintiff’s home. The plaintiff asked the jury for an award over $1.5 million  during closing arguments.

The plaintiff, a homeowner in Grundy County, moved into his custom built home in May 2002, and shortly  thereafter began to complain of  a musty  and damp smell coming from several different rooms in the house.  Ultimately, the plaintiff had various portions of the drywall removed, and claimed mold was found. The plaintiff's Certified Industiral Hygienest (CIH) performed testing indicating high levels of various molds in the house. The plaintiff alleged that after Jim's client applied wet sprayed cellulous insulation into the vertical wall cavities during construction,  it did not allow the insulation to properly dry before  informing the general contractor that it was ready to be dry walled.  Plaintiff claimed to have developed  a severe and permanent asthmatic condition, requiring a lifetime of medical care and treatment.

Jim contended there was little if any mold throughout the house  that could be attributed to the insulation, and retained  another CIH, who preformed microscopic bundle testing on six insulation samples which indicated virtually no mold. The defendant's CIH also  criticized the plaintiff’s CIH on his sampling methodology. Jim also retained a physician specializing in allergy and immunology, who testified that the plaintiff's medical condition was not related to any findings of mold allegedly identified in the house.

After a deliberation of five hours, the jury returned a verdict for the defense.   For more information on this case, please email Jim at phelanj@jbltd.com.

Defense Verdict Awarded in Alleged False Imprisonment, Libel & Battery Case

Johnson & Bell, Ltd. attorney, Anthony Derwinski, received a not guilty verdict in favor of his client, a national drug store chain, in an alleged false imprisonment, libel and battery case.

The case involved a woman who brought pornographic photos into the drug store to be developed. The defense allegedly detained the woman and called the police due to the content of the photographs. The plaintiff departed before the police arrived. The plaintiff claimed injuries to her arm, humiliation and damage to her reputation. The false imprisonment and libel counts were dismissed with prejudice prior to trial. The plaintiff argued that the defendant abused its discretion and power and illegally held her against her will. The defense contended that the plaintiff could not prove injury or damages and as an essential element to her claim, the plaintiff could not prove her case. The jury found unanimously in favor of the defense and deliberated only five minutes.

Johnson & Bell, Ltd. Shareholder Nominated to ILGL Board of Directors

Johnson & Bell, Ltd. shareholder, Eydie Glassman, has just recently been elected to the Board of Directors for the Illinois Institute for Local Government Law (ILGL) and is now a voting member. ILGL is a not-for-profit professional organization which serves as a conduit for municipal law publications, MCLE workshops, conferences and Web sites which assist government lawyers with the sharing of information and solutions to municipal problems.

For more information on Ms. Glassman and the ILGL, contact her at glassmane@jbltd.com.

Not Guilty Verdict Awarded to Johnson & Bell, Ltd. Client

Johnson & Bell, Ltd. attorneys, Sharon L. Stanzione and Anna Mandula, received a not guilty verdict in favor of their client, a hospital located in northwest Indiana, in an alleged medical negligence case. The plaintiff demanded $1.25 million during the trial.

The case involved a patient, a 68 year old female, who had just undergone a protectomy procedure. Following the procedure the patient was received back to the medical/surgical floor from the recovery room and her condition was noted to be stable and appropriate for a post-surgical patient. The next morning the patient suddenly and unpredictably crashed from which she did not recover and subsequently passed away.

At the time of trial, the case focused solely on the care rendered to the patient on the medical/surgical floor. The plaintiff alleged that the nursing staff failed to properly monitor the patient after her surgery and that this failure to monitor is what caused her death. As support for his allegations, the plaintiff relied primarily on the documentation in the patient’s medical records. The defense argued that their client’s nurses acted as reasonable nurses in providing care to their post-operative patient. Moreover, the defense argued that the nurse’s conduct was not a proximate cause of the patient’s death.

After deliberating for just over one hour, the jury returned a verdict for the defense.

Johnson & Bell, Ltd. Receives Not Guilty Verdict in EEOC Case

Johnson & Bell, Ltd. attorneys, Joseph F. Spitzzeri and Christopher J. Carlos, received a not guilty verdict in favor of their client, an automobile parts and repair shop, in an Americans with Disabilities Act case brought by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). The EEOC sought both compensatory and punitive damages, the maximum potential of which totaled $350,000.00 of recoverable damages.

The case involved a parts sales manager (“employee”) working for the defense, who went on a medical leave of absence on September 13, 2003. The employee was released to return to work with various physical restrictions on January 16, 2004. The defendant argued that the employee was not capable of performing the essential functions of his job with or without reasonable accommodations for his medical restrictions and didn’t allow him to return to work. The employee filed charges with the EEOC and later claimed the refusal to allow him to return to work was in retaliation for the filing of those charges. The EEOC argued that the employee was capable of performing the essential functions of the job of a parts sales manager with or without reasonable accommodations and that the defendant retaliated against the employee by not allowing him to return to work after he made complaints of disability discrimination to the EEOC.

After deliberating for just under two hours, the jury returned a verdict for the defense.

J&B Attorney Elected to Board of Directors for FBA's Chicago Chapter

Johnson & Bell, Ltd. is pleased to announce that attorney, Bradley D. Price, has been elected to serve on the Board of Directors for the Federal Bar Association’s (FBA) Chicago Chapter. Mr. Price was sworn in as a Board Member at the FBA’s Annual Luncheon held at The Standard Club in downtown Chicago on September 8, 2009. He will serve on the board through December 2010.

The Federal Bar Association is a national organization for private and government lawyers involved in federal practice, and federal judges at every level. Organized in 1920, this 16,000 member organization provides members of the bench and bar with leadership and educational opportunities relevant to a diverse range of federal practice areas. The Chicago Chapter, which covers the Northern District of Illinois, counts over 400 members in its ranks. The chapter presents a variety of networking, educational, and professional events, most notably its monthly seminar luncheon series. For more information about the FBA, please feel free to visit www.fedbar.org. For more information about Mr. Price and his practice, contact him at priceb@jbltd.com.

Recent Report on the Fair Labor Standards Act

A recent government report may spur more collective action suits under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). For an article on the recent report, please access the following link: www.law.com. For more information with regard to defense of FLSA suits, please contact Joseph Spitzzeri or Garrett Boehm of Johnson & Bell's Employment Law Practice Group.

Summary Judgment Granted in Favor of J&B Client

Johnson & Bell's Indiana Office recently received a summary judgment order from Judge Hamilton of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana in favor of its School Corporation client. The case, entitled Sandlin v. Switzerland County School Corp., involved claims by Jonathan Sandlin that he had been mistreated by school officials related to his seizure events during his tenure as a student while in high school and allegations that the School Corporation had wrongfully denied him an education. Sandlin alleged violations of the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) and other state law claims against the School Corporation. Johnson & Bell's Indiana Office managing partner, Edward W. Hearn, with the assistance of attorney Susan K. Swing were able to successfully convince Judge Hamilton to grant summary judgment in favor of the School Corporation. The court's 28-page opinion analyzed the various claims of the plaintiff and concluded that it was undisputed that the School Corporation did not violate the ADA and was not guilty of state law negligence.

Johnson & Bell, Ltd. Obtains $1.5 million Settlement Against Big Five Accounting Firm

Johnson & Bell, Ltd. attorneys Joseph Marconi and Reiko Satoh settled an accounting malpractice case for $1.5 million against a Big 5 accounting firm on behalf of six of its business clients. The clients collectively invested in a software company based on financial statements that were audited and reviewed by the accounting firm. The financial statements contained material misstatements, requiring restatement of the financial statements, which set off a chain of events that eventually caused the company to close its doors due to an inability to obtain financing, resulting in the loss of the clients’ entire investment.

Not Guilty Verdict Awarded for Johnson & Bell Client

Johnson & Bell, Ltd. attorney, Ryan Danahey, successfully defended his client who had been involved in an automobile accident in December 2003. The plaintiff’s last demand was $18,000 and asked the jury for $28,000. The jury awarded a not guilty verdict in favor of the defense.

The plaintiff, whose car had been struck from the rear while driving, received over $9,000 in medical treatments, and complained of neck, shoulder and back soft tissue injuries. The defense contended that the plaintiff was struck at such a slow speed that none of the treatments received was reasonable nor necessary.

Johnson & Bell, Ltd. Offers Alternative Billing Options

The rising costs of effective representation are an unfortunate reality in today’s legal marketplace. Attorneys’ hourly billable rates have escalated exponentially in recent years and rates for even junior associates have exceeded $300 per hour at many large law firms. Clients are often left with unexpectedly large legal bills and no results to show for their troubles.

Johnson & Bell, Ltd. is mindful of its clients’ concerns and seeks to provide the highest quality legal services at an affordable cost. Johnson & Bell realizes that budgeting for legal services is not a “one size fits all” proposition. To that end, Johnson & Bell has sought to provide alternatives to the standard billable hour and employs hybrid billing structures to accommodate its clients’ unique needs and circumstances.

For more information on our alternative billing options, please contact William V. Johnson at 312.984.0218.

Johnson & Bell Shareholders Receive Favorable Defense Verdict in Alleged Breach of Contract Case

Johnson & Bell shareholders Joseph R. Marconi and Victor J. Pioli received a favorable verdict in a federal court case in which they defended the seller of an airplane. The purchaser of the airplane had alleged claims for breach of contract and fraud on the grounds that the plane was riddled with defects that were known to the seller and not disclosed prior to the sale. The purchaser of the plane sought damages in excess of $2 million. The defense offered to settle the matter for $25,000 prior to trial and the plaintiff asked for $2.5 million.

At trial, the defense argued that the plane contained no more defects than would be expected for a used airplane and that the plane was always in an airworthy condition as deemed by the Federal Aviation Administration. The plaintiff contended that the airplane was not airworthy and that the plane had a substantial damage history that was not disclosed by defendant. After seven days of trial, the jury found in favor of defendant on the fraud claim and awarded only $40,696 for breach of contract.

Johnson & Bell Shareholders Receive Favorable Defense Verdict

Johnson & Bell, Ltd. shareholders, Gregory D. Conforti and Lynn M. Reid received a favorable verdict for their client in the case of Larry Shreve, Debbie Shreve v. Douglas Swalec, Verizon North Inc. Having been transferred onto the case only three and a half weeks prior to going to trial, the defense offered $3.25 million and indicated that additional money was available, but the plaintiff refused to come off the $4 million demand. During the trial Johnson & Bell contended that the defense was liable, but disputed the nature, extent and permanency of the injuries involved. The jury ended up awarding the plaintiff just over $3.2 million.

The case, which developed from an April 5, 2006 vehicle accident, involved a Verizon North, Inc. service van which was being operated by Douglas Swalec. Mr. Swalec turned directly in front of Larry Shreve, a 51 year old male, as he rode his motorcycle in the opposite direction at approximately 45 mph. Mr. Shreve struck the passenger side of the van and was catapulted off his bike head first into the side of the van. He was air lifted to St. Anthony Hospital in Rockford, Illinois where he was primarily treated for severe facial fractures, loss of a majority of his teeth, and a displaced fracture of his elbow into the elbow joint. He subsequently underwent surgery to insert plates in his face with multiple screws to reconstruct it, surgery to his elbow, including a 7” rod and pins, dental reconstructive surgery and later had a cerebral spinal fluid leak repair surgery that involved removal of a large section of his skull in the forehead area in order to complete the repair.

The defense contended that the plaintiff’s were overreaching in their damages claims and pointed out to the jurors in closing that although Mr. Shreve did in fact suffer serious and permanent injuries, the plaintiffs’ calling of both emergency room doctors, two different neuropsychologists and 11 video evidence depositions was geared toward an attempt to have the jury render an award that was not fair and reasonable based on the evidence. The defense also pointed out to the jurors that one of the plaintiffs’ neuropsychologist was somewhat critical of the other of the plaintiffs’ neuropsychologist and that the plaintiffs’ neuropsychologist had not seen some significant information that established that the plaintiff had made a better recovery than had been shown in the last records reviewed by the plaintiffs’ expert, including the plaintiff’s ability to drive an automobile, hold a limited part-time job, work as a handyman for neighbors and friends and to work on a very limited basis with the volunteer fire department that he had previously worked very closely with before his accident.

Richard B. Levy Joins Johnson & Bell, Ltd.

Richard B. Levy has joined Johnson & Bell, Ltd. as a shareholder. Johnson & Bell Vice President John W. Bell made the announcement adding that “Mr. Levy is an excellent attorney who I have known for nearly twenty years, both as a client and a friend. He brings extensive experience in handling complex litigation on behalf of the City of Chicago, which he will continue representing. Mr. Levy is a welcome addition to our firm.”

Mr. Levy joins Johnson & Bell, Ltd. with a focus in business and complex litigation. Previously a partner at Freeborn & Peters, Mr. Levy has 28 years of experience in all phases of a broad range of litigation-related risk. Mr. Levy recently won a significant victory for the City of Chicago in a federal civil rights class-action filed on behalf of thousands by the National Lawyer’s Guild. The City of Chicago and more than 50 defendants were granted summary judgments in a result that stands in stark contrast to settlements and adverse decisions elsewhere in similar suits across the country. For many years, Mr. Levy was the Associate General Counsel responsible for litigation at Exelon Corporation, with the nation’s largest fleet of nuclear power plants. Mr. Levy began his career as an Assistant State’s Attorney, where he prosecuted scores of felonies at trial and on appeal. He has also served as an executive member of the Chicago Bar Association’s Judicial Evaluation Committee. Mr. Levy received his J.D. from Chicago-Kent College of Law and his B.A. from DePauw University.

Johnson & Bell, Ltd. is a Chicago-based law firm with over 115 attorneys concentrating in complex civil disputes. The firm has served as lead defense counsel in several high profile cases, including the John Hancock Center scaffold collapse litigation, the Chicago porch collapse litigation, and the Miller Park Stadium collapse litigation. The firm has received national recognition for its trial and appellate advocacy, including American Lawyer Corporate Counsel Magazine's acknowledgement as one of the Top 100 Law Firms in client satisfaction.

Defense Verdict Awarded in Favor of J&B Client

Johnson & Bell, Ltd. attorneys, Sharon L. Stanzione and Marian C. Drenth, received a not guilty verdict in favor of their client, an emergency room physician in an alleged medical negligence case. The plaintiff, the wife of the deceased, demanded upwards of $750,000 during the trial.

The case involved a patient, a 77 year old male with a history of coronary artery disease, who was presented to the ER of Methodist Hospital in the middle of the night on May 18, 2002, complaining of having had left sided pain and vomiting. The defendant diagnosed his symptoms as Enteritis and discharged his patient with instructions to follow-up with his family doctor/cardiologist in 2-3 days and to return to the ER if his symptoms worsened or if new symptoms developed. On the evening of May 20, 2002, the patient began vomiting again and developed chest pain and shortness of breath. He waited seven hours before returning to the ER with these new symptoms at which time he was diagnosed with a Myocardial Infarction, suffered cardiogenic shock, and died.

The plaintiff alleged at trial that the ER doctor negligently failed to conduct a cardiac evaluation, including serial cardiac enzymes, serial EKG’s; and failed to admit the patient to the hospital for further testing.

The defense argued that their client acted as a reasonable Emergency Medicine physician in diagnosing and treating the patient for Enteritis. Moreover, the defense argued that their client’s conduct was not a proximate cause of the patient’s death. The defense further argued that the patient was contributorily negligent by failing to promptly return to the ER as instructed when he developed chest pain and shortness of breath, but instead waited seven hours from the onset of those new symptoms to return to the ER. After deliberating for approximately 30 minutes, the Jury returned a verdict for the defendant.

Successful Case Result Awarded to J&B Client

Johnson & Bell, Ltd. shareholders, John W. Bell and Robert R. McNamara, received a directed verdict in favor of their client, Commonwealth Edison, one of the largest electric utilities companies nationwide. Prior to the trial the plaintiff was seeking $950,000.00 and a waiver of his worker’s compensation lien. The plaintiff asked for $3.5M in closing and lost the case.

The case involved a plaintiff who was a laborer employed by a plumbing and heating company. On April 11, 2005 the plaintiff was digging a trench for water and sewer connections for two new townhouses in Chicago and drilled into a 138,000 volt line. He was not wearing protective eye glasses nor a hard hat and consequently lost vision to his right eye requiring surgical procedures including two corneal transplants. Johnson & Bell’s client had been called to perform underground locates for the area in February and March of 2005 where they placed stakes, flags and red paint in the area to identify its underground lines. The plaintiff claimed that the City of Chicago, on April 4 and 5, 2005, came to the site to repair a water main leak in the area and excavated dirt that was placed on the existing underground electrical markings. On April 10, 2005 the plaintiff alleged that he did not see any markings, but after digging into an empty conduit asked his boss if it was alright to proceed, his boss said that it was safe. The plaintiff drilled into the energized line on April 11, 2005 at the start of his workday. The plaintiff's theory against Commonwealth Edison was that they should have discovered the underground utility locates had been obscured because the Commonwealth Edison locaters routinely patrol the lines and remark if they observe markings have been covered and work is being performed in the area. Commonwealth Edison maintained that no duty was created by it's voluntary procedure of patrolling the lines and that plaintiff had presented no evidence that anyone from Commonwealth Edison saw the condition of the marks obscured or should have seen the condition between the time the City of Chicago finished it's work and the date of the accident. Judge Irwin Solganick of Cook County granted Johnson & Bell’s client’s motion for a directed verdict on June 25, 2009. The case continued against the City of Chicago.

Shareholder Published in AHLA Healthcare Liability & Litigation Newsletter

Johnson & Bell, Ltd. shareholder, Sammi L. Renken was recently published in the American Health Lawyers Association (AHLA) Healthcare Liability & Litigation newsletter. Her article, Examination of Hospital Board Member Liability and Corporate Negligence: Illinois Case Study, can be found in the May 2009 edition.

The AHLA is "the nation’s largest, nonpartisan, 501 (c)(3) educational organization devoted to legal issues in the healthcare field." For more information please visit: www.healthlawyers.org. For a copy of this article or to learn more about Ms. Renken and her practice feel free to contact her at renkens@jbltd.com.

Johnson & Bell Shareholder Elected President of Statewide Bar Association

The Illinois Association of Defense Trial Counsel (IDC) has elected Johnson & Bell, Ltd. Shareholder, Rick Hammond, as its new president. Hammond concentrates his practice on property insurance coverage, arson and fraud, and bad faith litigation. He received the 2008 Lexis Nexis Insurance Law Center’s Honorable Mention “Insurance Lawyer of the Year Award.” He was recognized by Lexis Nexis and his peers as "one of the attorneys who did the most in 2008 to effectively advance insurer positions and improve insurance law from the perspective of insurers."

“We hear a lot about the scales of justice, but the reality is, those scales are not always as balanced as they should be,” said Hammond. “Our goal is to foster a more level playing field in the court room,” Hammond said of the 1000 member association. He takes over the helm of the association with plans to build upon IDC’s increased visibility at the State Capitol. “Historically, the plaintiff’s bar has had a powerful and well-funded voice in Springfield. Every session sees the introduction of new pro-plaintiff legislation. It’s the job of the IDC to ensure that any new legislation being proposed is fair and equitable for defendants. In that regard, you can expect to see us in Springfield, taking a very active role to combat assaults on fairness in Illinois law.”

Rick is the first African-American to be elected President of the Illinois Association of Defense Trial Counsel in its 45 year history. “My election speaks to the IDC’s receptivity to diversity, and that is worth mentioning. However, I see myself as just another hardworking, valued member of the IDC, who climbed the rungs to leadership, like many before me.”

He is a member of the Federation of Defense and Corporate Counsel, DRI, and the ABA where he has served as Vice-Chair of their Property Insurance Law Committee. He also serves as General Counsel for the Insurance Committee for Arson Control, a national insurance trade group, and is on the Board of Directors of the Insurance School of Chicago. He has been widely published in numerous journals and magazines, and he’s a frequent presenter at national insurance industry and bar association conferences.

The Illinois Association of Defense Trial Counsel (IDC) was organized in 1964 and currently has 1,000 members. The purpose of the organization is to promote improvements in the administration of justice and enhance the service of the legal profession to the public; to encourage the prompt, fair and just disposition of tort litigation; to enhance the knowledge and improve the skills of defense lawyers; to advance the equitable and expeditious handling of disputes arising under all forms of insurance and surety contracts, and to work for the elimination of court congestion and delays in civil litigation.

Jones v. Chicago Cycle Center, No. 1-07-0724 (Ill. App. Ct. May 5, 2009)

In a personal injury case involving a motorcycle accident in South America, the plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed their complaint after the trial court had ruled on a portion of the submitted motions limine, some of which were adverse to plaintiffs. The trial court awarded costs and expenses of over $181,000 to defendants pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 219(e). Notably, payment of the costs and expenses was due only if plaintiffs' re-filed the cause of action. On appeal, plaintiffs argued that the conditional payment order was void, that there had been no discovery abuse warranting expenses under Rule 219(e), and that the expenses were not reasonable. The appellate court affirmed. The appellate court held that plaintiffs' right to refile remained "unabridged" and the trial court's order requiring payment of costs if plaintiffs re-filed their cause of action was not void. Furthermore, the appellate court held that the trial court had entered the necessary findings of abuse of process precedent to the Rule 219(e) award, and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by rejecting plaintiffs' proffered reason for voluntarily dismissing the lawsuit. Finally, the appellate court held that the Rule 219(e) award was reasonable.

The Illinois Supreme Court’s Nolan Ruling: Illinois Now
Allows Evidence of Other Exposures

By David F. Fanning and H. Patrick Morris1

1. Mr. Morris and Mr. Fanning are shareholders in Johnson & Bell’s Toxic Tort Group. Mr. Patrick Morris represented ExxonMobil, one of the amici curiae in the Nolan case. He is co-chair of Johnson & Bell’s Toxic Tort Group.

Today the Illinois Supreme Court handed down the most important decision regarding asbestos litigation in the last twenty years. In Nolan v. Weil-McLain, Docket No. 103137 (April 16, 2009), the Court overruled several lower court decisions which interpreted the Court’s decision in Lipke v. Celotex Corp., 153 Ill. App. 3d 498 (1989) to mean that defendants in asbestos litigation were precluded from offering testimony regarding a plaintiff’s complete exposure history. In so doing, the Court struck down the so-called “Lipke Rule,” which has for years distorted the landscape in favor of plaintiffs in Illinois asbestos litigation. The Lipke Rule was one of the major components that gave Illinois a reputation for litigiousness and damaged its reputation for judicial impartiality. Because the Lipke Rule was unique to Illinois and because it put defendants in an “undefendable” posture (Nolan), it has been instrumental in attracting hundreds of out-of-state mesothelioma cases to Illinois courts.

The Lipke Rule was itself the amalgamation of two different lines of case law: one, regarding the threshold question of causation; and two, regarding concurrent causes. At trial, the Lipke Rule combined both lines of case law in the form of the following syllogism: if Plaintiff presents sufficient evidence to survive a motion for summary judgment based on the Lohrman factors (i.e., that the evidence of record allowed for an inference of exposure based upon the frequency, regularity, and proximity of work with or around asbestos-containing materials), then such exposure evidence creates a rebuttable presumption of causation in favor of Plaintiff. In such a case, the burden then shifts to the defendant to disprove causation; and, given that causation is presumed, a Defendant is barred from offering evidence that any exposure not attributed to that Defendant was also the cause of the claimed injury, because such evidence is irrelevant.

The Nolan Court analyzed the Lipke Rule by addressing each step of the syllogism, starting with the threshold question of causation which came from Thacker v. UNR Industries, Inc., 151 Ill. 2d 343 (Ill. 1992). In Thacker, the Court sympathized with plaintiffs’ difficulties in establishing exposure to a specific defendant’s products, in the context of the “substantial factor” test for causation. The Thacker Court noted that “because unique problems [are] posed by asbestos injury,” courts “have struggled with how a plaintiff in an asbestos case can fairly meet the burden of production with regard to causation.” Thacker, 151 Ill. 2d at 356-57. In Thacker, the Illinois Supreme Court ultimately adopted the rule set forth in a decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. See Lohrmann v. Pittsburgh Corning Corp., 782 F.2d 1156 (4th Cir. 1986): “there must be evidence of exposure to a specific product on a regular basis over some extended period of time in proximity to where the plaintiff actually worked.” This has become known as the “frequency, regularity, and proximity test.”

The Nolan Court provided much needed clarification of the impact and application of Thacker by the appellate courts. Where the lower court interpreted Thacker to mean that “[o]nce a plaintiff satisfies the Thacker test, a defendant is presumed to be a proximate cause of a decedent’s asbestos injury,” the Nolan Court stated that it was misinterpreted: “Thacker created no such presumption,” and “[t]he lower court’s incorrect reading of Thacker conflicts not only with the clear language of that opinion, but also with our goal of adopting that test to fairly balance the interests of plaintiffs and defendants in these actions.” Nolan, at 14. Moreover, read correctly, Thacker “rejected the argument advanced by plaintiff here–and accepted by the appellate panel below–that so long as there is any evidence that the injured worker was exposed to a defendant’s asbestos-containing product, there is sufficient evidence of cause in fact to allow the issue of legal causation to go to the jury.” Nolan, at 14. The Nolan Court set forth a bright-line conclusion with respect to the impact of Thacker:

Thacker provides a means for determining whether a plaintiff in an asbestos case has presented sufficient evidence to establish cause in fact and, thereby, shift the burden of production to the defendant. We reiterate, however, that the ultimate burden of proof on the element of causation remains exclusively on the plaintiff, and that burden is never shifted to the defendant. For the sake of clarity, we reaffirm that Thacker creates no presumption on the issue of causation.

Nolan, at 15.

The Nolan Court clarified that in Lipke, the Court did nothing more than to reiterate a long-standing holding that there may be more than one proximate cause of an injury, and that “where such guilt exists, it is no defense that some other person, or thing contributed to bring about the result for which damages are claimed.” Lipke, 253 Ill.App.3d at 509. This is significantly different that what had become the “Lipke Rule:” “[t]hus, the fact that plaintiff used a variety of asbestos products does not relieve defendant of liability for his injuries. Evidence of such exposure is not relevant.” Lipke, 153 Ill.App.3d at 509. In fact, subsequent Appellate Court decisions had expanded this statement to mean that defendants were barred from offering evidence at trial of exposures attributable to non-parties on the basis that “such exposure is not relevant.” See e.g., Kochan, Spain.

The Illinois Supreme Court in Nolan explained that without the erroneous presumption of causation pursuant to Thacker, the so-called Lipke Rule fails. The Nolan Court clarified that the language in its Lipke decision was specific to the defenses raised in that case, i.e., that the plaintiff did not have an asbestos-related disease, and that he had no exposure whatsoever to defendant’s asbestos products. Given such defenses, defendant’s only motivation in presenting such other-exposure evidence was to shift liability to a concurrent tortfeasor. Not so in Nolan, where the defendant wished to offer evidence of decedent’s other exposures for entirely different reasons: to contest causation through the sole proximate cause defense, an issue not raised in Lipke. The Nolan Court held that prior appellate decisions applying Lipke where causation is contested “loosened Lipke from its factual moorings and unduly expanded its exclusionary rule.” The Court agreed that the Lipke Rule, as applied in, e.g., Kochan, “effectively removed from asbestos defendants any opportunity to point to the negligence of another as the sole proximate cause of plaintiff’s injury” and “deprive[d] a defendant of a rational alternative explanation for why the plaintiff is suffering from an asbestos-related disease.”

The Nolan Court held that cases like Kochan and Spain, which held that other-exposure evidence is always irrelevant, are overruled, citing its prior rulings that a defendant “has the right not only to rebut evidence that defendant’s acts are negligent and the proximate cause of claimed injuries,” but also “has the right to endeavor to establish by competent evidence that the conduct of a third person, or some other causative factor, is the sole proximate cause of plaintiff’s injuries.” Leonardi, at 101. Thus, the proper application of the Lohrmann factors requires that the “substantial factor analysis cannot be made in a vacuum.”); Fibreboard Corp. v. Pool, 813 S.W.2d 658, 694 (Tex. App. 1991) (holding that it was an abuse of discretion for the trial court to exclude evidence of a plaintiff’s exposure to the asbestos products of non-parties, even if the evidence pertained to insolvent companies), cert. denied, 509 U.S. 923 (1993)

The combined effect of the Lipke Rule and Illinois’ retention of joint and several liability in cases of asbestos exposure, see § 735 ILCS 5/2-1118, had put Illinois defendants in a very difficult position when evaluating their likely success at trial. Not only were defendants barred from offering to the jury a complete explanation of what caused the claimed injury, if the jury agreed with the only explanation provided, i.e., that the remaining defendant must be the cause of the claimed asbestos-related disease because there were no other evidence of what else may have caused the injury, the remaining defendants were liable for the entire injury, jointly and severally. Although Nolan does nothing to abrogate joint and several liability in asbestos cases, at least a defendant will have an opportunity to better explain to the jury the scientific and legal principles surrounding the issue of specific causation.

With the demise of the Lipke Rule, we may expect to see several issues on the horizon.

First, In addition to its negative impact on a defendant’s ability to get a fair trial, the Lipke Rule’s looming presence generally coerced defendants to settle, even at premium values, rather than risk trying cases on so tilted a playing field. Thus, despite experiencing the greatest number of mesothelioma filings in recent years, Illinois asbestos defendants took a disproportionately low percentage of cases to trial compared to other jurisdictions. Now, it is likely that trials of asbestos cases will increase; the calculus of likely success at trial can now include an assessment of the totality of applicable work history, with the exposure attributable to a specific defendant placed in its proper context.
Second, the legal challenge to plaintiffs’ causation experts will become the most significant area of battle, especially in light of the growing body of case law which is highly critical of expert causation testimony unsupported by sound science which implicates any exposure, no matter how slight, as a concurrent cause of the claimed injury, whatever the injury may be. Most existing plaintiff’s experts are of record as being unable to discern a single exposure that caused a particular disease.
Third, there is a potential that a superficial interpretation of Nolan might encourage one defendant to engage in “open season” tactics upon co-defendants or non-parties, even though properly applied, the language of Nolan should provide no basis for a change in trial tactics with respect to defendants remaining at trial. We believe that such an approach would do little to exculpate a particular defendant and would detract from a central challenge to the general causation of the injury.
Finally, as to specific causation, Nolan underscores the importance of having a complete understanding of the state-of the art and current scientific literature with respect to the totality of claimed exposures, and more importantly, of those exposures attributable to non-parties, especially bankrupt or defunct companies, and exposures which occurred during military duty.
No doubt the potential for creating bad law applying Nolan exists, especially with respect to several specific defenses which have developed and matured incrementally, including defenses based upon fiber type, latency, and low-dose exposures. Moreover, the issue of dose becomes even more important, not only with respect to one’s own client, but with respect to all known exposures. We believe that establishing dose must be of primary import throughout the life of any given case, with particular attention paid to investigation and oral and written discovery of plaintiff’s complete and accurate work history within the challenges of the Illinois Supreme Court’s decision regarding the quantum of proof on causation in toxic tort cases, Donaldson v. Cent. Ill. Pub. Serv. Co., 199 Ill. 2d 63 (Ill. 2002).

Further information on Johnson & Bell, Ltd’s Toxic Tort practice can be obtained by contacting Mr. Morris, (morrisp@jbltd.com), 312 984-0244, or co-chair, James K. Toohey, (tooheyj@jbltd.com), 312 984-0280.

Rick Hammond, Honorable Mention Award

Johnson & Bell, Ltd. would like to congratulate Rick Hammond, shareholder and co-chair of the insurance group for his honorable mention recognition from The Insurance Law Center (a division of the LexisNexis communities). For his relentless efforts in the battle against insurance fraud, and the noteworthy impact on the insurance center’s online community resulting from the watershed number of comments received on his behalf, the board extended an honorable mention in this Insurer Attorney category to Rick Hammond.

Since launching its first annual Insurance Person of the Year Award in early 2009, the ILC has experienced an unprecedented amount of activity, including the receipt of almost 50 nominations from professionals throughout the insurance industry. The community came out in force to share their views on the list of nominated finalists and posted in excess of 100 comments in a 3-day period. We heard from all segments of the industry—attorneys, regulators, lawmakers, academics, underwriters and claims professionals, brokers and agents, insurers and policyholders, colleagues and clients.

Your participation truly reflects the voice of a growing community and has contributed a great deal to the Board’s effort to set an industry-wide standard of professionalism with the launch of this annual award event. The Board thanks everyone for their nominations and comments and encourages former and new community members to visit the Insurance Law Center throughout 2009 for commentary, podcasts and other contributions from our selected Persons of the Year.

Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) Found to be Constitutional and Preempts State Common Law Product Liability Actions Alleging Defective Manufacture and/or Design of Handguns

December 2009 Update: The U.S. Supreme Court denied plaintiff's petition for writ of certioari, bringing the case to a conclusion.

Johnson & Bell, Ltd. congratulates shareholders Joseph F. Spitzzeri and Garrett L. Boehm, Jr. on their success before the Illinois Supreme Court in the Beretta gun litigation. (Adames v. Beretta U.S.A. Corp., Nos. 105789, 105851 (Mar. 19, 2009)). The Illinois Supreme Court found that the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) barred the plaintiff’s common law product liability claims against Beretta arising from the accidental shooting death of the plaintiff’s decedent, reversing the appellate court on this issue. The Court also found the PLCAA to be constitutional and not in violation of the Tenth Amendment. This ruling is a major victory not only for Beretta, but for other gun manufacturers as it is believed to be the first instance in which the highest court of any State has ruled on these issues, setting a precedent throughout the nation.

For more information on this case please contact Joseph F. Spitzzeri at spitzzerij@jbltd.com or Garret L. Boehm, Jr. at boehmg@jbltd.com.

J&B Victory in Illinois Court of Appeals Case

The Illinois Court of Appeals awarded Johnson & Bell, Ltd. shareholder Garrett L. Boehm, Jr. a victory in the case of Quigg v. Walgreen Co., where the plaintiff alleged that Walgreen Co. violated the Mental Health and Developmental Disabilities Confidentiality Act (740 ILCS 110/15) by allegedly disclosing her prescription profile to her husband during a contested divorce proceeding. To violate the Confidentiality Act, Walgreen Co. would need to be held to be a “therapist” under the Act, but the Court ruled that such a reading of the statute would be over broad. As no therapeutic relationship existed between the plaintiff and Walgreen Co. or its pharmacist, the appellate court affirmed dismissal of the plaintiff’s claim.

Johnson & Bell, Ltd. Attorney Selected as “Top 10” Super Lawyer

March 3, 2009, Chicago, IL—Johnson & Bell, Ltd. would like to congratulate John W. Bell, shareholder and vice president, for his selection as a “Top 10” Super Lawyer for 2009.

Mr. Bell is co-founder and vice president of Johnson & Bell, Ltd., as well as one of the firms managing partners. Mr. Bell concentrates his practice in product liability and defense of complex/catastrophic litigation, with a focus on defense of personal injury litigation. Mr. Bell’s extensive experience includes numerous high-profile cases which have led him to be featured in many reputable law journals. He has been named one of the top 20 tort defense lawyers in Chicago by Chicago Lawyer magazine. Mr. Bell has also been featured in the National Law Journal for successful defense verdicts, most notably in the case of Catron vs. Grove. He has also been named Member of the Month by DRI magazine.

Johnson & Bell, Ltd. is pleased to announce this recognition and appreciates the continued hard work and dedication of its attorneys.

Summary Judgment Obtained in Bad Faith Lawsuit

On January 21, 2009 Eric W. Moch obtained summary judgment for State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company in a breach of contract and bad faith lawsuit in the case of Albinas Zykus v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, 08 M1 138411. The plaintiff alleged that State Farm breached its automobile policy when it denied his claim for the destruction of his vehicle in a suspicious fire. State Farm denied the claim because it determined that the plaintiff committed material misrepresentations during the course of the claim investigation. Mr. Moch convinced the court that the plaintiff did commit several material misrepresentations during a claims stage interview, that all of the misrepresentations were plainly refuted by documents the plaintiff provided in support of his claim and that there was no legal basis to view the misrepresentations as anything other than intentional and material as a matter of law.

Boehm and Derwinski affirmed by Illinois Appellate Court on Summary Judgment Finding for Johnson & Bell client, Walgreen Co.

In a victory for Johnson & Bell client, Walgreen Co., the First District Appellate Court of Illinois affirmed summary judgment granted by the trial court.

In the case of Joseph Richardson v. Bond Drug Company of Illinois, d/b/a Walgreens, 2009 Ill.App. Lexis 8 (1st Dist. 2009), the plaintiff claimed that the store in question failed to maintain a safe shopping area for its patrons, and created visual diversions so that the plaintiff and others could not observe dangerous conditions on the floor. The plaintiff was seeking damages in excess of $100,000.00.

After conducting discovery, Johnson & Bell attorney Anthony E. Derwinski filed a motion for summary judgment arguing that Walgreens could not be held liable since the plaintiff failed to meet the requisite notice requirements, and without evidence of any condition, could not be held liable without the proof of negligence and proximate cause. The trial circuit court agreed, and entered summary judgment in favor of Walgreens. The plaintiff’s counsel appealed the summary judgment finding and argued that Walgreens had constructive notice of the dangerous conditions and that the conduct of Walgreens was proximately related to the injuries of Richardson. Garrett L. Boehm, Jr. handled the appeal for Johnson & Bell, and argued that if the plaintiff relies on speculation as to why an incident occurs, they should not survive summary judgment. The appellate court affirmed the finding that Richardson failed to provide the necessary evidence that the store breached its duty to maintain a safe premises and that Richardson’s injuries were proximately caused by the defendant.

This case was also featured in the Chicago Daily Law Bulletin’s January 14, 2009 issue. Click here to read the article.

For more information on this case please contact Anthony E. Derwinski at derwinskia@jbltd.com or (312) 984-0286 or Garrett L. Boehm, Jr. at boehmg@jbltd.com or (312) 984-0279.

Peter F. Clancy Joins Johnson & Bell, Ltd.

Peter F. Clancy has joined Johnson & Bell, Ltd. as a shareholder. Johnson & Bell President William V. Johnson made the announcement adding that Mr. Clancy is a “renowned insurance coverage consultant who will complement Johnson & Bell’s existing practice nicely while expanding its reach to a new diversified client base in the claims area.”

Mr. Clancy joins Johnson & Bell as an insurance coverage specialist who represents insurers and reinsurers worldwide with respect to their North American risk exposure. Mr. Clancy has resolved dozens of multi-million dollar cases for his clients, both before and after verdict, and regularly counsels clients on liability coverage for managed care, medical malpractice, nursing homes, directors and officers, commercial crime, products liability, clinical trials and general liability. Mr. Clancy received his J.D from the Loyola University School of Law and his A.B., with honors, from Harvard College.

Scott D. Braun and Ana Watson will also be joining Johnson & Bell as shareholders. Mr. Braun is a graduate of Washington University School of Law who was named one of Illinois’ Top 40 Lawyers Under 40 by the Law Bulletin Publishing Company in 2007. Ms. Watson is a graduate of Northwestern University and Cornell University School of Law who focuses her practice on advising insurers regarding healthcare liability coverage. Miles Sukovic, Jenna L. Buda, and Cynthia Arrotti Carter will also be joining Johnson & Bell as associates.

Johnson & Bell is a Chicago-based law firm with over 110 attorneys concentrating in complex civil disputes. The firm has served as lead defense counsel in several high profile cases, including the John Hancock Center scaffold collapse litigation, the Chicago porch collapse litigation, and the Miller Park Stadium collapse litigation. The firm has received national recognition for its trial and appellate advocacy, including American Lawyer's Corporate Counsel Magazine's acknowledgement as one of the Top 100 Law Firms in client satisfaction.

Marconi is Published in Illinois Bar Journal

Johnson & Bell, Ltd. shareholder Joseph R. Marconi’s article, Electronic Discovery: Dealing with Disclosure of Metadata, was published in the January 2009 issue of the Illinois Bar Journal (IBJ Vol. 97, p.24). Protecting a client’s confidential, privileged or just plain compromising information is a primary duty of any attorney and such, metadata issues will continue to arise. Mr. Marconi’s article reviews the dangers and offers suggestions to avoid mistakes and reduce their impact when they occur.

Mr. Marconi is the chair of Johnson & Bell’s Business Litigation/Transactions group and co-chair of the Employment group. He handles and supervises complex civil litigation, professional liability, and employment law.

Mr. Marconi is general counsel for the Illinois State Bar Association Mutual Insurance Company, which is owned and run by Illinois attorneys, and he is a member of the board of directors of ALFA International. If you would like to learn more about Mr. Marconi’s practices or would like a copy of his article, please contact him at 312.984.0211 or marconij@jbltd.com.

J&B Shareholder Named Vice Chairman of the ALFA
International Product Liability Practice Group

Johnson & Bell, Ltd. shareholder, Kevin Owens, has been appointed Vice Chairman of the ALFA International Product Liability Practice Group. ALFA International is the premier global network of law firms, with over 8,000 attorneys based in over 150 major metropolitan areas in the United States and abroad. Johnson & Bell, Ltd. is the exclusive Chicago, IL member of ALFA International, and Mr. Owens also serves as a member of its Product Liability Practice Group Steering Committee.

Not Guilty Verdict Awarded to J&B in Medical Malpractice Case

Johnson & Bell, Ltd. shareholders Lynn M. Reid and Gregory E. Schiller successfully defended an orthopedic surgery resident in a medical malpractice case, where, prior to the trial, the plaintiff was seeking $1.1 million in damages.

The case involved a plaintiff who had undergone a hip replacement surgery in order to repair an intraoperative femur fracture she had sustained. After the surgery she sustained a pulmonary embolus. The plaintiff alleged negligence during the surgical procedure and in the post operative care. While the plaintiff was able to provide an expert witness to testify that Johnson & Bell’s client was negligent, the court found that there was insufficient evidence against the defendant. A directed verdict on all issues was entered in favor of Johnson & Bell’s client.

Not Guilty Verdict Awarded to J&B Client

Johnson & Bell, Ltd. shareholder Frank P. Nowicki successfully defended a food sanitation company in a fire damage case which sought $7.2 million in damages.

The case involved the fire destruction of a turkey plant in Iowa. The plant’s insurer paid an $8 million claim and then sued the sanitation companies for negligence. The trial lasted for eight days in Federal Court in the Southern District of Iowa, Davenport. The jury deliberated less than an hour before returning defense verdicts.

J&B Receives Not Guilty Verdict in Breach of Contract and Bad Faith Case

Johnson & Bell, Ltd. attorney Jonathan W. Goken successfully defended an insurance company in an alleged Breach of Contract and Bad Faith case which sought more than $50,000 in damages.

The plaintiff alleged that the insurance company wrongly denied him insurance coverage for property losses that arose after a pipe burst in his rental dwelling on or about December 30, 2005. The plaintiff originally pled two separate counts against the insurance company, one for Breach of Contract and another for Bad Faith. Mr. Goken had the Bad Faith count tossed out on a dispositive motion prior to the matter being tried. At trial, Mr. Goken successfully argued that his client aptly denied coverage for the loss in question in that the loss occurred while the insured premises was "vacant" and "unoccupied" thus falling squarely within one of the policy's exclusions. Mr. Goken further argued that the plaintiff made numerous material misrepresentations concerning the loss to the insurance company during the course of the claims investigation and failed to cooperate when requested to do so, thus breaching certain conditions also set forth in the policy.

Judge Daniel A. Riley entered his ruling in favor of Johnson & Bell’s client within minutes after closing arguments. An appeal of this ruling is not expected.

Appellate Court Affirms Jury Verdict in Bad Faith Case

Johnson & Bell, Ltd. attorneys William K. McVisk and Mary K. Cryar, successfully defended an insurance company in a bad faith failure to settle case. A jury in the underlying medical malpractice case had awarded the plaintiff more than $3 million against a physician and the physician's employer, a clinic in Iowa and western Illinois. The physician's insurer paid its $1 million limits, and the physician's employer paid the remaining $2 million of the judgment, and then sued the physician's insurer for bad faith. The employer had purchased the physician's policy from the insurer, and was listed as a policyholder on the policy. The employer argued that as a policyholder, the insurer's duty to settle in good faith extended to it as well as to the physician insured, since the insurer could foresee that it would be liable for any verdict against its employee physician, and had purchased the policy for the physician to protect itself from just this sort of exposure. The US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit rejected this argument, predicting that the Illinois Supreme Court would not extend the duty to settle to non-insured policyholders, even when the policyholder employed the insured and purchased the policy for the insured. Thus, the Seventh Circuit upheld the district court's decision dismissing the clinic's claim with prejudice.

Johnson & Bell, Ltd. Announces the Formation of its
Commercial Transactions Practice Group

With the ever changing economy it is important for businesses to be prepared for any eventuality. At Johnson & Bell, Ltd. our Commercial Transaction attorneys are well equipped to provide legal assistance to large and small corporations, non-profits and educational institutions alike. Our attorneys stay current of legal rules in order to regulate the rights and obligations of businesses and its owners and to offer remedies when altercations arise.

Our attorneys offer professional legal support for any number of commercial transactions including, but not limited to business development, problem solving, mergers and liquidations, joint ventures, and risk management. More than that, at Johnson & Bell we are able to provide guidance during the daily obstacles that arise in operating a modern business.

Johnson & Bell shareholders Michael A. LaTona and Frank M. Grenard comprise the group of professionals ready to assist with any type of commercial transaction.

Frank M. Grenard Joins Johnson & Bell, Ltd. Chicago Office

Attorney Frank M. Grenard is returning to Chicago to head up Johnson & Bell. Ltd’s Commercial Transaction Practice group after working with a Des Moines, Iowa law firm for 10 years. Mr. Grenard brings with him more than 30 years of experience in commercial projects and litigation. His legal practice has been concentrated in a number of areas including, but not limited to, commercial law, corporate law, environmental law, real estate and financial transactions.

Mr. Grenard’s career as an attorney began in 1977 when he graduated from Northwestern University School of Law. He then worked with the Illinois Attorney General’s Office and in Chicago law firms in which he was a partner until 1998. He is licensed to practice law in the states of Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan and Nebraska and in all federal courts in those jurisdictions.

Mr. Grenard will be a lead attorney for Johnson & Bell’s Commercial Transaction Practice Group. The addition of this practice group and Mr. Grenard’s expertise will add another dimension to Johnson & Bell’s already diverse services.

Among the clients Mr. Grenard has represented are Shell Oil Products US; ConocoPhillips; Chevron (n/k/a ChevronTexaco); Location Finders International, Inc.; General Growth Properties, Inc.; Capital Growth Properties, Inc.; WW Grainger, Inc.; Trustmark Insurance Co.; Metropolitan Life Insurance Company; US Bank NA; Regions Bank; Farm Credit Services of America; and various municipal and state agencies in Illinois.

Sharon L. Stanzione Joins Johnson & Bell, Ltd. Merrillville Office

Attorney Sharon L. Stanzione joins Johnson & Bell, Ltd. as a shareholder for the Merriville, Indiana office and brings with her over ten years of litigation experience. She is licensed to practice in both Indiana and Illinois. During her career as an attorney she has concentrated her practice in civil trial and appellate litigation with an emphasis in medical malpractice. Ms. Stanzione has argued cases in the Indiana Supreme Court and Indiana Court of Appeals. Along with her appellate work and litigation practice, Ms. Stanzione is a Registered Civil Mediator and is able to provide her clients with professional legal counsel.

Ms. Stanzione is a Northwest Indiana native and began her legal career in 1997 upon graduating from Indiana University, Bloomington. She is experienced and available to speak on issues such as risk management, business start-up, trademark, and healthcare law. Ms. Stanzione is an adjunct faculty member of Purdue University where she teaches Occupational Leadership and Supervision to undergraduate students.

Johnson & Bell, Ltd. Attorneys Obtain “Not Guilty”
Verdict in $14 Million Legal Malpractice Suit

Johnson & Bell, Ltd. attorneys Joseph R. Marconi and Victor J. Pioli have successfully defended an Illinois attorney and her law firm in a legal malpractice case seeking more than $14 million in damages. After three weeks of trial, a jury returned a verdict of “not guilty” on all counts Monday, October 20, 2008. The plaintiffs, a limited liability company and its members, claimed that the attorney was negligent in setting up the limited liability company and advising its members regarding their duties to their former employers. The company and its members were sued by one of the member’s former employer for usurping a corporate opportunity and breaching fiduciary duties. The company and its members eventually settled the case with the former employer. In their legal malpractice case, the company and its members sought to recover the amounts they paid under the settlement with the former employer, legal fees they expended, and lost profits. The jury never had occasion to consider the issue of damages as they found that the attorney’s conduct did not violate the standard of care.

Hospital Exonerated in 1998 Patient Death

After hearing testimony from 25 witnesses over three weeks of trial, a Kankakee jury found in favor of defendants, hospital and doctor in 1998 death of 30-year old pregnant patient. The plaintiffs were represented by David Pritchard of Salvi, Schostok, and Pritchard and John Muir of Kedzie, Muir and Associates. The suit was filed after Kankakee Medical Examiner, Joseph Sapala, found death was due to Demerol overdose based on lethal levels of Demerol reported in toxicology. The defense called Cook County Medical Examiner, Nancy Jones, and the St. Louis Medical Examiner, Michael Graham, who testified sudden death was due to complications of sickle cell disease.

Separate claims were made against the hospital for negligence by the nurses, the doctor, and spoliation of evidence. The plaintiffs’ experts testified that the nurses failed to appropriately monitor, report signs of neurotoxicity over an 11 hour period, and following death, negligently discarded PCA pump and final vial of Demerol when they were aware of pending Coroner’s investigation. The plaintiff claimed the attending physician negligently prescribed an excessive dose of Demerol in violation of NIH recommendations restricting dosage due to potential toxicity. The plaintiffs called Dr. Alfred Torrence and Richard Scheife, Editor in Chief of Pharmacotherapy, and nursing expert Deanna Reising, Professor of Nursing, Indiana University. The hospital was represented by Margaret A. Unger and Lauren A. Wieland of Johnson and Bell, Ltd.

Brian C. Fetzer Inducted into the International Academy of Trial Lawyers

Brian C. Fetzer, Esq., was recently inducted into the International Academy of Trial Lawyers (IATL) at their Mid Year Meeting held in Aspen, Colorado September 22-24, 2008.

Membership in the Academy is limited to 500 Fellows from the United States. The qualifications for membership are very high and the consideration of nominees is very extensive and thorough. Outstanding skills and extensive experience as a trial lawyer, unimpeachable personal and professional character, integrity and honesty, are but a few of the necessary qualities of every nominee. Mr. Fetzer been evaluated by his colleagues and the judges in his jurisdiction and has been highly recommended by them as possessing these qualifications and characteristics.

The International Academy of Trial Lawyers was chartered in 1954. In general, its purposes are to cultivate the science of jurisprudence, promote reforms in the law, facilitate the Administration of Justice, and elevate the standards of integrity, honor and courtesy in the legal profession.

Not Guilty Verdict in Medical Malpractice Case in J&B's Favor

On Tuesday, September 16, 2008 Johnson & Bell, Ltd. attorneys Marilyn M. Reidy and Carl M. Schultz received a not guilty verdict on behalf of their client after only 90 minutes of jury deliberation.

The medical malpractice case, Patricia Redding-Page, Special Administrator of the Estate of Anita Redding, Deceased v. Rimgaudas Nemickas, M.D. and Agngarayngay Arsenio, M.D., arose when Johnson & Bell's client, Dr. Rimgaudas Nemickasa, a cardiologist, began treating Mrs. Redding on October 26, 2000 who at that time, was suffering from uncontrolled diabetes and uncontrolled hypertension. On that date, Dr. Nemickas prescribed Cardizem (a calcium channel blocker) while the patient was already taking a beta blocking medication. On October 28, 2000, the patient presented to the ER with her first episode of diabetic ketoacidosis. She also had bradycardia. At the hospital, the patient's Cardizem was discontinued. On January 25, 2001, Dr. Nemickas prescribed Verapamil (a calcium channel blocker) while the patient was taking a beta blocking medication. On January 27, 2001, Mrs. Redding presented to the hospital with her second diabetic ketoacidosis episode and severe bradycardia. She died at the hospital with a bradycardic arrest. The plaintiff contended that Dr. Nemickas was negligent in prescribing a calcium channel blocker while the patient was on a beta blocker on January 25, 2001 as he had not fully investigated the cause of her bradycardia on October 28, 2000, and these medications can trigger bradycardia. The plaintiff asked for a minimum of $1 million from the jury. Dr. Nemickas contended that it was reasonable to prescribe these medications under the circumstances, and furthermore, that the patient died from diabetic ketoacidosis.

Marilyn Reidy is shareholder at Johnson & Bell and concentrates her area of practice in healthcare. For more information on this case please or Ms. Reidy please contact her at reidym@jbltd.com.

J&B Victory in Illinois Court of Appeals Case

The Illinois Court of Appeals awarded Johnson & Bell shareholders Kevin Owens and Garrett Boehm a victory in the case of Terry, et al. v. Conopco, et al. In a three-week trial conducted in the Circuit Court of Cook County in October, 2005 by Kevin Owens and William O. Martin, Jr. of the Los Angeles ALFA firm Haight, Brown & Bonesteel, the plaintiff plant owner sought contribution following its payment of a $14 million wrongful death settlement arising out of an industrial accident involving a pressure vessel designed and manufactured by Johnson & Bell's client. The plaintiff sued in strict product liability and negligence, and also sued a co-defendant maintenance contractor who was working on the vessel at the time. During the trial, the plaintiff demanded $2.8 million from the co-defendant, and indicated to the court that it would take something in the "high millions" to resolve the case against J&B's client. At the conclusion of the case, the court denied J&B's motion for directed verdict. Nevertheless, the jury found the plaintiff plant owner 93% at fault, apportioning 5% to J&B's client, and 2% to the co-defendant. On appeal, Messrs. Owens, Boehm and Martin argued that the trial court erred in denying the motion for directed finding, which was based, in part, on evidence that the product had been modified after it left the client's control. The Court of Appeals agreed, and reversed the jury verdict, resulting in no liability for J&B's client. Messrs. Owens and Martin argued the appeal, and Mr. Boehm assisted on the briefs.

On September 24, 2008, the Illinois Supreme Court denied the plaintiff plant owner's petition for review, making this victory complete.

J&B Welcomes Angelo J. Kappas

Angelo J. Kappas joins Johnson & Bell, Ltd. as an associate attorney with experience practicing insurance coverage defense at the law firm of Parrillo, Weiss & O'Halloran. Mr. Kappas currently concentrates his area of practice in retail under the guidance of senior shareholder, John A. Childers, with an emphasis in tort liability defense of Fortune 100 clients in areas ranging from products liability, premises liability, misfilled prescriptions, and intentional torts.

Mr. Kappas earned his Juris Doctorate degree from Northern Illinois College of Law, where he graduated magna cum laude in 2006. As a student he was the editor for the Law Review, Symposium and Trial Advocacy President. For more on Mr. Kappas click here.

J&B Attorney & the IDC

Johnson & Bell, Ltd. is pleased to announce Moyenda Mutharika Knapp is the Employment Law Committee Co-Chair of the Illinois Association of Defense Trial Counsel (IDC).

The IDC’s mission is to, among other things, work on improving the administration of justice and service of the legal profession to the public. For information on Ms. Knapp and her practice please click here.

Cristina Mungai elected to 2nd Vice President of the
Justinian Society of Lawyers of Illinois

Johnson & Bell would like to congratulate attorney, Cristina Mungai, on becoming 2nd Vice President of the Justinian Society of Lawyers of Illinois. The Installation Dinner commemorating Ms. Mungai, along with her peers, was on Wednesday, September 24, 2008 at the Palmer House Hilton located in Chicago.

The Justinian Society of Lawyers is an organization celebrating and uniting Italian-American lawyers since 1921. Along with creating a community, the organization strives to ensure that everyone, regardless of creed, color, gender, national origin or ancestry have the opportunity to succeed.

Ms. Mungai is an associate for Johnson & Bell. She concentrates her area of practice on construction site negligence, general negligence and long term care/nursing home liability. If you would like to learn more about Ms. Mungai’s practice or the Justinian Society of Lawyers please contact her at (312) 984-0221 or mungaic@jbltd.com.

Johnson & Bell, Ltd. Announces the Formation of its Mediation Practice Group

Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) has become an increasingly popular means of resolving litigation matters over the past several years. Lawyers and clients alike have realized that many times the best resolution to a conflict can be achieved through the mediation process without resorting to extended and costly litigation. In recognition of ADR’s increasing popularity, Johnson & Bell is pleased to announce the formation of its Mediation Practice Group. Johnson & Bell shareholders William V. Johnson, John W. Bell, and Brian C. Fetzer comprise the group of professionals ready to mediate any type of personal injury, commercial liability, catastrophic injury, product liability, or healthcare dispute.

William V. Johnson is co-founder and President of Johnson & Bell. For more than 30 years, Mr. Johnson has enjoyed a reputation as one of Illinois’ finest trial attorneys. He has represented clients in all types of catastrophic injury, mass tort, commercial liability, professional liability, and trade secrets cases during his distinguished career. Mr. Johnson’s vast experiences render him uniquely qualified to mediate diverse disputes ranging from simple commercial matters to multi-million dollar medical malpractice cases.

John W. Bell is co-founder and Vice President of Johnson & Bell. Mr. Bell has tried several high profile product liability and catastrophic tort cases that have earned him recognition as one of Chicago’s finest tort lawyers by Chicago Lawyer magazine. Mr. Bell has participated in the mediation and resolution of hundreds of product liability and catastrophic tort cases that have provided him with a keen understanding of the common and uncommon problems faced by litigants in these types of disputes.

Brian C. Fetzer is treasurer and Vice President of Johnson & Bell. Mr. Fetzer concentrates his practice in healthcare and product liability law and has mediated a number of cases. Mr. Fetzer has been recognized by his peers as a successful trial attorney with an AV-rating from Martindale-Hubbell. As a mediator, Mr. Fetzer offers his impartial perspective as a participant in hundreds of litigation matters involving healthcare and product liability claims.

Appellate Court Affirms Jury Verdict

On May 19, 2008 the Illinois Appellate Court, First District, issued a written opinion affirming a jury verdict for Johnson & Bell’s client, Midwest Development Company, in the case of Efrain Torres v. Midwest Development Company, 04 L 3805. The case was tried to verdict by Jon Goken and Scott Hoyne in 2006. Goken and Hoyne argued the case on appeal.

Mr. Torres testified at trial that he had slipped and fallen at the apartment building owned by Midwest Development because of an unnatural accumulation of ice and snow which plaintiff claimed was caused by defects in the building. Torres alleged that the defects included a faulty roof which allowed water to seep into the porch area of the apartment building and freeze on steps leading into plaintiff’s apartment. In support of his position Mr. Torres offered the testimony of Michael Eiben, a licensed architect with over thirty years experience, who was prepared to testify that the repairs performed to the roof of the building a year or so before the accident had failed to stem the flow of water into the porch area. Eiben was also prepared to testify that the roof was pitched incorrectly and was serviced with inadequate drains, which defects contributed to the “ice-damming” and seepage which caused the plaintiff’s fall.

Goken and Hoyne were hired by Midwest’s insurance carrier several months before trial and just weeks before the deposition of Mr. Eiben. Their deposition of Eiben revealed that the architect’s methodology was faulty and that he had no factual basis for the opinions which he had formulated. Goken and Hoyne presented a motion in limine to bar Eiben from testifying at trial and that motion was granted by the trial court on the day trial commenced. The jury deliberated two and one half hours before returning a defense verdict.

On appeal plaintiff’s attorney argued that the trial judge had abused her discretion when she barred Eiben from testifying. The appellate court rejected plaintiff’s argument. Citing the “general acceptance” test set forth in Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013 (D.C. Cir. 1923) and Donaldson v. Central Illinois Public Service Co., 199 Ill.2d 63 (2002), the court found that Michael Eiben’s testimony was properly barred because his opinions were not held to a reasonable degree of architectural or scientific certainty. Citing the recent Illinois Appellate decision in Petraski v. Thedos, No. 1-06-2916 (1st Dist. 2008), the court further noted that “a party must lay a foundation sufficient to establish the reliability of the basis for the expert’s opinion”. The appellate court found that plaintiff had failed to lay such a foundation with regard to the proffered testimony of Mr. Eiben. No further appeals are anticipated.

J&B Welcomes Two New Attorneys

Katherine J. Pronk and Gabriel R. Judd join Johnson & Bell, Ltd. as associate attorneys and have just recently been sworn into the Illinois Supreme Court.

Ms. Pronk concentrates her area of practice in business litigation and employment. She is working with senior shareholder Joseph R. Marconi. Prior to joining Johnson & Bell she practiced law in Iowa. She has experience practicing commercial litigation, employment/labor law, and insurance defense. While attending school at Drake Law School, Ms. Pronk was the legal research and writing teacher's assistant as well as practicing student attorney for the Drake Legal Clinic.

Mr. Judd concentrates his area of practice in insurance and municipal liability. He works with senior shareholder Rick L. Hammond. Prior to his career as an attorney, Mr. Judd worked for Johnson & Bell as a law clerk.

For more information on their practice contact Ms. Pronk at pronkk@jbltd.com and Mr. Judd at juddg@jbltd.com.

Successful Defense on Alleged Breach of Contract Case

Johnson & Bell, Ltd. attorney Moyenda M. Knapp successfully defended State Farm Fire & Casualty Company in Hunter v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Company, a breach of contract case relating to a homeowners insurance policy. Following a four day trial, on May 1, 2008, a twelve member jury returned a verdict in favor of State Farm in minutes.

The case arose from a fire that took place at the residence which the plaintiff shared with 6 other family members. The plaintiff and another adult family member were named insureds under the policy. The named insureds made a claim against State Farm for damages to the personal property items in the home. Following its investigation, State Farm denied the claim pursuant to the policy's concealment or fraud provision. At trial, the plaintiff argued that she did not make any misrepresentations in the claim, and that any misrepresentations were solely attributable to the other named insured. The plaintiff asked the jury to award her $170,679.45 in damages. At trial, Ms. Knapp argued that the plaintiff's claim was properly denied pursuant to the concealment or fraud provision of the insurance policy and that both insureds misrepresented the value, existence, quantity, and salvagibility of the personal property items in the claimed loss in violation of the policy's terms. Ms. Knapp concentrates her practice in insurance coverage, employment law, and business litigation.

To learn more about this case or about her practice, please contact Ms. Knapp at (312) 984-0275 or knappm@jbltd.com.

Summary Judgment Gained for J&B Client

Johnson & Bell, Ltd. associate, Anthony E. Derwinski, obtained summary judgment from Judge Randye Kogan in the Circuit Court of Cook County on behalf of Walgreens. The plaintiff claimed that the store in question failed to provide reasonably safe access for pedestrians to enter and leave the store and failed to provide proper warnings or cautionary devices near the entrances and exits of the location.

Mr. Derwinski filed a motion for summary judgment in which he argued his client could not be held liable for plaintiff’s injuries since a defendant does not owe a duty if the defendant does not control or intend to control the land in question. Mr. Derwinski also argued that the foreseeability of injury, the magnitude of the burden of guarding against that injury and the consequences of placing that burden on the defendant are crucial in imposing liability. After extensive discovery and filing of the motion the court agreed and entered summary judgment on behalf of the defense.

Mr. Derwinski concentrates his practice in litigation, product liability and general negligence. For more information on Mr. Derwinski contact him at derwinskia@jbltd.com.

Successful Summary Judgment for J&B Client

Johnson & Bell, Ltd. associate, Eric W. Moch, obtained summary judgment from Judge Marcia Maras on behalf of The City of Harvey in a case that arose from allegations of wrongdoing by the city in 1997, when it and the City of Markham executed a temporary restraining order against an unlicensed junk yard the Plaintiffs were running on five conjoined lots that straddled the border of Markham and Harvey. The cities argued that the unlicensed junk yard was a public nuisance. The Plaintiffs filed a lawsuit alleging common law theft, trespass and Section 1983 due process violations arising from Harvey’s execution of the temporary restraining order. The case had a long procedural history which included a reversal of a previous summary judgment for the defendants and two stints in Federal court.The Plaintiffs sought the value of the supposed business property that was seized from the land as well as lost profits from the businesses they conducted with with the property they stored on the land. Their last settlement demand was over $3 million.

Mr. Moch is an associate attorney. He concentrates his practice in insurance with an emphasis in first – and third – party disputes. For more information on Mr. Moch contact him at moche@jbltd.com.

Johnson & Bell attorney elected to the Board of Directors for CHRMS

Johnson & Bell, Ltd. would like to acknowledge shareholder, Sammi L. Renken, who has been elected to the Board of Directors for the Chicago Healthcare Risk Management Society (CHRMS).

The CHRMS is an affiliated chapter of the American Society for Healthcare Risk Management (ASHRM) and an affiliate of the Metropolitan Chicago Healthcare Council (MCHC). Their mission is to advance safe and trusted patient-centered health care delivery and promote proactive and innovative management of organization-wide risk.

Sammi L. Renken concentrates her practice in healthcare law, nursing home liability, medical and legal malpractice, and catastrophic injury. For more information on Ms. Renken please contact her at renkens@jbltd.com.

Johnson & Bell attorney honored with Distinguished Service Award

Johnson & Bell, Ltd. would like to congratulate shareholder, Joseph R. Marconi, who will be awarded a Distinguished Service Award (DSA) from the John Marshall Law School Alumni Association. The 2008 Freedom Award & Distinguished Service Awards Luncheon commemorating Mr. Marconi, along with his peers, will take place on Friday, May 2, 2008 at the Palmer House Hilton located in downtown Chicago.

The DSA recognizes outstanding achievement in a career field or personal endeavor. Recipients are honored for:

significant achievement in their chosen career;
sharing their time and talents at the law school;
supporting John Marshall students, alumni, faculty, and staff;
reflecting the values that are a part of the law school’s tradition, heritage, and mission.

Joseph R. Marconi is the chair of Johnson & Bell’s Business Litigation / Transactions group and co-chair of the Employment group. For more information on Mr. Marconi and his practice contact him at marconij@jbltd.com.

Successful summary judgment in wrongful death case

Johnson & Bell, Ltd. shareholder, Joseph F. Spitzzeri, and senior associate, Christopher J. Carlos, obtained summary judgment in the Circuit Court of Cook County – County Department – Law Division with respect to a trucking/premises wrongful death case involving five deaths and two surviving plaintiffs.

Mr. Spitzzeri and Mr. Carlos represented a steel fabricator who loaded steel onto a flatbed trailer per the truck driver’s instruction. The trailer pulled out of the steel fabricator’s private drive at 11:35 pm and failed to clear a westbound lane before a minivan ran into and underneath it. The driver of the minivan and four passengers died, two survived with serious injuries. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendant failed to properly secure and tarp the load, failed to have a spotter, failed to have a stop sign at the end of his private drive, and failed to have a light at the end of his private drive to remedy the excessive lighting from the neighboring car dealership. The court found no duty on all issues.

Joseph F. Spitzzeri is co-chair of the Construction group and chair of the Municipal Liability group. He concentrates his practice in construction, employment law/employee benefits, municipal liability, and toxic tort defense. He can be reached at spitzzerij@jbltd.com. Mr. Carlos concentrates his practice in construction. He can be reached at carlosc@jbltd.com.

Jury Returns “Not Guilty” Verdict in Favor of Restaurant Chain; Plaintiff Asked for More Than $850,000 in Damages

On Friday, February 29, 2008, a twelve-person jury sitting in the U.S. District Court, Northern District of Illinois, returned a defense verdict on behalf of Johnson & Bell, Ltd., client, TGI Friday’s, in a personal injury case wherein plaintiff, a 54-year-old Florida woman, sought a verdict in excess of $850,000. The lawsuit arose from a May 30, 2003, accident at a TGI Friday’s restaurant in downtown Chicago, wherein plaintiff fell down the stairs leading from the restaurant’s bar to the restroom. Plaintiff sustained two fractures in her left foot and, in the ensuing months, developed a near-fatal condition of pulmonary embolism. Plaintiff alleged that she slipped on drops of water on the stairs, and that TGI Friday’s was negligent for allowing this foreign substance to exist on the steps and for causing plaintiff’s fall. Johnson & Bell, Ltd. attorneys, Matthew L. Johnson and William T. Young, argued that there was no evidence of any water or foreign substance on the floor and that plaintiff’s accounts of the circumstances of the accident were inconsistent. After four days of trial before Hon. Ronald Guzman, the jury deliberated for one-half day prior to returning the defense verdict.

In addition to Mr. Johnson and Mr. Young, TGI Friday’s was represented by Johnson & Bell associate, Paul Gamboa.

Appellate Practice Group Takes Home Five Wins in Two Days
Posted February 2008

On February 21 and 22, the First District Appellate Court issued four decisions in favor of Johnson & Bell clients, and the Supreme Court largely followed the arguments of an amicus brief filed in a fifth case.

Karas v. Strevell et al., S.Ct. Nos. 104123 & 104133 (February 22, 2008)

Supreme Court Reverses Appellate Court and Applies Contact Sports Exemption to Athletic Organizations

The parent of a juvenile hockey player brought suit against two other hockey players after he sustained injuries after being checked from behind in a hockey game. The Plaintiff also sued the opposing team, the governing association of the officials who refereed the game, and the amateur hockey to which both teams belonged. The Plaintiff alleged negligent, willful and wanton conduct, and civil conspiracy. The trial court dismissed plaintiff's complaint in its entirety based upon the contact sport exception, but the appellate largely reversed that order. The Appellate Court held that plaintiff had successfully pled negligent against the organization defendants as well as civil conspiracy.

The Illinois Supreme Court agreed to review the matter. Johnson & Bell, Ltd., in conjunction with Faegre & Benson in Minneapolis, was asked to prepare an amicus brief on behalf of USA Hockey. The amicus brief was joined by the National Federal of State High School Associations, the Illinois High School Association, and the National Collegiate Athletic Association.

The Illinois Supreme Court, in discussing the contact sports exception, dismissed the negligence claims against the organizations as well as the civil conspiracy claim. Further, the Court affirmed the dismissal of the willful and wanton claims against the organizations, but remanded the matter to allow the plaintiff the opportunity to replead if the plaintiff could allege actual or deliberate intent to harm.

In its opinion, the Court explained that the contact sports exception is not an affirmative defense but a doctrine that identifies the scope of a defendant's duty. Based upon the nature of hockey, the Court concluded that the duty owed to the plaintiff's son by the player defendants was to refrain from willful and wanton or intentional conduct. The Court explained willful and wanton to mean an actual or deliberate intent to harm.

As to the organizations, the Court recognized that the application of the contact sports exception was an issue of first impression. The Court noted that applying an ordinary negligence duty to organizations would open the door to a surfeit of litigation. Furthermore, the Court noted that rules violations are insufficient to establish liability by themselves. Moreover, imposing too strict a duty on the organizations would have a chilling effect vigorous sports participation. Reasoning along these lines, the Court held that the contact sports exception applied to organizations. Thus, only the willful and wanton claim could be pursued by a plaintiff against a sports organization, if and only if, plaintiff could plead facts to show the organizations acted with an intent to harm and that the organizations' conduct was totally outside the range of ordinary activity involved with coaching or officiating the sport.

The case was handled on appeal by Garrett L. Boehm, Jr., e-mail: boehmg@jbltd.com.

Daniels v. Yellow Cab Management, Inc., No. 06-1256 (1st Dist. February 21, 2008)

First District Appellate Court Affirms Summary Judgment in Favor of Yellow Cab in Catastrophic Personal Injury Case

In a victory for Johnson & Bell clients, CRA Cab Company (f/k/a Yellow Cab Company) and Yellow Cab Management, Inc., the First District Appellate Court affirmed the entry of summary judgment in favor of the defendants.

The Daniels case arose out of a vehicle accident where the car Erik Daniels was driving was struck by a Yellow Cab driven by Shahzad Malik and owned by Nana Dada, Inc. Plaintiff filed suit against Malik, Nana Dada and Muhammed Atif, the owner of Nana Dada. Daniels also filed suit against Yellow Cab Management, Yellow Cab Affiliation, YellowOne, YellowTwo, CRA Cab f/k/a Yellow Cab Company, Transit Capital, Transit Funding Group and Patton Corrigan.

Plaintiff sought to impose liability on the Yellow Cab entities under theories of joint venture, vicarious liability and alter ego. The trial court entered summary judgment in favor of the Yellow Cab entities, which plaintiff appealed.

The First District Appellate Court affirmed the trial court’s entry of summary judgment. On appeal, Plaintiff argued that section 9-112-390 of the Chicago Municipal Code made Nana Dada the agent of the Yellow Cab Affiliation. Section 9-112-390 provides that if a cab is affiliated with any affiliation, the affiliation’s color scheme, trade name or emblem along with its phone number shall be displayed in the cab. Further, any of these indicia of affiliation is “sufficient to establish the responsibility of the affiliation in the operation of the taxicab.” Plaintiff argued that because the cab was affiliated with Yellow Cab Affiliation, the Affiliation was the principal of Nana Dad as a matter of law.

The appellate court disagreed finding that plaintiff took the Chicago Municipal ordinance out of context. The appellate court found that the purpose of section 9-112-390 is not to make the affiliation the insurer of its affiliates, but is to make certain that a particular affiliation is identified in relation to a taxicab so that city requirements are followed and are capable of enforcement. The Court noted that plaintiff’s interpretation would render other parts of the Municipal Code superfluous or meaningless.

Next, the plaintiff argued that the corporate defendants exercised sufficient control over Nana Dada to establish an agency relationship making defendants liable under the doctrine of respondeat superior. The appellate court disagreed. The Court noted that Nana Dada owned the cab, medallion and meter. Atif set the operating hours for the cab and paid all expenses, including gas, repairs, insurance and fines. Plaintiff pointed out that there were contractual restraints imposed by the affiliation agreement and financing documents, which shoed that the Yellow entities exercised control over Nana Dada. However, the appellate court concluded that most of the constraints were requirements under the Chicago Municipal Code and did not amount to an exercise of control necessary to establish an agency relationship.

Finally, the plaintiff argued that the corporate defendants were acting as joint venturers because they coordinated their actions to govern the ability of Nana Dada to operate its business. The appellate court rejected plaintiff’s claim by pointing out that the absence of control of Nana Dada by the defendants defeated the plaintiff’s claim that defendants were joint venturers. Consequently, the Appellate Court affirmed the trial court’s entry of summary judgment in favor of Yellow Cab Management, CRA Cab Company and the other defendants on appeal.

The case was handled in the trial court by Robert J. Comfort, e-mail: comfortj@jbltd.com. The case was handled on appeal by David M. Macksey, e-mail: mackseyd@jbltd.com and Garrett L. Boehm, Jr., e-mail: boehmg@jbltd.com.

Lagestee v. Edward Chien, M.D., No. 04-0837 (February 22, 2008)

First District Appellate Court Affirms Summary Judgment in Favor of Edward Chien, M.D., in Medical Malpractice Case

In this case, the trial court granted summary judgment to Johnson & Bell, Ltd. client University of Chicago Hospitals physician Dr. Chien because the plaintiffs expert witness, Dr. Duboe, failed to provide opinions adverse to Dr. Chien's conduct. Plaintiffs argued on appeal that summary judgment was improper because (1) Dr. Duboe criticized Dr. Chien's conduct in answers to interrogatories; (2) Dr. Duboe's general criticisms encompassed Dr. Chien's conduct; and (3) there was a question of facts as to whether Dr. Chien was the unidentified male physician who gave Plaintiffs negligent obstetrical advice. Plaintiffs also argued that the trial court erred by denying Plaintiffs' request to supplement the record with Dr. Duboe's affidavit post-summary judgment. The Appellate Court rejected all four contentions and affirmed summary judgment.

The Court stated that Dr. Duboe neither signed nor verified his interrogatory answers and stated in his deposition that his deposition testimony took precedence over the interrogatory answers. Next, as to Plaintiffs' reliance on Dr. Duboe's general criticisms, the Court noted that Dr. Duboe specifically testified at his deposition that he did not criticize Dr. Chien for not examining Mrs. Lagestee because the consultation was conducted by telephone and the attending staff had enough experience to present the case to him. The Court also noted Dr. Duboe's testimony that there were no records to indicate that Dr. Chien did not communicate with the attending staff about their intervention obstetrical plans; thus, Dr. Duboe did not criticize Dr. Chien's conduct generally or specifically. Third, the Court held that the medical records and depositions of University of Chicago Hospitals physicians who had discussions with Mrs. Lagestee established that Dr. Chien did not have any bedside conversations with Mrs. Lagestee. Plaintiffs failed to demonstrate a genuine issue of material fact concerning Dr. Chien's presence at Mrs. Lagestee's bedside that would preclude summary judgment.

Finally, the Court rejected Plaintiffs' argument that the trial court erred when it refused to consider Dr. Duboe's after-the-fact affidavit concerning the nature of his expert opinion. The Court held that Dr. Duboe's affidavit was untimely. The Court commented that Plaintiffs had extensive opportunities to present their case and failed to provide any reason for the tardy submission of Duboe's affidavit. The Court acknowledged that the affidavit would have changed Dr. Duboe's testimony concerning Dr. Chien's presence at the hospital, but that the record did not support this view.

The case was handled in the trial court by William V. Johnson, e-mail: johnsonw@jbltd.com, and Sammi L. Renken, e-mail: renkens@jbltd.com. The case was handled on appeal by Garrett L. Boehm, Jr., e-mail: boehmg@jbltd.com, and David M. Macksey, e-mail: mackseyd@jbltd.com.

Britton v. University of Chicago Hospitals, No. 06-3080 (February 22, 2008)

First District Appellate Court Affirms Summary Judgment in Favor of University of Chicago Hospitals in Premises Liability Case

Here, the First District Appellate Court issued a Rule 23 Order affirming the trial court's decision, which granted summary judgment to Johnson & Bell, Ltd. client University of Chicago Hospitals in this premises liability action. The Plaintiff alleged negligence and liability under the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur after he injured himself while using a manual revolving door when entering the hospital.

The Appellate Court held that the Plaintiff failed to demonstrate that any issue of fact exists regarding the University of Chicago Hospitals' breach of any duty or that any breach proximately caused his injuries. The Court noted that the record lacked any evidence of a specific condition under the hospital's control that caused Plaintiff's injury, any defect in the glass or the revolving door, any facts regarding door maintenance, or any fact indicating that the hospital had actual or constructive notice of any defect in the revolving door.

As to the res ispa loquitur claim, the Court rejected the Plaintiff's allegation that the revolving door was under the hospital's control and management at the time of the accident. When the injury occurred, the door was not being operated by the hospital but, rather, by the Plaintiff. The Court held that "where a structure not obviously dangerous, has been in daily use for an extended period of time and has proven adequate, safe, and convenient for purposes to which it was being put, it may be further continued in use without the imputation of negligence."

The case was handled in the trial court by Matthew L. Johnson, e-mail: johnsonm@jbltd.com, and Steven G. Carlson, e-mail: carlsons@jbltd.com. The case was handled on appeal by Garrett L. Boehm, Jr., e-mail: boehmg@jbltd.com.

Georgia Productions and Art Oko Film GMBH & Co. v. Gerling Industrie Services, No. 06-1570 (February 22, 2008) consol. w/ Georgia Productions and Art Oko Film GMBH & Co. v. Gerling Konzern Allgemeine Versicherungs, No. 06-3743 (February 22, 2008)

First District Appellate Court Affirms Forum Non Conveniens Dismissal in Favor of Gerling Industrie Services and Gerling Konzern Allgemeine Versicherungs

In these consolidated cases, the First District Appellate Court affirmed dismissal based on forum non conveniens. The cases arose out of the termination of a film that had been scheduled for production in Illinois. Plaintiffs were producing the film together. One plaintiff was a German corporation and the other was a California corporation. Defendants were both German corporations. The production agreement at issue was written in German, negotiated in Germany, and governed by German law.

On appeal, the Appellate Court considered the relevant private and public interest factors of the forum non conveniens balancing test. The Appellate Court began by noting that because the Plaintiffs were foreign corporations, their choice of forum was entitled to less deference. The Appellate Court then noted that the trial court's consideration of practical private interest factors was not an abuse of discretion. Here, an understanding of German was necessary to evaluate the alleged breach of contract. Further, witnesses were likely to be in Germany rather than in America, let alone Illinois.

Moreover, the Appellate Court held that there was not a sufficient connection to Illinois to justify the additional burden placed on the Court system and on jurors to become familiar with the German language and its laws.

The case was handled in the trial court by Robert R. McNamara, e-mail: mcnamarar@jbltd.com. The case was handled on appeal by Garrett L. Boehm, Jr., e-mail: boehmg@jbltd.com.

$1.4 million judgment for J&B client affirmed on appeal
Posted February 2008

The Seventh Federal Circuit Court of Appeals (Chicago) recently affirmed a $1.4 million judgment obtained by Johnson & Bell trial attorney Dan Murray on behalf of an Ohio diversified manufacturer. In the acquisition of another company, the Ohio manufacturer was assigned the rights to an $800,000 Promissory Note. When the obligor stopped making payments on the Note, Johnson & Bell filed suit on behalf of the Ohio manufacturer, to which the obligor answered there had been a contract novation, switching the obligation to pay from him to a corporate entity he controlled. Mr. Murray argued that under Ohio law, there was insufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to conclude there had been a contract novation. The trial court agreed, and entered summary judgment for the Ohio manufacturer for the unpaid principal and interest, exceeding $1.4 million. The three judge appeals panel (Easterbrook, Flaum, Evans) upon review of the record, the parties’ briefs, and oral arguments of counsel, concluded that Johnson & Bell’s client “deserved summary judgment,” and affirmed the $1.4 million award, plus court costs.

The case is RB&W Mfg. v. Buford, USCA-7 No. 05-4149 Feb. 6, 2008. For more information, Dan Murray can be reached at (312) 984-0226, or via email at murrayd@jbltd.com.

Johnson & Bell’s Super Lawyers are recognized
Posted February 2008

Johnson & Bell would like to congratulate those who were recognized as the top Illinois attorneys in the January 2008 issue of Illinois Super Lawyers & Rising Stars magazine. Among those who were honored were Johnson & Bell’s co-founders William V. Johnson and John W. Bell who were named as two of the top 100 attorneys in Illinois. Both Mr. Bell and Mr. Johnson were also recognized for their defense in Civil Litigation along with other Johnson & Bell shareholders, including Robert M. Burke, Scott W. Hoyne, Jack T. Riley, William D. Serritella, and James K. Toohey.

Johnson & Bell had a number of other attorneys who were honored as an Illinois Super Lawyer, including shareholders Joseph R. Marconi for Business Litigation, Joseph F. Spitzzeri for Construction/Surety, William K. McVisk for Insurance Coverage, Gregory D. Conforti for Transportation/Maritime, and Kevin G. Owens and Charles P. Rantis for the defense of Product Liability. Lastly, Johnson & Bell would like to congratulate associate Richard R. Gordon for being named an Illinois Rising Star in Insurance Coverage.

The selection process in determining who will be named an Illinois Super Lawyer is a multi-step procedure. Attorneys are first nominated by their peers, an in-depth research into the nominees’ background and practice is then conducted by the Law & Politics’ research department. The abbreviated list is then returned to the original Illinois attorneys who then vote again on the remaining candidates. Super Lawyers ultimately lists only 5 percent of all the practicing attorneys in Illinois. For more information on Super Lawyers visit their Web site at www.superlawyers.com.

If you would like to learn more about Johnson & Bell’s Super Lawyers and their practice, please visit www.johnsonandbell.com or e-mail info@johnsonandbell.com.

Johnson & Bell, Ltd. welcomes Bradley D. Price
Posted February 2008

Johnson & Bell would like to welcome Bradley D. Price. Mr. Price is a recent graduate from the University of Iowa - College of Law and was sworn into the Illinois Supreme Court this past November. Mr. Price joins the firm as an associate and will practice within the Johnson & Bell Healthcare group with seasoned shareholders Greg Schiller and Andrew Kovarik. Mr. Price will concentrate his practice in healthcare litigation representing physicians, hospitals, insurance companies, and other medical-care facilities.

For more information on Mr. Price and his practice at Johnson & Bell please contact him at (312) 984-0251 or priceb@jbltd.com.

Victory for Johnson & Bell
Posted January 2008

Johnson & Bell attorneys, Marilyn M. Reidy and Charlene S. Mitchell, successfully defended their client, Emergency Medical physician, in the month long trial of Vandeberg v. Holy Family Hospital, et al.

In the case of Vandeberg v. Holy Family Hospital, et al. an 18 year-old male pedestrian was hit by an Sports Utility Vehicle and was then taken to the Holy Family Hospital Emergency Department. The work-up revealed that his femur was fractured into five pieces and his femoral artery was cut. The man underwent vascular and orthopedic surgery to repair the artery and bone, but the leg did not have a functional recovery. The plaintiff claims the poor outcome was due to an ischemic injury caused by delayed work-up and surgery. The defendants attributed the poor outcome to nerve injury sustained when the SUV hit him, as well as to post-operative infection. Now 24 years old, the plaintiff sought $6-10 million. The jury returned a verdict in favor of all defendants including Johnson & Bell’s client, Emergency Medicine Physician. The trauma surgeon, orthopedic surgeon, and vascular surgeon were also found not guilty.

Marilyn McCabe Reidy is a shareholder with Johnson & Bell. She concentrates her area of practice in healthcare. Ms. Reidy manages and directs all aspects of the litigation process with full responsibility for the preparation and trial of cases, concentrating in medical malpractice defense, nursing home litigation and pharmaceutical negligence. She has successfully tried professional negligence cases to verdict in both state and federal court. If you would like to contact Ms. Reidy or learn more about her practice, please contact her at (312) 984-0288 or reidym@jbltd.com.

Charlene S. Mitchell is a shareholder with Johnson & Bell. She concentrates her practice in healthcare, product liability and professional liability. To learn more about Ms. Mitchell and her area of practice you can contact her at (312) 984-0219 or mitchellc@jbltd.com.

Johnson & Bell, Ltd. welcomes James V. Tomaska

We are pleased to announce that James V. Tomaska has joined Johnson & Bell as an associate. Prior to Johnson & Bell, Mr. Tomaska was a litigation associate with Matushek, Nilles & Sinars where he concentrated on toxic tort and product liability. Mr. Tomaska received his B.A. from John Carroll University and his J.D. from John Marshall Law School.

If you would like to learn more about Mr. Tomaska and his practice at Johnson & Bell, please contact him at (312) 984-6684 or tomaskaj@jbltd.com

Johnson & Bell promotions
Posted December, 2007

Our congratulations to the recently named shareholders of Johnson & Bell, Ltd.:
Garrett L. Boehm, Jr.
Timothy R. Couture
David F. Fanning
Victor J. Pioli

We are also pleased to announce the following have been elevated to senior shareholders of Johnson & Bell, Ltd.:
Andrew J. Kovarik
Terry A. Takash

Victory for Johnson & Bell Client, Loretto Hospital
Posted November, 2007

In a victory for Johnson & Bell client, Loretto Hospital, the First District Appellate Court dismissed the appeal of a plaintiff who sought recovery from the hospital for alleged medical malpractice.

In the medical malpractice case of Bredelhoeft v. Loretto Hospital, No. 06-2647 (1st Dist. 2007) (filed November 14, 2007), the plaintiff sued Loretto Hospital after her involuntary admission to defendant’s psychiatric unit on May 25, 2005. Plaintiff’s amended complaint was stricken for failure to attach an affidavit from a qualified health professional as required by section 2-622(a)(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff filed a second amended complaint, which was also dismissed and plaintiff appealed.

On appeal, plaintiff failed to prepare a proper record on appeal, and her brief did not comply with supreme court rules governing appeals. Accordingly, Loretto Hospital moved to strike plaintiff’s brief and dismiss the appeal. The appellate court noted that plaintiff’s notice of appeal was defective, and the record did not contain the judgment appealed from. Moreover, plaintiff’s appellate brief was deficient in that it failed to contain a sufficient statement of facts, and the argument was not supported by pertinent authority. Ultimately, the appellate court concluded that it could not discern the issue on review, and, therefore, the appeal was dismissed.

The trial court proceedings were handled by William K. McVisk and Carl M. Schultz. The appeal was handled by David M. Macksey and Garrett L. Boehm, Jr., of Johnson & Bell's Appellate Practice Group.

For more information on this case please contact William K. McVisk at mcviskw@jblt.com or (312) 984-0229 or David M Macksey at mackseyd@jbltd.com or (312) 984-0323.

Not guilty verdict awarded to Johnson & Bell, Ltd. client
Posted October, 2007

Johnson & Bell attorneys, Charles P. Rantis and Timothy R. Couture, successfully defended their client, Louisville Ladder. After seven hours of deliberation on Wednesday, October 17, 2007 the jury awarded a not guilty verdict in the case of Mucci v Louisville Ladder.

Mucci claimed that the ladder, a four-foot aluminum type III duty rated stepladder, racked excessively, meaning when the ladder was open for use the rear assembly and the front assembly were offset, rendering it unstable and making it likely to tip-over. The plaintiff suffered multiple orthopedic injuries and demanded $950,000. In addition, the plaintiff’s spouse made a claim for loss of consortium. The defense, led by Johnson & Bell shareholder, Mr. Rantis, contended that the sole proximate cause of the accident was the plaintiff’s conduct and her loss of balance which caused the ladder to tip-over.

Mr. Rantis concentrates his area of practice in construction negligence and products’ liability. He has extensive experience in defending manufacturers of construction equipment, power tools, metal cutting machines, fire apparatus equipment, flammable fabrics, and numerous other types of products in serious injury and death cases.

Mr. Couture concentrates his area of practice in construction and products’ liability; he has defended clients in a wide range of legal contexts, including toxic torts, transportation law, premises and professional liability.

To learn more about this case or their practice please contact Mr. Rantis at (312) 984-0231 or rantisc@jbltd.com and Mr. Couture at (312) 984-6651 or couturet@jbltd.com.

Third District Appellate Court affirms summary judgment in favor of St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Company in catastrophic personal injury case
Posted October, 2007

In a victory for Johnson & Bell client, St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Company, the Third District Appellate Court affirmed the entry of summary judgment in favor of the insurance company in the case Ioerger v. Halverson Construction Co., Inc., et al., No. 06-0367 (3rd Dist. September 24, 2007).

The Ioerger case arose out of an accident where a suspended scaffold detached from beneath McCluggage Bridge in Peoria, Illinois sending five ironworkers into the Illinois River killing three of them and seriously injuring a fourth. In addition to various contractors at the project, the Plaintiffs sued St. Paul directly in light of a contract St. Paul entered into with the Plaintiffs’ employer.

Specifically, in Ioerger, Halverson Construction Co. and Midwest Foundation Corp. were hired to perform repair work on the McCluggage Bridge over the Illinois River in Peoria, Illinois. St. Paul provided Midwest workers’ compensation and general liability insurance. St. Paul also had a construction safety services unit that provided insureds and others with safety professionals.

St. Paul and Midwest entered into a risk control service agreement. The agreement required St. Paul to furnish “necessary and qualified risk control specialist(s)”. St. Paul provided a list of several candidates, and Midwest chose a risk control specialist from the list.

On April 24, 2000, Daniel Ioerger, Randy McCombs, Robert L. Foulks, Sr., John Irby and Ronald Watson, employees of Midwest, were on a suspended platform under the McCluggage Bridge when the platform collapsed and fell into the river, injuring Ioerger and McCombs, and killing Foulks, Irby and Watson. The injured workers received workers’ compensation benefits from Midwest.

Plaintiffs thereafter filed a negligence, wrongful death and survival action against St. Paul and others for the injuries they sustained as a result of the collapse of the scaffold at the bridge. St. Paul and the other defendants filed motions for summary judgment on the grounds that they were immune from liability pursuant to the exclusive remedy provision of the Workers’ Compensation Act. 820 ILCS 305/5(a). The trial court granted the motions for summary judgment, and the Plaintiffs appealed.

The Third District Appellate Court affirmed the trial court’s entry of summary judgment. The Court noted that the Workers’ Compensation Act bars all suits for personal injuries that arise out of and in the course of employment. The Act also provides immunity to the employer’s insurer and safety service provider in order to promote industrial safety.

The Plaintiffs argued that St. Paul was not immune under the Act because it was not acting as Midwest’s insurer, but was acting in a dual capacity as a fee-based professional service which provided safety personnel to industry. Plaintiffs further contended that St. Paul was not acting as a safety service organization.

The Appellate Court rejected Plaintiffs’ contentions. The Court found that St. Paul’s role in assisting Midwest to procure a safety service provider did not result in a dual capacity status. Instead, St. Paul’s role in offering fee-based risk control services was incidental to its business as Midwest’s insurer and undertaken as Midwest’s insurer. St. Paul’s function through its safety services unit did not generate obligations unrelated to its obligations as Midwest’s insurer.

The Appellate Court further found that St. Paul was immune as a safety service organization. The Court reasoned that St. Paul was retained by Midwest to provide a risk control specialist to provide safety service, advice and recommendations. Consequently, because St. Paul was both Midwest’s insurer and its safety service provider, the trial court correctly found that St. Paul was immune under the Workers’ Compensation Act’s exclusive remedy provision and properly entered summary judgment in favor of St. Paul.

The case was handled in the trial court by William G. Beatty, e-mail beattyw@jbltd.com and Michael A. Pauletto, e-mail paulettom@jbltd.com. The case was handled on appeal by David M. Macksey, e-mail: mackseyd@jbltd.com.

Reorganization Debtor’s Notice Inadequate to Bar Land Developer’s Environmental Claim
Posted October, 2007

Johnson & Bell environmental attorneys Dan Murray and Garrett Boehm defeat environmental assessment company’s discharge-in-bankruptcy defense.

Johnson & Bell’s client, a Chicago-based land developer, brought suit against an environmental assessment company for the assessor’s failure to discover and disclose radioactive thorium waste on certain Streeterville property. Absent the disclosure, the developer purchased the property, only to have U.S. EPA discover the contamination and halt the project after construction was well underway.

Due to the wide-spread thorium contamination, this mixed-use residential/commercial project failed, with the developer sustaining losses in excess of $15 million. The environmental assessment company in reorganization sought to bar the developer’s claim as discharged-in-bankruptcy. Messrs. Murray and Boehm challenged the assessor’s affirmative defense. U.S. District Judge Mark Filip, in a published Opinion, adopted Johnson & Bell’s position, finding that the assessor failed to give the developer sufficient notice of the assessor’s bankruptcy reorganization, and that the developer’s claim is not barred by the assessment company’s discharge in bankruptcy. With his ruling, Judge Filip clears the way for the developer to proceed unencumbered with its claim against the environmental assessment company. Grand Pier Center LLC v. ATC Group Services, Inc., 2007 WL 2973829; 2007 U.S. Dist. Lexis 75672 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 9, 2007).

Dan Murray and Garrett Boehm are members of Johnson & Bell's Environmental Law practice group. To learn more about this case or their practice please contact Mr. Murray at (312) 984-0226 or murrayd@jbltd.com and Mr. Boehm at (312) 984-0279 or boehmg@jbltd.com.

First District Appellate Court affirms verdict in excess of two million dollars in favor of Johnson & Bell clients
Posted October, 2007

In a victory for Johnson & Bell clients, Forest Partners II, L.P. and Dr. Galo Tan, the First District Appellate Court affirmed a verdict in excess of two million dollars in the case Forest Group, Inc. v. Forest Partners II, L.P, No. 03- 3619 (1st Dist. Aug. 28, 2007).

This case has a storied history arising out of the formation, operation and subsequent dissolution of a limited partnership known as Forest Partners II, L.P. In July 1991, Forest Partners II was formed after Dr. Tan had raised $1.2 million from investors to fund the partnership to joint venture with drug testing laboratories in order to market drug testing services to industry. Forest Group, Inc. and Dr. Tan were the general partners and there were originally twelve limited partners, including Randall Pittman and Robert Lane who were the principals of the Forest Group.

A dispute arose between the partners, and Forest Group, Pittman and Lane sued Dr. Tan and all the limited partners seeking $23,000,000 in compensatory and punitive damages. Dr. Tan and the Partnership filed a counterclaim against Forest Group, Pittman and Lane. In response, Pittman and Lane filed a second lawsuit against Dr. Tan.

The cases were consolidated for trial. The case was initially tried to verdict in the Fall of 1997. The trial court found that Forest Group, Pittman and Lane were guilty of fraud and of breaching fiduciary duties owed to Dr. Tan and the Partnership. The court awarded Dr. Tan and the Partnership compensatory damages in the amount of $1.2 million and punitive damages in the amount of $300,000. The trial court dismissed the Forest Group, Pittman and Lane’s claims as moot.

The Forest Group, Pittman and Lane appealed. In the first appeal, the First District Appellate Court affirmed the trial court’s liability findings against Forest Group, Pittman and Lane, but reversed the award of damages. The appellate court further held that the trial court’s dismissal as moot of the Forest Group, Pittman and Lane’s claims against Tan and the Partnership was erroneous. The case was remanded to the trial court for a determination of damages and to decide the merits of Forest Group, Pittman and Lane’s claims against Tan and the Partnership.

On remand, the trial court rejected Forest Group, Pittman and Lane’s attempts to reopen the proofs and ultimately entered judgment in favor of Dr. Tan and the Partnership. The trial court increased the award of damages to Dr. Tan and the Partnership awarding compensatory damages in the amount of $670,770 and punitive damages in the amount of $1,340,256. The trial court also rejected all of the claims Forest Group, Pittman and Lane had asserted against Dr. Tan and the Partnership.

The Forest Group, Pittman and Lane filed a second appeal. In Forest Group, Inc. v. Forest Partners II, L.P., No. 03-3619, the First District Appellate Court recently affirmed the trial court’s damage determinations and her rejection of the claims asserted by the Forest Group, Pittman and Lane. As the time for filing any further appeals expired, the Forest Group, Pittman and Lane agreed to satisfy the judgment.

If you would like to learn more about this case or would like information regarding the firm’s appellate practice, please contact: David M. Macksey, e-mail: mackseyd@jbltd.com or Joseph R. Marconi, e-mail: marconij@jbltd.com.

Cristina Mungai elected to 3rd Vice President of the Justinian Society of Lawyers of Illinois
Posted September, 2007

Johnson & Bell would like to congratulate attorney, Cristina Mungai, on becoming 3rd Vice President of the Justinian Society of Lawyers of Illinois. The Installation Dinner commemorating Ms. Mungai, along with her peers, was on Thursday, September 20, 2007 at the Palmer House Hilton located in Chicago.

The Justinian Society of Lawyers is an organization celebrating and uniting Italian-American lawyers since 1921. Along with creating a community, the organization strives to ensure that everyone, regardless of creed, color, gender, national origin or ancestry have the opportunity to succeed.

Ms. Mungai is an associate for Johnson & Bell. She concentrates her area of practice on construction site negligence, general negligence and long term care/nursing home liability. If you would like to learn more about Ms. Mungai’s practice or the Justinian Society of Lawyers please contact her at (312) 984-0221 or mungaic@jbltd.com

Takash successfully defends client in veterinary malpractice case
Posted September, 2007

Johnson & Bell shareholder, Terry A. Takash, successfully defended client in a veterinary malpractice case. In the case of James Hanson v Donald Dwayne Adams, DVM the plaintiff brought his two cats to Milaknis Animal Hospital for treatment and overnight observation. Both cats died while being monitored. Johnson & Bell’s client was sued for malpractice with the plaintiff contending that the defendant deviated from the standard of care and resulted in a decreased chance of survival for both cats. The plaintiff also argued that because both animals lacked a fair market value, under the law, the plaintiff was entitled to sentimental value for the loss of his pets. Mr. Takash asserted both cats were seriously ill upon presentation and that the defendant complied with the standard of care in his treatment of the cats.

Mr. Takash’s practice is concentrated in general litigation/professional licensing/malpractice issues. If you would like to learn more about this case or Mr. Takash please contact him at (312) 984-6676 or takasht@jbltd.com

Moch secures favorable defense verdict for State Farm
Posted August, 2007

Johnson & Bell attorney, Eric W. Moch, successfully defended State Farm in an arson and bad faith jury trial. Plaintiff, V.W., sued State Farm upwards of $300,000 in breach of contract and extra-contractual damages under Section 155 of the Insurance Code after State Farm denied his claim for fire loss to his home in 2003. State Farm’s claim investigation revealed a considerable amount of evidence that the policy holder set his house on fire in order to recover an insurance settlement and that he committed numerous material misrepresentations during the course of that claim investigation.

With just over seven days of trial the jury reached a unanimous verdict in only one hour’s time.

Mr. Moch’s practice at Johnson & Bell includes the representation of national and international insurers in first and third party disputes involving suspicious and fraudulent claims, claims of bad faith and declaratory judgment actions based upon policy construction and interpretation. He also represents a variety of insureds in general negligence actions, municipalities in the defense of a variety of negligence and civil rights actions, and attorneys in legal malpractice claims. If you would like to learn more about this case or Mr. Moch’s practices please contact him at (312) 984-3423 or moche@jbltd.com.

First District Appellate Court reverses the jury's verdict resulting in a victory for Johnson & Bell client, Walgreen, Co.
Posted August 7, 2007

In a victory for Johnson & Bell client, Walgreen Co., the First District Appellate Court affirmed judgment notwithstanding the verdict awarded subsequent to a jury trial.

In the wrongful death case of Crumpton vs. Walgreen Co., 2007 Ill. App. Lexis 732 (1st Dist. 2007), the plaintiff sued Walgreen Co. alleging a short-fill of a prescription. The plaintiff’s daughter committed suicide after not having taken her antipsychotic medication for four days. The mother alleged that the pharmacy was negligent in not having given her daughter the prescribed amount of pills. The jury returned a verdict for the mother but also found that the mother was also to blame, appointing her 25 percent negligent. The trial court granted the pharmacy’s motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV,) finding that the only evidence before the jury was that the daughter’s suicide was not foreseeable. The appellate court affirmed, finding that the general rule that suicide was an intervening cause applied to the daughter because the evidence did not show that she was so bereft of reason as to cause her to commit suicide. The mother testified that the daughter acted normal, and two physicians testified that it was not reasonably foreseeable that the daughter would commit suicide.

This case was also featured on the front page of the Chicago Daily Law Bulletin's July 19, 2007 issue. Click here to read more on Johnson & Bell's Walgreen Co. case.

The trial was conducted by William V. Johnson, assisted by Thomas J. Andrews in obtaining JNOV. The appeal was handled by David M. Macksey and Garrett L. Boehm, Jr., of Johnson & Bell's appellate practice group.

For more information on this case please contact William V. Johnson at johnsonw@jbltd.com or (312) 984-0218 or David M. Macksey at mackseyd@jbltd.com or (312) 984-0323.

Victory for Johnson & Bell client, Loon Investments, LLC
Posted August 7, 2007

In a victory for Johnson & Bell client, Loon Investments, LLC, the First District Appellate Court reversed the decision of the circuit court. The First District Appellate Court dismissed the action finding that Illinois courts lacked personal jurisdiction over Loon Investments.

In the case of Commercial Coin Laundry Sys. vs. Loon Invs., LLC, 2007 Ill. App. Lexis 721 (1st Dist. 2007), Illinois lessor, Commercial Coin Laundry, sued Loon Investments, a Wisconsin lessee for breach of lease. However, Loon Investments moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, but the circuit court denied the motion. The appellate court reversed. On appeal, the lessor claimed that the state court could exercise jurisdiction, claiming that the prior lessee/owner took those actions, and that the first owner's/lessee's personal jurisdiction could be attributed to the second owner/lessee as personal jurisdiction "ran with the land." However, case law lent no support. Further, the owner's/lessee's own contacts with the state were insufficient to confer jurisdiction. The mere fact of entering into a contract with an Illinois resident did not subject a nonresident defendant to Illinois jurisdiction, and the owner's/lessee's passive assumption of the contract through its acquisition of the building alone was also insufficient. Moreover, the mailing of rent payments to Illinois was not enough, nor was the possession and control of the Illinois laundry machines. The only factor weighing in favor of finding jurisdiction, a choice-of-law clause, did not, by itself, confer jurisdiction.

This case was also featured on the front page of the Chicago Daily Law Bulletin's September 10, 2007 issue. Click here to read more on Johnson & Bell's Loon Investment case.

The appeal was handled by Garrett L. Boehm, Jr., a member of Johnson & Bell’s appellate practice group. For more information on this case please contact Mr. Boehm at boehmg@jbltd.com or (312) 984-0279.

Murray and Hoying "ice the cake," recover $1.7 million in attorneys fees and costs for environmental engineering company

After recently defeating a $31 million professional negligence claim brought by a real estate investment trust (REIT) against Johnson & Bell's client, an international environmental engineering company (see 7th Circuit Court of Appeals affirms judgment secured by Murray and Mueller..., below), Attorneys Dan Murray and Kathryn R. Hoying pursued an affiliate of the REIT to recover the attorneys fees and costs their client incurred in defending against the REIT's negligence claim.

Advancing a claim for contractual indemnity in a seven-day federal court trial before U.S. District Judge Ronald Guzman, a Chicago jury of 12 women returned a swift verdict for Johnson & Bell's client and against the REIT affiliate, awarding $1.7 million in attorneys fees and costs. Mr. Murray will next pursue further recovery of the attorneys fees and costs incurred by his client in the successful prosecution of the indemnity action.

Mr. Murray concentrates his practice in complex federal civil, criminal, and administrative litigation. He has won multi-million dollar judgments/settlements for clients in environmental cases, as well as defeated enforcement actions brought by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. He may be reached at (312) 984-0226 or murrayd@jbltd.com.

7th Circuit Court of Appeals affirms judgment secured by Murray and Mueller for environmental engineering company, defeating $31 million claim

On the eve of trial, Johnson & Bell Attorneys Daniel C. Murray and Frederick S. (Rick) Mueller succeeded in barring a plaintiff’s $31 million damages claim, leading to the immediate entry of judgment in favor of their client, an international environmental engineering company.

A three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, in a unanimous 12 page published opinion, has now affirmed the judgment secured by Messrs. Murray and Mueller. Kemper Prime Industrial Partners v. Montgomery Watson Americas, 487 F.3d 1061 (7th Cir. 2007).

The plaintiff, a real estate investment trust (REIT), had sued the environmental engineering company in connection with the defendant’s alleged negligent assessment of environmental conditions existing on property purchased by the REIT. Focusing on the plaintiff’s $31 million claim for environmental remediation of the property, U.S. District Judge Ronald Guzman concluded the REIT’s expert witness evidence was inadequate to support the damages claimed. Believing the evidence would inevitably lead to juror speculation on the question of damages, the court held that plaintiff’s damages evidence was fatally flawed, and ordered it barred. The judge then immediately entered judgment against the plaintiff and for Johnson & Bell’s client. It is that judgment that has been affirmed by the Court of Appeals, ending the 10 year court battle. Johnson & Bell, on behalf of its client, will now pursue recovery of costs and attorney fees its client incurred in defending this action.

Mr. Murray concentrates his practice in complex federal civil, criminal, and administrative litigation. He has won multi-million dollar judgments/settlements for clients in environmental cases, as well as defeated enforcement actions brought by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Mr. Mueller is the chairman of Johnson & Bell’s Environmental Practice Group. He concentrates his practice in environmental compliance and litigation matters. He also defends corporations involved in multiparty hazardous waste cases initiated by federal and state environmental protection agencies pursuant to CERCLA and other statutes.

For more information on this case, contact Mr. Murray at murrayd@jbltd.com or 312 984 0226.

Indiana Supreme Court rules Hearn client Citibank not required to return stolen funds used to pay credit card debt

The Indiana Supreme Court recently affirmed a summary judgment in favor of Attorney Edward W. Hearn’s client, Citibank. In Porter County Development Corporation vs. Citibank, Citibank was sued by the former employer of a Citibank Credit card holder who embezzled funds from his employer, put the funds in his personal checking account and then made payment on his Citibank Credit cards with those funds.

The trial court granted Mr. Hearn’s motion for summary judgment, the Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed, and the Indiana Supreme Court affirmed again. In doing so, the Indiana Supreme Court overruled several cases that were nearly a century old that held that a person can "trace" stolen funds into the hands of a person who innocently receives the funds and may recover them from the innocent person since title to the money never transfers from a thief.

In this case, the Indiana Supreme Court held that the adoption of the Indiana Commercial Code displaced those century-old cases; therefore, the plaintiff could not force Citibank to give the embezzled funds back since Citibank had no knowledge that the funds were embezzled until years after they were received.

Mr. Hearn manages Johnson & Bell's Highland , Indiana , office and concentrates his practice in all aspects of civil litigation including bad faith litigation, insurance defense, breach of contract, bodily injury, business litigation, products and premises liability, closed-head injury, and wrongful death cases.   For more information on this case, please contact him at hearne@jbltd.com or (219) 923-5250.

Angarola and Serritella join Johnson & Bell

Attorneys Joann T. Angarola and William D. Serritella recently joined Johnson & Bell from the Chicago office of McGuireWoods. Joann joins the firm as counsel and concentrates her practice in civil litigation defense and administrative law. Her litigation experience includes commercial disputes involving contract and antitrust issues, land use matters challenging the constitutionality of zoning ordinances, personal injury defense, products liability, and employment law cases. In addition, she has appeared before various governmental bodies for the purpose of obtaining development approvals. Ms. Angarola also spent several years in the Cook County State's Attorney's Office. She served as a trustee for the Village of Lincolnwood for seven years and is presently chairman of the Planning Commission and Zoning Board of Appeals. Ms. Angarola is a graduate of the University of Michigan and Loyola University School of Law.

Mr. Serritella joins the firm as a shareholder with more than 30 years experience in civil litigation defense. He concentrates his practice in products liability including toxic torts and business litigation. Mr. Serritella is Chicago and Midwest trial counsel for a number of corporate clients, including manufacturers of material handling equipment, paint and chemical products, machine tools and plastics processing equipment, office equipment and household products. He represents clients in state and federal trial and appellate courts, before administrative agencies, and in arbitration in all types of civil litigation, including business/commercial disputes, employment matters, FELA, products liability and other casualty litigation, including asbestos, chemical sensitivity and other toxic tort cases.

He has tried numerous cases to verdict as trial counsel for Crown Equipment Corporation, The Sherwin-Williams Company, Harris Corporation, The Firestone Tire & Rubber Company, Consolidated Rail Corp. and Norfolk Southern, among others.

Mr. Serritella is a native Chicagoan and a graduate of UIC and the University of Illinois College of Law.

Ms. Angarola may be reached at (312) 984-0201 or angarolaj@jbltd.com. Mr. Serritella may be reached at (312) 984-0272 or serritellaw@jbltd.com.

Goken secures favorable defense verdict in collision case involving bicyclist and automobile
Posted June 15, 2007

On June 13, after three days of trial, a Cook County jury awarded the plaintiff only $2,500 after a 50% reduction for contributory negligence in an accident between a bicycle and car. The defendant was represented by Attorney Jonathan W. Goken. The alleged accident occurred near a stop sign at an intersection where the plaintiff arguably had the right of way.

The male bicyclist alleged that the vehicle hit him directly head on while he was crossing the street in front of the car. He suffered a herniated disc and broken transverse process with resulting intervertebral disc syndrome, sciatic neuralgia and muscle spasms. He alleged permanent injuries and secured medical testimony on his alleged permanency.

Mr. Goken called no retained medical experts at trial and attacked liability and damages. At closing, the plaintiff asked for just under $116,000 in damages.

Mr. Goken concentrates his practice in all aspects of complex trial litigation including, but not limited to, product liability, toxic tort, subrogation, property, first and third party insurance fraud, fire litigation, personal injury and premises liability. For more information on Mr. Goken or this case, please contact him at (312) 984-0225 or gokenj@jbltd.com.

Hoyne and Wollin secure coverage victory for Acuity Insurance
Posted June 11, 2007

Scott W. Hoyne, left and Matthew K. Wollin, right, recently secured a significant coverage victory for their client Acuity Insurance Company after arguments before the First Judicial District of the Illinois Appellate Court. The case, Acuity v. Mid-Northern Equities, involved an alleged brain-damaged plaintiff who fell on ice in a shopping center parking lot. The shopping center claimed to be an additional insured under a policy of insurance which had been issued by Acuity to its named insured, a snow removal service. The shopping center had been identified as an additional insured on a certificate of insurance issued by the named insured’s broker. The blanket insured endorsement attached to Acuity’s policy provided additional insured status to any entity which held both a certificate of insurance and a written agreement with the named insured promising additional insured status.

Mr. Hoyne and Wollin argued at the trial level that Acuity’s named insured had never agreed in writing to secure additional insured coverage for the shopping center and that Acuity therefore had no obligation to provide a defense and indemnity to the shopping center in connection with the underlying personal injury claim. The trial court agreed and granted summary judgment for Acuity. On appeal the First District affirmed. Relying upon the earlier decision in West American Ins. Co. v. J.R. Construction Co., the First District noted that the certificate of insurance issued by the named insured’s broker was not binding on Acuity. The Appellate Court rejected arguments that Acuity should be stopped from denying coverage to the shopping center because the broker had alleged actual and apparent authority to bind Acuity by virtue of existing agency agreements between the broker and Acuity.

Both Mr. Hoyne and Wollin are members of Johnson & Bell's Insurance Coverage Group. Mr. Hoyne is a shareholder with the firm who defends general liability, construction, products, and professional liability matters through trial and appeal. He prosecutes and defends primary, excess and reinsurance disputes and has extensive experience in the litigation and trial of arson claims, large property losses, inland marine, and fidelity claims. Mr. Wollin is an associate with the firm who concentrates his practice in general litigation, premises liability, and product liability matters. For additional information on this case, please contact Mr. Hoyne at (312) 984-0233 or hoynes@jbltd.com.

Bell inducted into the International Academy of Trial Lawyers
Posted May 22, 2007

Attorney John W. Bell was recently inducted into the International Academy of Trial Lawyers (IATL).

Membership in the Academy is limited to only 500 Fellows from the United States. The qualifications for membership are very high and the consideration of nominees is very extensive and thorough. Outstanding skills and extensive experience as a trial lawyer, unimpeachable personal and professional character, integrity and honesty, are but a few of the necessary qualities of every nominee.

Mr. Bell has been evaluated by his/her colleagues and the judges in his/her jurisdiction and has been highly recommended by them as possessing these qualifications and characteristics. The International Academy of Trial Lawyers was chartered in 1954. In general, its purposes are to cultivate the science of jurisprudence, promote reforms in the law, facilitate the Administration of Justice, and elevate the standards of integrity, honor and courtesy in the legal profession.

Mr. Bell is joined in IATL by Attorney William V. Johnson, an IATL member since 1987. Both are organizing and managing shareholders of Johnson & Bell. Mr. Bell concentrates his practice in product liability and complex tort litigation. He may be reached at (312) 984-0241 or bellj@jbltd.com.

Fetzer elected to ABOTA
Posted May 20, 2007

Attorney Brian C. Fetzer was recently elected to the Illinois Chapter of the American Board of Trial Advocates (ABOTA) at their annual Law Day luncheon, Tuesday, May 1, at the Mid-Day Club in Chicago .

ABOTA was launched in 1958 with the goal of preserving the right to trial by jury as guaranteed by the Seventh Amendment to the United States Constitution. Membership in this organization is by invitation only to trial attorneys who have demonstrated excellent trial skills while maintaining the highest levels of professionalism, integrity, honor, and courtesy.

Mr. Fetzer has extensive civil trial experience, having tried jury cases to verdict in both state and federal court. He has frequently lectured on tort civil practice and trial strategy issues for the Chicago Bar Association, The Illinois Association of Defense Trial Counsel, The Illinois Institute of Continuing Legal Education, and the International Association of Defense Counsel. In 2003 his peers selected him as one of the Top 20 Defense Lawyers in Chicago.

He is joined by Johnson & Bell ABOTA members William V. Johnson, Margaret A. Unger and John W. Bell. Mr. Bell currently serves as ABOTA Illinois Chapter president.

Mr. Fetzer may be contacted at (312) 984-0252 or fetzerb@jbltd.com.

Bell tapped as Illinois ABOTA Chapter chair - secures 7th Amendment Right to Trial educational CD-ROM in Chicago Public Schools and Library
Posted May 16, 2007

Attorney John W. Bell, currently serving as the 2007 chairman of the Illinois chapter of the American Board of Trial Advocates (ABOTA), announced recently that the Chicago Public Schools agreed to add to their middle school offerings ABOTA Foundation’s Justice by the People, an interactive curriculum CD-ROM. It follows on the heels of the April announcement by the Chicago Public Library to carry the CD-ROM at several of its locations.

The Justice by the People curriculum includes four lesson plans aligned with national teaching standards for social studies, civics and language arts so they can be easily integrated into the existing program of study and help teachers reach No Child Left Behind and state curriculum goals. The CD-ROM displays attractive graphics and includes the topics: Making Decisions by Group: The Jury System; A History of Conflict Resolution and the Jury System; Participating in the Jury System; and Preparing for Trial.

The CD-ROM also features the Make Your Case interactive computer-based video game. Make Your Case allows students to control either the plaintiff or defense attorneys in a personal injury trial involving a car and bicyclist. The scenario is played out using professional actors. Players pick from multiple choices at each stage of the trial to proceed. They select evidence for their opening statements and earn points depending on how well they do. They also question witnesses for both sides of the case. A case file provides summaries of the witness depositions, a diagram of the accident, a police report and a tip sheet to prompt players about when they should object. When the trial ends, the students choose what to emphasize in their closing statements. Throughout the trial, they earn additional points by making good decisions for their client.

ABOTA’s primary mission is to preserve the right to trial by jury. One of the scopes of that mission is to educate people about that constitutional right. Justice by the People is a project of the ABOTA Foundation and the association’s chapters. The Foundation is the association’s non-profit 501(c)(3) educational arm.

For further information on the Justice by the People CD-ROM, please contact Mr. Bell at (312) 372-0770 or bellj@jbltd.com.

Conforti named ALFA Transportation Practice Group chair
Posted May 16, 2007

Attorney Gregory D. Conforti was recently named the chairman of ALFA, International's Transportation Practice Group for 2007-2008. He previously served as its vice chairman. As chairman, Mr. Conforti is in charge of coordination of all transportation practice group business, including next year's practice group seminar to be held at the Breakers Resort in Palm Beach, Florida, from April 30 through May 2.

Johnson & Bell is the exclusive Chicago area ALFA representative, a global network of 120 independent law firms with over 9,000 lawyers worldwide. Member firms supplement their own expertise and resources with those of other members.

The ALFA Transportation Practice Group is one of the oldest and largest of the ALFA Practice Groups. The group is particularly well-known for the high degree of coordination among its members and the size and scope of its seminars. The group’s active national network of experienced lawyers is tailor-made for regional and national transportation companies whose trucks, charter or tour buses, railcars, or other vehicles traverse the country.

Mr. Conforti supports an active civil trial practice and enjoys an exceptional record of predominately not guilty verdicts. He concentrates his practice in Transportation Law, Products Litigation, Construction Litigation, and Premises Liability Claims. For more information on Mr. Conforti or the 2008 ALFA Transportation Group Seminar please contact him at confortig@jbltd.com or (312) 984-0249.

Hearn client victorious as Indiana Court of Appeals holds excess insurer may not sue insured's attorneys for legal malpractice
Posted May 15, 2007

Attorney Edward W. Hearn was victorious in a recent case involving a legal malpractice claim filed by an excess insurer against defense lawyers retained to defend its insureds in an underlying product liability suit in Indiana. The underlying case was settled for $6.3 million. The primary liability insurer paid just under $3 million towards the settlement. The excess insurer contributed $3.74 million to it. They then sued the defense lawyers, claiming that their alleged failure to assert a non-party defense in the underlying case resulted in a settlement that would otherwise have been much smaller. The insurance carrier further argued that it would not have had to pay anything under the excess coverage had the lawyers raised that affirmative defense.

The Indiana Court of Appeals held that an excess carrier could not bring a legal malpractice action against counsel for the insured and the primary carrier under an equitable subrogation theory as such a theory would be contrary to the Indiana rule of non-assignability of legal malpractice claims. The court also held that on the facts as adduced, the excess carrier could not assert that it had an express or implied attorney-client relationship with counsel for the insured and the primary carrier.

Mr. Hearn manages Johnson & Bell's Highland, Indiana, office and concentrates his practice in all aspects of civil litigation including bad faith litigation, insurance defense, breach of contract, bodily injury, business litigation, products and premises liability, closed-head injury, and wrongful death cases. For more information on this case, please contact him at hearne@jbltd.com or (219) 923-5250.

Conforti and Reidy prevail in pharmacy error case against Wal-Mart
Posted April 2007

In Happel v. Wal-Mart, a case of admitted negligence that involved an improperly filled prescription at a Wal-Mart pharmacy in August 1993, the jury recently awarded the patient-plaintiff and her husband $464,400 in compensatory damages on the negligence claim following a defense offer of $800,000 before the verdict, which was rejected. The case involved myriad issues including whether punitive damages were allowed in a case involving a medical battery for a misfilled prescription. The patient-plaintiff, Heidi Happel, a Lutheran minister, sought $15 million in compensatory damages and another $150 million in punitive damages. The jury found that punitive damages were not justified or appropriate. Attorneys Gregory D. Conforti and Marilyn M. Reidy, represented Wal-Mart in the defense of the case.

In August 1993, the plaintiff’s physician called in a prescription for a pain reliever to Wal-Mart Pharmacy in McHenry, Illinois. The plaintiff’s medication was contraindicated for her as a potential allergen. The defense admitted that the prescription should not have been filled as the pharmacy would have known of the contraindication. To fill the prescription, the pharmacist was required to call the prescribing doctor to gain approval, but there was no evidence that such a call was made. The defense had admitted negligence in filling the prescription.

After taking the medication, the patient suffered an allergic, anaphylactic reaction that allegedly caused severe respiratory distress requiring intubation and ventilation at a local hospital. She claimed she sustained brain damage as a result of the alleged anoxic event, which in turn resulted in seizures, memory loss, aphasia, other permanent cognitive disabilities and post-traumatic stress disorder. Mr. Conforti and Ms. Reidy contended that any injuries she sustained from the event had resolved within several months of the event and that any of her problems thereafter were attributable to her pre-existing multiple sclerosis, allergies and asthma.

On the battery claim for punitive damages, the defense demonstrated that the patient either impliedly or explicitly demonstrated some consent to the contact. Before the event she knew of her allergies to various pain medications, had had a reaction to a pain medication that required a prior hospitalization, received this medication without the medication instructions that she admitted to looking for before taking it, and when they were not located, took the medication without first calling her doctor or the pharmacist. Mr. Conforti and Ms. Reidy further contended that the patient did not prove the requisite intent on the part of Wal-Mart since there was some evidence that Wal-Mart had attempted to provide her with the instructions and warnings.

The case was originally filed in state court and, following various motions, was appealed to the Illinois Supreme Court. Upon remand to state court, the case was dismissed, re-filed in Cook County, Illinois, and subsequently removed to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois where the various issues were again briefed and argued before that Court prior to trial.

Mr. Conforti supports an active civil trial practice and over the nineteen years of his legal career has enjoyed an exceptional record of predominately not guilty verdicts. He has successfully tried cases to verdict in the Law Division of the Circuit Court of Cook County as well as the surrounding Municipal Districts and the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.

In her sixteen years of legal experience, Ms. Reidy has managed and directed all aspects of the litigation process with full responsibility for the preparation and trial of cases, concentrating in medical malpractice defense, nursing home litigation, and ERISA litigation.

For further information on the Happel v. Wal-Mart decision or Johnson & Bell, please contact Gregory D. Conforti at (312) 984-0249 or confortig@jbltd.com or Marilyn M. Reidy at (312) 984-0288 or reidym@jbltd.com.

McVisk receives not guilty verdict for hospital client
Posted April 2007

Attorney William K. McVisk recently received a not guilty verdict for a hospital client in a two week trial. The plaintiff was admitted to the hospital for uncontrolled bleeding under the tongue. He was treated by the emergency department physician, who was unable to control the bleeding and called for a surgical consult and also attempted to arrange a transfer to another hospital. The plaintiff claimed the hospital should have had a head and neck surgeon available to treat him or a transfer agreement to enable quick transfers of patients needing this type of surgery at another hospital. The patient died after being in the hospital's emergency department for 3 1/2 hours. The plaintiff asked for $1.4 million in damages. The jury returned a verdict in favor of all the defendants.

Mr. McVisk was assisted in the trial by Attorney Carl M. Schultz. Mr. McVisk is a Johnson & Bell shareholder, and both Mr. McVisk and Mr. Schultz are members of Johnson & Bell's Hospital Law and Medical Liability Group.

For more information, please contact Mr. McVisk at mcviskw@jbltd.com or (312) 984-0229

SEMINARS/SPEAKING ENGAGEMENTS

Johnson & Bell, Ltd. Shareholder Speaks at IACP U.S. Regional Conference

Joseph B. Carini, III of Johnson & Bell, Ltd. spoke at the International Association of Claim Professionals (IACP) U.S. Regional Conference on Thursday, June 2, 2011 in New York. Mr. Carini co-presented on "Avoiding and Resolving Construction Disputes - Construction Claims". Mr. Carini is co-chair of Johnson & Bell's construction group and a member of the Construction Steering Committee of the ALFA Construction Law Practice Group.

The International Association of Claim Professionals is an insurance industry professional association that provides a forum in which claim professionals can network with their peers, enhance their knowledge regarding claim issues and trends, and freely exchange views and ideas. The Association, through its activities, strives to enhance the development and professionalism of its membership and foster goodwill among insurance organizations worldwide. For more information about this organization please visit their website at: www.iaclpro.com

For more information on Mr. Carini's practice, please contact him directly at carinij@jbltd.com or call 312.984.6668.

J&B Shareholder Moderates at ALFA Business Seminar

Johnson & Bell, Ltd. shareholder, Joseph R. Marconi, was a Moderator on the panel discussing Keeping Economic Damages Down: Advanced Application of Basic Concepts at the ALFA Business Seminar on Thursday, March 3, 2011 in Hollywood, FL. Mr. Marconi also participated in a panel discussion that focused on the current E-Discovery trends and policy concerns.

Mr. Marconi is chair of Johnson & Bell’s Business Litigation group and Professional Liability group. He is a former member of the board of directors of ALFA International. For more information on Mr. Marconi and his practice, please contact him at marconij@jbltd.com.

Johnson & Bell, Ltd. Attorney Speaks at NSPII Seminar

Eric W. Moch of Johnson & Bell, Ltd. spoke at the National Society of Professional Insurance Investigators (NSPII), Training Seminar on Friday, June 6, 2010, in Willowbrook, IL. Mr. Moch presented to a group of insurance professionals on the topic of Statutory Immunity for Information Sharing Among Insurers in the Fight Against Fraud.

Mr. Moch is Vice President and Newsletter Editor of the Illinois chapter of the NSPII. For more information on Mr. Moch and his practice contact him at moche@jbltd.com or call 312.984.0423.

Save the Date: Health Care Law Seminar, May 12, 2011

Johnson & Bell, Ltd. will be hosting their annual Health Care Law Seminar on Thursday, May 12, 2011. The seminar will be held at the Conrad Hilton Hotel in downtown Chicago.

To receive an invitation to this free event, email Bonnie Brown at brownb@jbltd.com.

Save the Date: Thursday, April 21, 2011

Johnson & Bell's Insurance Law Group is hosting an Insurance Coverage Seminar on Thursday, April 21, 2011 at the Hyatt Lodge in Oak Brook, IL. Topics of discussion will include: First and Third Party Bad Faith, Discovery/Privilege Issues and Current Trends in Rescission of Insurance Policies.

If you would like to receive an invitation to this event, please email Kathy Starbuck at starbuckk@jbltd.com.

Johnson & Bell’s Morris Co-Chaired Program on Gulf Oil Spill Litigation

H. Patrick Morris, Co-chair of the Toxic Tort Group at Johnson & Bell, Ltd., was Co-Chair for a comprehensive educational program on the wide array of litigation issues associated with the Gulf of Mexico oil spill. The program, “Oil Spill Litigation and Emerging Issues Seminar,” was offered by DRI- The Voice of the Defense Bar and took place at the Houstonian Hotel on August 12-13 in Houston, TX.

Topics for this program included the path of the multidistrict litigation (MDL); the means and methods of business to business litigation; insurance coverage and policy exclusions; causation and economic losses; damages and contribution; an Oil Pollution Act breakdown; civil and criminal exposures; state and federal venue implications; and engineering and technical analysis. Government officials were invited to discuss state and federal implications and the potential impact of the case on environmental law.

Since the April 20 explosion onboard the Deepwater Horizon, more than 100 lawsuits have been filed against numerous defendants in various state and federal courts dispersed across more than seven jurisdictions including Alabama, Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi and Texas. To date, approximately 60 of the cases are being positioned as class actions. On May 7, 2010, BP filed a motion to center the cases before one multidistrict litigation court and The Judicial Panel for Multidistrict Litigation held a hearing on the matter on July 29 in Boise, Idaho.

“The 1989 Valdez accident was quite straight-forward by comparison,” says H. Patrick Morris of Johnson & Bell, Ltd. Morris, who represents oil companies in a variety of matters, including claims involving oil rigs, says: “While there have been larger spills, Ixtoc I in Mexico, for example, the unprecedented nature of the oil spill in the United States and U.S law give it the potential to become one of the biggest pieces of litigation in U.S. history. The complexity raises a broad array of novel issues in these cases that may take decades to resolve.”

Johnson & Bell Attorney Speaks at NSPII Seminar

Johnson & Bell, Ltd. attorney, Eric W. Moch, spoke at the National Society of Professional Insurance Investigators (NSPII), Training Seminar on Friday, June 6, 2010, in Willowbrook, IL. Mr. Moch presented to a group of insurance professionals on the topic of Statutory Immunity for Information Sharing Among Insurers in the Fight Against Fraud.

Mr. Moch is Vice President and Newsletter Editor of the Illinois chapter of the NSPII. For more information on Mr. Moch and his practice contact him at moche@jbltd.com.

Health Law Seminar 2010

Johnson & Bell, Ltd.’s Health Care Group hosted their annual Health Law Seminar on Thursday, May 6, 2010 at the University Club of Chicago, located at 76 E. Monroe Street. This year’s seminar, Defending Birth Injury Cases in 2010, featured topics such as: The Reinsurer’s Perspective; Case Law Update and a panel discussion on Trial Tactics in Birth Injury Cases.

For more information please contact Kathy Starbuck at 312.984.0273 or starbuckk@jbltd.com.

J&B Shareholder is Named Chairman of ALFA International's Product Liability Practice Group Steering Committee

Johnson & Bell shareholder, Kevin Owens, was installed as Chairman of ALFA International's Product Liability Practice Group Steering Committee at ALFA's 2010 International Client Seminar, held March 11 - 13, 2010 in Palm Desert, California. ALFA International is one of the premier legal networks in the U.S. and abroad, and includes law firms comprised of 81 U.S. based firms and 52 international firms committed to improving the quality, efficiency and value of legal services throughout the U.S. and abroad. ALFA's Product Liability Practice Group is among the organization's largest practice groups, with members from nearly every state in the U.S. and several foreign capitols. The group produces a quarterly newsletter and regularly produces educational seminars and teleseminars, and its members provide their clients with representation in all manner of product liability litigation, as well as mediation/arbitration, general business counseling, lobbying and regulatory representation, product recall, standards-setting and public relations. Johnson & Bell, Ltd. is the exclusive Chicago member of ALFA.

For more information on ALFA, its Product Liability Practice Group or Johnson & Bell's product liability practice, please contact Mr. Owens at (312) 984-0270 or owensk@jbltd.com.

Johnson & Bell Shareholder Moderates at ALFA International Event

On March 12, 2010, Johnson & Bell shareholder Kevin Owens moderated the panel presentation "The Value Challenge of Product Liability Litigation in Uncertain Economic Times" at the ALFA International annual International Client Seminar in Palm Desert, California, which was attended by ALFA member attorneys and their invited guests, including in-house counsel at leading manufacturers and other companies from across the U.S. and abroad. The panel entertained thoughts from product liability defense lawyers and from in-house counsel at industry leading companies on achieving the best possible defense outcomes in product liability cases while being mindful of the litigation cost bottom line. ALFA International is one of the premier legal networks in the U.S. and abroad, and includes law firms comprised of 81 U.S. based firms and 52 international firms committed to improving the quality, efficiency and value of legal services throughout the U.S. and abroad. Johnson & Bell, Ltd. is the exclusive Chicago, IL member of ALFA.

For more information on this presentation, ALFA or Johnson & Bell's product liability practice, please contact Mr. Owens at (312) 984-0270 or owensk@jbltd.com.

J&B Vice President Presented at DRI Damages Seminar

Johnson & Bell, Ltd. shareholder and Vice President, John W. Bell, spoke on the topic: Empathy, Sympathy and Kindness from a Defense Perspective, during the Defense Research Institute's (DRI) Damages Seminar, held March 17-19, 2010 in Las Vegas Nevada. Mr. Bell illustrated how to counter and create emotional momentum and capitalize on opportunities to strengthen defense in trial. He also discussed the importance of credibility and being "real," accepting responsibility to foster credibility and minimize anger, and turning emotional momentum against codefendants by admitting liability and joining the plaintiff's side.

To learn more more about this topic or Mr. Bell, please contact him at bellj@jbltd.com.

J&B Shareholder Presents at the ExpertRECALL - Stericycle Product Safety and Recall Seminar

On January 21, 2010, Johnson & Bell shareholder, Kevin Owens, was a member of the faculty presenting at the ExpertRECALL - Stericycle Product Safety and Recall Seminar in Deerfield, IL. Mr. Owens presented on the topic of Recall Litigation, where he discussed strategies and tactics for defending the product liability case where the product at issue has been the subject of a recall. The audience included in-house counsel, risk managers and engineers from several Fortune 500 corporations.

J&B Shareholder Addresses the National Counsel for Republic Services

On October 16, 2009, Johnson & Bell, Ltd. shareholder, Greg Conforti, addressed the National Counsel for Republic Services on the topic of Accident Response Team Best Practices at the Lowes Lake Hotel and Spa in Las Vegas, NV.

For more information on the event contact Mr. Conforti at confortig@jbltd.com.

Johnson & Bell Vice President Presents at Chicago Bar Association Event

Johnson & Bell, Ltd. shareholder and Vice President, John W. Bell, presented at the Chicago Bar Association Young Lawyers Section's: Trial Superstars on Presenting Your Case. Mr. Bell spoke on the topic of Trends in Personal Injury Litigation/Wrongful Death alongside a number of other prominent Chicago attorneys. The CBA seminar was held on Friday, October 16, 2009 at the UBS Conference Center in Downtown Chicago.

For more information on the event contact Mr. Bell at bellj@jbltd.com.

J&B Shareholder Presented at 2009 IQPC Event

Johnson & Bell, Ltd. shareholder, Brian C. Fetzer, was a panelist during the Obstetric Malpractice Event: Can the Delivery Team be Defended, hosted by the International Quality & Productivity Center (IQPC). The event was held on November 9 - 11, 2009 in Chicago. Mr. Fetzer's topic of discussion was entitled: The Absolute Key to an Effective Case: Using the Right Experts to Meet the Standard of Care, Causation and Damages.

The conference was designed to integrate medico-legal information to understand medical injuries and how to thoroughly mount and defend these complex cases. For more information contact Mr. Fetzer at fetzerb@jbltd.com.

J&B Shareholder Acted as Moderator for ALFA International & ACC Chicago Seminar

Johnson & Bell, Ltd. shareholder, Marilyn M. Reidy, acted as moderator for ALFA International’s Women’s Initiative Program: Law – Leadership – Success: Becoming a Leader and Advancing your Career in the Legal Profession. The seminar, which was co-hosted by the Association of Corporate Counsel’s Chicago Chapter, was held Thursday, October 22, 2009 at the Westin River North hotel in Chicago. Topics of discussion included: Women in the Legal Profession: Recognizing and Developing your Leadership Style and Moving Forward, Moving Up: Taking your Legal Career to the Next Level.

Ms. Reidy is an active member of the steering committee for the ALFA International Women’s Initiative Practice Group, which serves as the central forum for the female attorneys of ALFA International to network and share best practices concerning the profession and business of law. For more information on this seminar or Ms. Reidy please contact her at reidym@jbltd.com.

J&B Hosts CHRMS September 2009 Seminar

Johnson & Bell, Ltd. hosted the Chicagoland Healthcare Risk Management Society seminar entitled: Risk Management Considerations in Radiology. The seminar was held on Friday, September 25, 2009 at 8:00 am at the Johnson & Bell Chicago office located at 33 West Monroe, Suite 2700. For more information visit www.chrmschicago.org or contact Sammi Renken at renkens@jbltd.com or Matthew Johnson at johnsonm@jbltd.com.

Johnson & Bell Attorney Presents at the 2009 Youth Leadership Conference

Johnson & Bell, Ltd. attorney, M. Miles Sukovic, sat on a healthcare panel and gave a presentation at The International Youth Leadership Conference hosted in the Sava Center in Belgrade, Serbia on July 10, 2009. With experts from various fields within healthcare, the panel discussion fostered the understanding of each others role in the health care industry and provided a more complete view of healthcare in Serbia. The panel addressed, among other things, Serbia's healthcare industry in urban areas, the story of private hospitals, and how foreign investors could participate in the emerging market. Mr. Sukovic's presentation was entitled: “The Health Care Field of Dreams - If You Build It, They Will Come: Medical Tourism and Telemedicine.” For more information on this conference or Mr. Sukovic’s presentation please contact him at sukovicm@jbltd.com.

ATA Litigation Center's Forum for Motor Carrier General Counsels

Johnson & Bell, Ltd. shareholder, Gregory D. Conforti, spoke at the 2009 ATA Litigation Center's Forum for Motor Carrier General Counsels seminar held July 26 - 29, 2009 at the Pan Pacific Vancouver Hotel in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. Mr. Conforti's topic of discussion was Handling Ethical Dilemmas.

The ATA Litigation Center seminar examines the political and economic circumstances that are reshaping the American business environment and their impact on the trucking industry. For more information on the seminar please contact Mr. Conforti at confortig@jbltd.com.

Johnson & Bell Shareholder Moderates for ALFA International
Tele-Seminar

On Wednesday, June 24, 2009, Johnson & Bell, Ltd. shareholder, Gregory D. Conforti, acted as moderator for an ALFA International Transportation Practice Group tele-seminar entitled, Medicare-Medicaid Mandatory Reporting/Set Aside. Mr. Conforti is an active member of ALFA International and currently serves on the Steering committee for its Transportation Practice Group. For more information on this seminar or Mr. Conforti’s practice please contact him at confortig@jbltd.com.

Johnson & Bell, Ltd. Health Law Seminar 2009

Thank you to everyone who attended the Johnson & Bell Health Law Seminar on May 7, 2009. We enjoyed seeing all of you and hope that you found the program to be informative. For those of you that were unable to attend, Sammi Renken spoke on liability exposure for volunteer board members. Lynn Reid gave an update on hospital acquired conditions or never events. Margaret Unger spoke on liability for negligent and criminal acts of employees. Marilyn Reidy spoke on electronic medical records. Greg Schiller presented on recent cases in the areas of agency and relation back doctrine. Bill Johnson closed the program with a discussion of defenses to awarding damages for a reduced life expectancy. If you would like more information on any of these topics, please contact us at starbuckk@jbltd.com.

ALFA International 2009 Global Labor and Employment Law Seminar

Johnson & Bell, Ltd. shareholder, Joseph R. Marconi, served as moderator of a panel discussion at the 2009 Global Labor and Employment Law: A Business View with a Legal Eye seminar hosted by ALFA International in Scottsdale, Arizona on March 7, 2009.

The panel discussion, “Around the World with ADR”, discussed the options available to international businesses for ADR in the United States and internationally, and the means by which parties can provide for their implementation. The discussion also included American law related to the jurisdiction and sustainability of ADR resolutions.

For further information on ALFA International or the March 5-7, 2009 seminar, please click here.

ABA State & EPA Perspectives on Environmental Issues in Region 5

Johnson & Bell, Ltd. shareholder, Frederick (Rick) Mueller, will serve as Program Co-Chair for the American Bar Association (ABA) Section of Environment, Energy, and Resources conference, State and EPA Perspectives on Environmental Issues in Region 5 on July 8 - 9, 2009. The conference will be held at the Swissotel in downtown Chicago.

For more information please e-mail Mr. Mueller at muellerf@jbltd.com.

Johnson & Bell Attorney Presents at the Illinois Association of Defense Trial Counsel's Ethics and the Legal Profession Seminar

Johnson & Bell, Ltd. attorney, Moyenda M. Knapp is scheduled to present "Ethics of Personnel Issues for Law Firms" at the Illinois Association of Defense Trial Counsel's Ethics and the Legal Profession Seminar on May 1, 2009.

For more information please email Ms. Knapp at knappm@jbltd.com.

Johnson & Bell Attorney Acts as Judge for the NTC

Johnson & Bell, Ltd. was a proud sponsor of the 2008-2009 National Trial Competition (NTC), Region 8 Tournament held February 5-7, 2009 at the Richard Daley Center in Chicago. In addition, Johnson & Bell shareholder, Margaret (Peggy) Unger, served as a judge for the final round of competition alongside Ruben Castillo, Judge Eastern Division USDC, Northern District of Illinois and Ronald Guzman, Judge Eastern Division USDC, Northern District of Illinois. A number of Johnson & Bell attorneys served as evaluators for the preliminary and semi-final rounds in the competition as well.

The Regional Competition consists of the presentation of a complete mock trial by teams of law students from Illinois and Indiana. Ms. Unger, along with a panel of judges, was asked to score the teams on the basis of their trial skills, as demonstrated in opening statements, direct and cross-examinations of witnesses, handling of exhibits, use and argument of objections, and closing arguments to the jury. The finalists selected to compete in the final round of the National Trial Competition, which will take place in San Antonio, Texas are Matthew Casey, Sulema Medrano, and Brian Wojcicki of Chicago-Kent College of Law and Erika Knierim, Danielle Luisi and Anne Leigh of Loyola University School of Law. Congratulations were extended to all of the participating teams.

National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies' 2009 Claims Conference

Eric W. Moch will be a featured speaker at the National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies' 2009 Claims Conference that will be held in San Antonio, TX on February 6, 2009. Mr. Moch will speak on Preparing and Conducting Effective Claims Interviews and Examinations Under Oath.

ALFA International Product Liability Practice Group Seminar

On November 12 - 14, 2008, Johnson & Bell, Ltd. shareholder, Kevin Owens, presided as program chair of the 2008 ALFA International Product Liability Practice Group Seminar in Dana Point, California. Mr. Owens was responsible for developing the program's educational content at this two day conference, which was presented to over 180 ALFA International member firm attorneys and their invited guests. The seminar featured topics ranging from warnings and instructions to multi-district medical device litigation to effective and appropriate investigation techniques, and provided attendees with effective strategies for dealing with today’s increasingly complex product liability claims and litigation. ALFA International is the premier global network of law firms, with over 8,000 attorneys based in over 150 major metropolitan areas in the United States and abroad. Johnson & Bell, Ltd. is the exclusive Chicago, IL member of ALFA International.

National Electrical Manufacturer's Association Product Safety and Liability Conference

On September 9 - October 1, 2008, Johnson & Bell, Ltd. shareholder, Kevin Owens, was a presenter at the National Electrical Manufacturer's Association (NEMA) Product Safety and Liability Conference in Memphis, TN. Mr. Owens spoke to an audience comprised of representatives from manufacturers of consumer and commercial electrical products on "How to Conduct a Successful Recall and Developing an International Recall Program". He appeared as part of a panel of ALFA International product liability litigators who teamed to put on the educational portion of this NEMA meeting. ALFA International is the premier global network of law firms, with over 8,000 attorneys based in over 150 major metropolitan areas in the United States and abroad. Johnson & Bell, Ltd. is the exclusive Chicago, IL member of ALFA International, and Mr. Owens is a member of its Product Liability Practice Group Steering Committee.

2008 ALFA International Litigation/Alternative
Dispute Resolution Seminar

Johnson & Bell, Ltd. Shareholder Joseph R. Marconi served as a panel moderator for the ALFA International Litigation/Alternative Dispute Resolution seminar on Thursday, November 13, 2008. The panel was part of the 2008 ALFA International annual program held in Mumbai, India where attendance exceeded even the most optimistic hopes with 44 clients and prospects joining 52 ALFA lawyers. The panel discussed the litigation environments that Indian corporations and entrepreneurs will face in the United States, Canada, Israel and other jurisdictions. The panel also explored the procedures and legal framework for Alternative Dispute Resolution in their respective jurisdictions.

Community Hospital Organization of Anesthesiologists

Sharon Stanzione addressed the Community Hospital Organization of Anesthesiologists. They were meeting to discuss the latest issues in health care, and invited Sharon to give a presentation on the topic “Liability Issues Associated with new H&P Requirements.”

28th Annual IRMI Conference

Johnson and Bell Ltd. shareholders, Joseph B. Carini and Joseph F. Spitzzeri recently attended the 28th IRMI Construction Risk Conference in Las Vegas, NV. Johnson & Bell, Ltd. was a co-sponsor for the 2008 conference where 1500+ attendees (including risk managers, brokers, consultants, underwriters, developers and attorneys) converged with industry experts to discuss improving risk management programs and controlling insurance costs. IRMI has provided exceptional workshops since 1981 and continues to receive excellent ratings each year from attendees.

Immigration Enforcement in the Workplace

Daniel C. Murray was a speaker at the recently concluded Third Annual Conference on “Immigration Enforcement in the Workplace” sponsored by the Federal Bar Association. At the day-long conference held at Loyola University (Chicago) School of Law, Dan walked the rapt audience through the Do's and Don'ts for a company’s handling the charged atmosphere when law enforcement officers come-a-knockin' at its doors. Dan, a former federal prosecutor, separated and explained the colliding interests, rights and duties of the tripartite players in this frenetic situation. For each of them (police officers, employees, and company management), there are definite best-practice Do's and Don'ts. Knowing and practicing them, no less than like a fire drill, can ameliorate the sense of near-panic when the unexpected happens, namely a raid-like entry and occupation of a company facility by a score or more of armed law enforcement agents. For specific information on weathering the government execution of search and/ or arrest warrants in a real life takedown, contact Dan Murray at 312 984 0226 or murrayd@jbltd.com.

2008 ALFA International Product Liability Practice Group Seminar

On November 12 - 14, 2008, Johnson & Bell, Ltd. shareholder, Kevin Owens, will preside as program chair of the 2008 ALFA International Product Liability Practice Group Seminar in Dana Point, California. Mr. Owens was responsible for developing the program's educational content at this two day conference, which is open only to ALFA International member firms and their invited guests. Featuring topics ranging from warnings and instructions to multi-district medical device litigation to effective and appropriate investigation techniques, the Seminar aims to arm attendees with effective strategies for dealing with today’s increasingly complex product liability claims and litigation. ALFA International is the premier global network of law firms, with over 8,000 attorneys based in over 150 major metropolitan areas in the United States and abroad. Johnson & Bell, Ltd. is the exclusive Chicago, IL member of ALFA International.

For more information on Mr. Owens please click here.

Packaging Machinery Manufacturer's Institute's annual Safety
& Technology Conference

Johnson & Bell, Ltd. shareholder, Kevin Owens, spoke to the Packaging Machinery Manufacturer's Institute's annual Safety and Technology Conference in Rosemont, Illinois. Mr. Owens presented a wide range of product liability law and litigation topics, including the presentation of the company engineer for deposition and trial testimony, applicability of international standards to products manufactured in the United States, and product liability law and practice. The Packaging Machinery Manufacturer's Institute is an Arlington, Virginia based trade association with more than 550 member companies that manufacture packaging and packaging-related converting machinery, commercially-available packaging machinery components, containers and materials in the United States and Canada.

For more information on Mr. Owens please click here.

Fifth Annual PLRB & FDCC Seminar

Johnson & Bell, Ltd. shareholder, Rick L. Hammond, was a presenter for the "Critical Issues for Senior Insurance Executives and In-House Counsel" seminar on Monday, September 15, 2008 held at the Embassy Suites O'Hare Hotel in Rosemont, Illinois. Mr. Hammond presented during the portion entitled: "A Bad Faith Update from Around the Country."

The fifth annual "Critical Issues for Senior Insurance Executives and In-House Counsel" was hosted by the Property Loss Research Bureau (PLRB) and the Federation of Defense & Corporate Counsel (FDCC). The seminar brings together nationally recognized coverage attorneys with senior claims executives. Mr. Hammond is a successful trial attorney who has authored a number of papers regarding insurance fraud and regularly presents his research and experiences to insurance companies throughout the country.

For more information on Mr. Hammond please click here.

Motor Carrier General Counsels Seminar

Johnson & Bell, Ltd. shareholder, Gregory D. Conforti, served as moderator for a panel discussion entitled "Trading Places: Coordinating Claims and Safety Department Activities" at the ATA Litigation Center Forum for Motor Carrier General Counsels in Reno, Nevada on August 13, 2008. The panel discussion involved questions related to company considerations and reporting of preventable versus non preventable accidents and the attempted use of these investigations and categorizations at trial. For more information contact Mr. Conforti at confortig@jbltd.com or 312.984.0373.

"Never Events" Seminar - Fall 2008

“Never Events” are conditions that have been found by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) to be preventable errors that are hospital acquired. CMS recently proposed an additional nine categories of hospital acquired conditions. Do you know what these nine additional categories are and how they could affect you and your patients? Johnson & Bell, Ltd. will be hosting a seminar on September 30, 2008, to discuss the proposed “Never Events” and the impact of these new regulations. If you are interested in attending the seminar, please send an email to starbuckk@jbltd.com or call Kathy Starbuck at 312.984.0273.

ALFA International Transportation Conference

The 2008 ALFA Transportation Practice Group conference was held in Palm Beach, Florida April 30 – May 2. Johnson & Bell shareholder Robert M. Burke participated in a segment of the program entitled “Defending Independent Theories of Liability and Damages Against Trucking Companies.” The panel examined the increasing trends by plaintiffs to pursue causes of action directly against trucking companies for claims, including those for punitive damages, independent of and in addition to exposure for the driver’s conduct.

Shareholder Rick Mueller also attended on behalf of the Environmental practice group and moderated an afternoon symposium on hazmat response with a very distinguished panel, including government, transportation and insurance industry representatives, environmental contractors, and attorneys. The panel of experts discussed how to effectively coordinate activities in responding to, and closing out, a hazardous materials spill incident. Rick also serves on the Steering Committee for the Environmental Practice Group of ALFA.

With over 350 attendees, this conference was the most well attended, successful ALFA event in the history of the organization. Johnson & Bell shareholder Gregory D. Conforti, who served as the Transportation Practice Group Chair for 2007-2008, now serves as Chair Emeritus. Robert Burke continues in his role with the group as the Co-Chair of the Client Advisory Board within the Transportation Practice Group.

Upcoming Insurance Coverage Seminar

March 13, 2008
2008 Insurance Coverage
Update & Seminar
Hyatt Lodge
2815 Jorie Boulevard
Oak Brook, IL 60523

Johnson & Bell, in association with the Insurance School of Chicago, would like to invite you to attend the 2008 Insurance Coverage Update & Seminar on Thursday, March 13. This annual event will be held at the Hyatt Lodge in Oak Brook, Illinois. The seminar will begin promptly at 1:00 pm and conclude at 4:45 pm, followed immediately by a cocktail reception.

Topics for the seminar will include: The Use and Misuse of Public Adjusters, Third Party Bad Faith-Managing the Settlement Process, Conflicts-Ethical & Practical Aspects Construction Defects-Liability Coverage Issues, and a panel discussion on Mediation of Complex Insurance Coverage Cases will feature Hon. Julia M. Nowicki (Ret.) of JAMS.

Space is limited so please RSVP by sending an e-mail to starbuckk@jbltd.com or by telephone at 312.984.6662 by March 10th. Four hours of CLE credits have been requested.

The seminar will be hosted and presented by Glenn Fencl, Rick Hammond, Scott Hoyne, and William K. McVisk, all of whom are shareholders within Johnson & Bell’s Insurance group. To learn more about their practice please visit www.johnsonandbell.com.

Howard Foster and Dan Murray Address Second Annual
Conference on Immigration Enforcement in the Workplace

Howard Foster and Dan Murray addressed the conferees attending a day-long program on Immigration Enforcement in the Workplace. With spirited debate in presenting competing points of view, topics discussed included the use of civil RICO to prosecute employer immigration violations, criminal prosecution of employer immigration violations, and personal exposure of company managers and executives to civil liability and criminal prosecution. The conference, held at Northwestern University’s School of Law, included speakers as well as attendees from government, industry, and academia, and was co-sponsored by the Federal Bar Association and Illinois’ Institute on Continuing Legal Education.

Kevin G. Owens appointed program chair of ALFA Seminar
Posted September 2007

Johnson & Bell’s shareholder, Kevin G. Owens, has been appointed program chair of ALFA International's 2008 Product Liability Practice Group Seminar, to be held November 12-14, 2008 in Laguna Nigel, California. Mr. Owens also serves as a member of the ALFA Product Liability Practice Group’s steering committee.

ALFA International is a global network of 120 independent law firms with over 9,000 lawyers worldwide. Member firms supplement their own expertise and resources with those of other members. Johnson & Bell is the exclusive Chicago area member firm. ALFA’s Product Liability Practice Group is among the largest practice groups in the organization and last year produced the educational portion of ALFA’s International Client Seminar, held in Palm Springs, California.

As an attorney for Johnson & Bell, Ltd. and a member of ALFA, Mr. Owens is committed to providing the highest levels of coordinated client service and effective legal counsel possible. To learn more about Mr. Owens or the 2008 Product Liability Practice Group Seminar please contact him at (312) 984-0270 or owensk@jbltd.com.

William McVisk acts as moderator
Posted September 2007

Attorney William K. McVisk recently served as a moderator of the panel discussion: Is it an occurrence just because it’s not intentional? Construction defect coverage litigation during the IDC/SOICA Construction Insurance Symposium on September 19, 2007 held at the Chase Park Plaza Hotel in St. Louis, Missouri.

The panel discussed such topics as Construction Defect Coverage litigation form the contractor’s perspective, “Occurrence” and other construction defect coverage issues and Litigation Strategy – Bringing in all the various contractors and subcontractors.

Mr. McVisk concentrates his practice in insurance coverage litigation as well as hospital law & medical liability. For more information on his practice or this seminar, please contact him at (312) 984-0229 or mcviskw@jbltd.com.

Burke speaks to Markel Insurance Company on investigating large exposure claims
Posted September 2007

Shareholder and transportation law group chair, Robert M. Burke, will speak to Markel Insurance Company of Canada in their Toronto office on the topic: Starting off on the Right Foot: Investigating Large Exposure Claims, Preserving Evidence & Protecting Privileged Information.

Mr. Burke handles a variety of defense-related matters in the areas of products liability, transportation, trucking and railroad litigation, general negligence, premises liability, retail liability, defense of municipal corporations, and employment law. If you have questions regarding this presentation, please contact him at burker@jbltd.com or (312) 984-0248.

Reidy recently spoke at ALFA International Healthcare Seminar
Posted September, 2007

Attorney Marilyn M. Reidy spoke at the 2007 ALFA International Healthcare Practice Group Regional Seminar held on September 6–7 at the Pfister Hotel in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. The seminar focused on e-discovery and document retention for healthcare institutions.

Ms. Reidy was the seminar program chair and has been a long-standing member of ALFA International’s Healthcare Steering Committee. She gave an introductory presentation, as well as acted as moderator on the topic Strategies for health care, or how to avoid the high cost of frequent clicking during the seminar. The seminar was held in conjunction with ALFA International’s Midwest Regional Seminar.

Ms. Reidy is an experienced trial attorney in both state and federal court, managing and directing all aspects of the litigation process. She is a shareholder in Johnson & Bell’s Hospital Law & Medical Liability group. For information on Ms. Reidy's practice please contact her at reidym@jbltd.com or (312) 984-0288.

Johnson & Bell is the Chicago member firm of ALFA International, a premier global network of law firms comprised of 85 U.S. and 30 foreign firms with approximately 8,000 lawyers and 9,000 support personnel. It is the country’s oldest and largest organization of its kind. ALFA International’s goal is to educate its members and their clients in the issues and problems facing specific businesses and industries.

Carini serves as editor of ALFA construction law compendium
Posted July 5, 2007

Attorney Joseph B. Carini, III is one of the editors of the recently released ALFA International 50 State Compendium of Construction Law Issues.

The compendium was published by ALFA's Construction Law Practice Group which concentrates in the representation of developers, general contractors, subcontractors, manufacturers, suppliers, design professionals and insurance carriers. This representation includes litigation, mediation, arbitration, lobbying/legislative, regulatory/standards setting, and general business counseling. It is available free of charge to construction professionals and insurance carriers.

The compendium covers construction defects, mechanic's liens, personal injury, property damage, warranty/breach of contract, business interruption, design and manufacturing defects, and insurance coverage issues. It was distributed at the International Risk Management Institute’s regional seminars in Orlando , Las Vegas and Dallas.

Johnson & Bell is the exclusive Chicago area ALFA representative, a global network of 120 independent law firms with over 9,000 lawyers worldwide. Member firms supplement their own expertise and resources with those of other members.

Mr. Carini’s practice focuses on the defense of owners, project managers, general contractors, and subcontractors in construction litigation involving personal injury accidents and construction/design disputes. He also defends contractors and municipalities in litigation involving accidents arising out of highway construction, signage, and signal maintenance. He also conducts risk management seminars for management and workers, handles construction-related insurance coverage issues, and provides contract review services. He is a member of ALFA's Construction Law Practice Group steering committee and will chair the group’s annual client conference scheduled for Chicago in July 2008.

For more information on the ALFA construction law compendium, or Mr. Carini’s practice, please contact him at (312) 984-6668 or carinij@jbltd.com.

Moch is published in the NSPII spring 2007 newsletter
Posted July 3, 2007

Attorney Eric W. Moch’s article, Giving fraudulent medical records a free pass: One court’s troubling assumptions and the risk they pose to the fight against insurance fraud, was published in the spring 2007 issue of the National Society of Professional Insurance Investigators (NSPII) newsletter.

Mr. Moch is a member of the NSPII, the non-profit organization dedicated to furthering investigative ideas, procedures and techniques. In addition to its newsletter, the NSPII sponsors annual seminars and conducts regular meetings to inform and develop professionals in the areas of insurance fraud recognition, prevention and investigation.

Mr. Moch concentrates his practice in insurance coverage, municipal law, and professional liability matters. If you would like to learn more about Mr. Moch’s practices or would like a copy of his article please contact him at (312) 984-3423 or moche@jbltd.com.

Insurance Coverage Group to host Bad Faith seminar in Indianapolis
Posted June 19,2007

Thursday, October 18
The Columbia Club - 2 p.m. to 5 p.m.
121 Monument Circle · Indianapolis, Indiana

Johnson & Bell's Insurance Coverage Group will host a seminar dealing with bad faith issues at the Columbia Club in downtown Indianapolis on Wednesday, September 12. Attorneys Rick Hammond, CLU, William K. McVisk and Edward W. Hearn will be the featured presenters.

For more information, please contact Bonnie J. Brown, client relations coordinator, at (312) 984-6662 or brownb@jbltd.com.

Reidy to moderate and speak at ALFA International health care seminar
Posted June 25, 2007

September 6 - 7
The Pfister Hotel
424 E Milwaukee Avenue · Milwaukee, Wisconsin

Attorney Marilyn M. Reidy will speak at the 2007 ALFA International Healthcare Practice Group Regional Seminar to be held September 6–7 at the Pfister Hotel in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. The seminar will focus on e-discovery and document retention for healthcare institutions.

Ms. Reidy is the seminar program chair and a long-standing member of ALFA International’s Healthcare Steering Committee. She will give an introductory presentation, as well as act as moderator on the topic Strategies for health care, or how to avoid the high cost of frequent clicking during the seminar. The seminar is being held in conjunction with ALFA International’s Midwest Regional Seminar.

Ms. Reidy is an experienced trial attorney in both state and federal court, managing and directing all aspects of the litigation process. She is a shareholder in Johnson & Bell’s Hospital Law & Medical Liability group. For information on this fall’s seminar or her practice please contact her at reidym@jbltd.com or (312) 984-0288.

Johnson & Bell is the Chicago member firm of ALFA International, a premier global network of law firms comprised of 85 U.S. and 30 foreign firms with approximately 8,000 lawyers and 9,000 support personnel. It is the country’s oldest and largest organization of its kind. ALFA International’s goal is to educate its members and their clients in the issues and problems facing specific businesses and industries.

Hammond Speaks at 2007 NSPII Regional Seminar
Posted June 14,2007

Attorney Rick Hammond, CLU, was a panelist at the 2007 National Society of Professional Insurance Investigators Regional Seminar held on June 14, 2007, at the Doubletree Guest Suites & Conference Center in Downers Grove, Illinois.

His presentation, Good Faith/Bad Faith Information Sharing, examined the manner in which insurers collect and share information with other insurers and law enforcement. Along with discussing the state’s current information sharing and immunity statutes, Mr. Hammond reviewed various methods to avoid allegations of bad faith, defamation, breach of privacy, and other charges of wrongful conduct.

The NSPII 2007 seminar was designed as an educational opportunity for those members and non-members who are unable to attend the annual national program with the opportunity to experience some of the same topics and presenters.

Mr. Hammond represents a number of national insurers and corporations on matters relating to insurance coverage as well as commercial and fraud litigation. He is a shareholder in Johnson & Bell’s Insurance Coverage Group. For information on both his presentation and practice please contact him at hammondr@jbltd.com or (312) 984-0425.

Burke speaks to both Zurich NA and Markel Insurance Company on investigating large exposure claims
Posted June 13, 2007

Attorney Robert M. Burke recently spoke to both Markel Insurance Company of Canada and Zurich North America’s Pollution Claims Group in their Atlanta office on the topic Starting off on the Right Foot: Investigating Large Exposure Claims, Preserving Evidence & Protecting Privileged Information.

Mr. Burke handles a variety of defense-related matters in the areas of products liability, transportation, trucking and railroad litigation, general negligence, premises liability, retail liability, defense of municipal corporations, and employment law. If you have questions regarding this presentation, please contact him at burker@jbltd.com or (312) 984-0248.

Owens speaks at the Safety and Technology Conference of the Packaging Machinery Manufacturers Institute
Posted June 11, 2007

Attorney Kevin G. Owens will speak on the legal implications of risk assessment in the manufacturing process during the annual Safety and Technology Conference of the Packaging Machinery Manufacturers Institute (PMMI.) The conference will be held at the Hyatt Rosemont Hotel in Rosemont, Illinois, on July 11.

PMMI is a not-for-profit trade association whose more than 500 general members manufacture packaging and packaging-related converting machinery in the United States and Canada.

Mr. Owens concentrates his practice in commercial litigation, product liability, and municipal liability matters. For more information on Mr. Owens or on the upcoming conference please contact him at (312) 984-0270 or owensk@jbltd.com.

Burke and Conforti speak at American Bus Marketplace Conference
Posted May 16, 2007

Attorneys Robert M. Burke, left, and Gregory D. Conforti, right, recently spoke at the American Bus Association (ABA) Marketplace Conference, held in Grapevine, Texas. They spoke on both the topic Federal Rules Governing E-Discovery Have Arrived and Responding to the Catastrophic Motor Vehicle Accident.

The ABA is the trade association of the intercity bus industry, and represents the motor coach industry's interests in Washington , D.C. It also facilitates relationships between North American motor coach and tour companies and all related segments of the travel and supplier industries and promotes travel by motor coach to consumers.

The American Bus Marketplace is the premier business event for the group travel industry. Buyers who are bus owners and tour operators, come to meet with sellers who are travel industry representatives from destination marketing organizations (cities, areas, states), attractions, restaurants, receptive operators, hotels and associate service suppliers. These business sessions allow buyers and sellers to plan trip itineraries for motor coach group travel throughout the US and Canada.

Mr. Burke and Mr. Conforti are co-chairmen of Johnson & Bell’s Transportation Practice Group. Mr. Burke handles a variety of defense-related matters in the areas of products liability, transportation, trucking and railroad litigation, general negligence, premises liability, retail liability, defense of municipal corporations, and employment law. He may be reached at burker@jbltd.com or (312) 984-0248.

Mr. Conforti supports an active civil trial practice and enjoys an exceptional record of predominately not guilty verdicts. He concentrates his practice in Transportation Law, Products Litigation, Construction Litigation, and Premises Liability Claims. He may be reached at confortig@jbltd.com or (312) 984-0249.

Back to the Top.