Plaintiff Charles Krik, a life-long cigarette smoker, alleged that his lung cancer was caused, in part, by exposure to asbestos attributable to his work as a pipe fitter at an Exxon Mobil refinery. At the trial level, the judge barred plaintiff’s expert Dr. Arthur Frank and his opinion that “any exposure” to a given substance adds to one’s cumulative dose, and that the cumulative dose is the alleged cause of the claimed injury. (Charles Krik v. Exxon Mobil Oil Corp., et al., No. 15-3112, 7th Cir., 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 16795).
Insurance coverage for underinsured and uninsured motorist coverage laws are often times confusing. One source of such confusion is the determination of coverage owed when there are multiple tortfeasors. The recent case of Illinois Emcasco Ins. Co. v. Tufano, 2016 IL App (1st) 151196 provides guidance in this circumstance.
There may be a double “whammy” in being a legal malpractice defendant. In addition to being a defendant, the plaintiff may be obligated to report you to the Attorney Registration & Disciplinary Commission (ARDC) if the alleged malpractice misconduct violates Rules 8.3(a), 8.4(b) or (c) of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct (“Rules”). This mandatory reporting heightens the stakes of any malpractice claim and may complicate the defense of the case.
The United States Supreme Court opinion in Spokeo (“Spokeo II) was viewed as a major decision in cybersecurity litigation. We at Mckenna Storer addressed the importance of that decision in this space in “No Harm, No Foul: Why Spokeo v. Robins is a Win for Data Privacy Defendants”. The results following that decision have been mixed for plaintiffs and defendants. In Spokeo II, the Court remanded the case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, which recently issued its opinion on remand. The 9th Circuit held that Plaintiff has standing to sue Spokeo for violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit affirmed the dismissal of a suit accusing Indiana’s Lake County of violating the Age Discrimination in Employment Act by firing workers over the age of 65 whose insurance premiums threatened to destroy its budget. The court determined the age of the workers was incidental to their firing. The unanimous 7th Circuit panel held that the retirement-age participation in the Medicare supplemental insurance program the county had offered for free to current workers was the true reason for their termination.
You’ve just been served with a summons or complaint for medical malpractice. You are shocked – and frankly, enraged that this patient – or their family – would turn on you.
The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) recently updated its COPPA Compliance Plan for businesses. The Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) protects the privacy of children using websites and online services. Operators of websites and online services that collect personal information from kids under age 13 are covered by the Act. Failure to comply with COPPA can result in civil penalties up to $40,654 per violation. To assist business covered under COPPA, the FTC has published a 6-step compliance plan. In response to changing technologies in the marketplace, the FTC recently updated this plan.
Medical malpractice settlements are a double edged sword. The doctor, or other health care professional, has been sued. They are vulnerable and emotional – they are hurt that their patient or the patient’s family would sue them, angry that they have been sued, and scared that they could lose their professional liability insurance and/or their personal assets if they lose the case.
On June 28, 2017, the U.S. House of Representatives passed medical tort reform legislation intended to help lower the cost of health insurance by lessening the financial burden of medical lawsuits. The House passed the Protecting Access to Care Act, H.R. 1215, which implements medical malpractice reform by capping plaintiff non-economic damages at $250,000 for a medical liability lawsuit related healthcare that was funded in any way by the federal government. Economic losses, like medical costs and lost wages, would be fully compensated under the Act.
In Evanston Insurance Co. v. Riseborough, the Illinois Supreme Court, in a divided opinion, declared that the six year statute of repose for attorneys in Illinois applies to anyone seeking to sue an attorney on any basis arising out of the attorney’s professional work. 5 N.E. 3d 158, 166-67 (Ill. 2014). This ruling cut a wide swath in circumscribing the rights of non-clients to sue attorneys for mistakes.