Doctor Not Liable for Failed Hand Surgery

A Cook County jury found in favor of Bill Weiler’s client, an orthopedic surgeon who repaired the plaintiff’s hand after it had been severely injured by a lawnmower. The plaintiff complained of numerous problems with the function of his hand following the surgery. The jury found that Mr. Weiler’s client complied with the standard of care and that the plaintiff’s continuing complaints were caused by the type of injury suffered, not by the doctor’s negligence.

Summary Judgment granted in Favor of Grocery Store

Michael Radak granted dismissal of grocery store from premises liability lawsuit. Plaintiff was a 67 year old female that claims to have slipped and fallen on a piece of paper on the floor of defendant’s grocery store. Plaintiff suffered a torn rotator cuff in her right shoulder requiring surgery and physical therapy, with a total of $41,000 in medical specials. Summary judgment was granted in favor of the defense on the basis that the store had no notice of the paper on the floor, and Plaintiff could not conclusively testify that the paper was what proximately caused her to fall. Plaintiff filed a Motion to Reconsider, which was denied.

Township Has No Duty to Post Signs (Appellate Decision)

Troy A. Lundquist and Anastasia L. Hess successfully argued a Motion to Dismiss in the Trial Court – which was upheld on appeal. Plaintiff was involved in a motor vehicle collision. Plaintiff filed suit against the Township – alleging they failed to properly post warning signs at an intersection. Troy and Anastasia filed a Motion to Dismiss – arguing that the Township had no legal duty to post any signs. The Trial Court agreed and dismissed the case. Plaintiff filed an appeal – which was denied.

Jury Finds for the Defendant in Traffic Signal Case

A Cook County jury found in favor of Bill Weiler’s client in a personal injury case in which the plaintiff alleged she was injured because Mr. Weiler’s client failed to obey a traffic signal. Mr. Weiler was able to convince the jury that it was actually the plaintiff who failed to obey the signal and that she caused the accident, not his client.