Illinois Car and Truck Accident Lawyer Blog

Today Chicago law firm Hurley McKenna & Mertz filed a lawsuit against the Boy Scouts of America, the Blackhawk Area Council of the Boy Scouts, and Dixon, Illinois resident Charles Bickerstaff. Bickerstaff, also called “Chuck,” was a nearly thirty-year paid employee of the Boy Scouts, spending the last eleven years as a Senior District Executive of the Blackhawk Area Council of the Boy Scouts of America, based in Rockford, Illinois, and was recently assigned to Lee, Ogle and Whiteside Counties.

Bickerstaff is alleged to have repeatedly sexually abused a 16 year-old Boy Scout, named as “John Doe” in the lawsuit. Bickerstaff, 56, is now in jail in Dixon, Illinois on $4 million bond awaiting trial on multiple counts of child molestation involving at least two victims.

Police have recovered six diaries of 120 pages in length from Bickerstaff's home which describe in detail his sexual relationships with underage boys dating back to at least 1989.

The victim was a member of the Cub Scouts and Boy Scouts for most of his childhood who "looked (to Bickerstaff) as an authority figure," the lawsuit says. Using the power and trust of his position, the suit says, Bickerstaff routinely spent time alone with the boy outside of Scout events. Bickerstaff "enticed, induced, directed, coerced, and forced" the child "to engage in deviant sexual acts with him." The crimes took place on a Scout trip to Lansing, Michigan, at Bickerstaff's home, and "other locations."

According to the suit, the Boy Scouts "knew or should have known" that Bickerstaff was dangerous, failed to adequately investigate allegations of misconduct involving Bickerstaff and failed to adequately supervise Bickerstaff's activities. The suit also alleges that the Boy Scouts knew for decades that sexual predators "had infiltrated Scouting," but its leadership "failed to inform Scouts' parents of that fact."

My firm represents the first victim to come forward and report this pedophile to police. Hopefully this lawsuit will allow other victims to come forward and report this type of abuse to the authorities, and allow us to use the tools available through the legal system to investigate how the Boy Scouts permitted a pedophile to become a paid executive within its organization.

A copy of the filed complaint can be referenced below:

Continue reading "Suit Exposes Sexual Abuse by Illinois Boy Scout Executive" »

In August of 2005, Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich, under pressure from medical malpractice insurance companies and the Illinois Chamber of Commerce, signed a law the capped non-economic damages solely in medical malpractice cases at the arbitrary amounts of $500,000 in cases against physicians, and $1,000,000 in cases against hospitals. This law was extremely unfair, in that it singled out only the victims of medical negligence, and not any other class of litigants such as corporations or individuals suing for business damages. The cap applied to areas of damage in medical malpractice cases that are all too common in the most severe cases--wrongful death, pain, suffering, disability and disfigurement.

For example, in one of my cases, a hospital nurse erroneously listed a toxic antibiotic, gentamycin, on a transfer form to a nursing home. As a result, the nursing home unwittingly gave my client this toxic drug for one week, destroying my client's kidney functions. She now must receive dialysis for the rest of her life. She has a permanent dialysis port sticking out of her chest. At trial, the jury found the hospital guilty of negligence and awarded my client $3,200,000 in damages for the pain, suffering, disability and disfigurement. If the case had gone to trial under the legislation signed by the Illinois governor, my client's non-economic damages would have been reduced to $1,000,000. Fortunately, the new law did not apply to medical malpractice that was discovered before the law was signed.

Today, Judge Joan Larsen of the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, ruled that the caps on medical malpractice damages violate the Illinois Constitution. See her well-reasoned decision here. Following Illinois Supreme Court precedent holding prior attempts at "tort reform" in Illinois to be unconstitutional, Judge Larsen held that any cap on medical malpractice damages improperly invades the constitutional right of a plaintiff to a trial by jury, improperly invades the province of the jury to award damages based on the evidence, and unduly encroaches upon the right of the judiciary to decide whether a jury's damage award is excessive.

I applaud Judge Larsen's decision. The ruling protects the right of a victim of malpractice to a trial by jury--with the jury to decide the amount of any award of compensation based on the evidence. Judge Larsen's decision represents the principle that the Illinois constitution does not allow those who have been most seriously injured as a result of medical malpractice to have their rights taken away in order to increase the profits of insurance companies.

The record profits of hospitals and insurance companies show that they are taking advantage of Illinois doctors and patients. The real solution to the problem of rising medical malpractice premiums is meaningful insurance reform and regulation of the insurance companies.

My firm will continue to work to protect the rights of victims of medical negligence to full and fair compensation.

A lawsuit in Arkansas against the Union Pacific Railroad claims company officials pressured families of victims injured or killed by trains to quickly settle for amounts lower than what they may have received with a lawyer's help.

An Associated Press story explains:

The suit, now being argued before a judge in Lafayette County, Arkansas, says officials came to families in emergency rooms or while they still grieved. Arkansas residents James Freeman, Robert Udell and Victor Vickers sued the company, asking for class-action status to involve anyone injured or lost a family member in crashes at crossings, on a rail or near one from 1992 to February 15, 2005.

Up to 300 families may have been pressed by Union Pacific to settle without the benefit of legal representation.

The tactics used by the Union Pacific, as alleged in the suit, is an example of the type of unfair bargaining that companies and insurers may use to force vulnerable families, suffering from the uncertainty caused by a tragedy, to agree to disadvantageous settlements. Companies and their insurers are never trying to look out for the best interests of the victims of negligence. Always speak to a knowledgable trial lawyer before discussing a personal injury, medical malpractice or wrongful death case with a defendant company's representatives or their insurers.

The State of Illinois has designed new driver's licenses and state identity cards to prevent identity theft and fraud. As reported by the Chicago Tribune, the Illinois driver's licenses will now feature a second, smaller photo of the cardholder, duplication of the date of birth and microtext that requires a magnifying glass to read and is difficult to copy or duplicate electronically. The goal of the new features is to deter counterfeiters.

Victims of the growing problem of identity theft have legal duties of their own when dealing with the consequences of fraud, especially unauthorized transfers of funds. While credit card holders are protected by issuer rules that allow holders to refuse to pay fraudulent charges, "Regulation E," the FDIC's consumer protection rule governing electronic funds transfers and debit cards, states that consumers must report an electronic funds transfer problem within two days to protect themselves from liability for the unauthorized withdrawal. Consumers who report a problem within 2 days are liable for $50, while those who report the problem within 60 days have their liability capped at $500. People who wait report a problem may lose the protection of federal law, and be stuck with a total loss of the funds.

As noted by this MSNBC report, victims of identity theft often become the targets of banks and financial institutions looking to hold the victim liable for losses, especially when there has been a delay in reporting fraud. If you have suffered substantial losses due to identity theft, you may need to retain a lawyer if you want to get financial institutions to take responsibility for your losses.

The following story from Idaho provides an excellent example of why there should be no statute of limitations for sex abuse cases. Children fear telling the story, and as occurred in the Idaho case, there are forces in the community that try to blame the victims instead of the pedophile. As experienced trial lawyers we are not afraid to do the fighting so that the victims of sexual abuse can receive justice from the organizations, such as the Boy Scouts of America, which failed to protect the victims from pedophiles employed or associated with that organization.

As reported in the Idaho Post Register:

Whispers in the courthouse about "missing cases" and a clandestine meeting at midnight started rookie reporter Peter Zuckerman of the Idaho Falls Post Register on an investigation that would lead him to expose the extraordinary story of a pedophile working within the local Boy Scouts, and a brave young scout who had the courage to speak up and stop him. What was hidden from the public -- concealed within those court records -- was the story of a Boy Scout leader named Brad Stowell, convicted in 1997 of molesting two children, who had admitted under oath in a court deposition in 1999 to molesting about two dozen children beginning as far back as 1988. Zuckerman, along with executive editor Dean Miller, fought successfully to unseal court records and then tracked down victims of abuse to reveal that Boy Scout leadership and at least one official in the Mormon Church -- which sponsors most of the Boy Scout Troops in Eastern Idaho -- missed opportunities to stop Stowell from working in close proximity to children.

The Post Register published the "Scouts' Honor" series in early 2005, and the paper immediately came under fire from some in the community. The fallout of the stories ended up being far more dramatic than anyone had anticipated. A prominent local company took out full-page ads in the paper challenging the reporting and claiming, "the Post Register's real intent was to smear the Scout's good name and take away what the Scouts value most, their honor." Additional victims came forward to tell their stories of abuse. And one father, motivated by his sons' accounts of abuse, dedicated himself full-time to changing Idaho's statute of limitations in cases involving the sexual abuse of minors.

You can read the original 6-part "Scouts' Honor" series published in late February/early March 2005 here, and also read the subsequent reporting in the Idaho Falls Post Register here.

A federal jury in Peoria, Illinois has awarded a South Carolina woman $15 million after finding that a tire on the motorcycle she was riding had a defect which resulted in a fall and severe brain damage. As reported by Andy Kravetz in the Peoria Journal-Star, the jury deliberated over two days before deciding that defendant Goodyear Dunlop Tires North America Ltd. was liable for the May, 2002, incident on Interstate 55 in Livingston County, Illinois.

The plaintiff, Trish McCloud,

[W]as riding back to her home in Michigan from a bike rally in St. Louis when the tire deflated. The driver of the motorcycle lost control and crashed. The bike flipped and McCloud struck her head on the pavement.

The driver was hurt, but the extent of his injuries was not as severe as McCloud's.

Though she was wearing a helmet, the impact was so great that it caused severe brain damage, according to court records. She was treated at OSF Saint Francis Medical Center for two months, where she was in and out of a coma.

The plaintiff now suffers from paralysis and requires constant care. Her attorneys argued that Goodyear Dunlop made the motorcycle tire with a defect that caused it to fail prematurely. At trial, Goodyear Dunlop claimed the incident was caused by tire underinflation as well as excessive weight on the motorcycle.

Even though the case was tried in federal court, Illinois state product liability law would apply to the the case.

A startling article in the Minneapolis Star-Tribune by Tony Kennedy and Paul McEnroe reveals that Minnesota state officials knew that the I-35 bridge was at risk of collapse:

Internal MnDOT documents reviewed by the Star Tribune reveal that last year bridge officials talked openly about the possibility of the bridge collapsing -- and worried that it might have to be condemned.

The documents provide the first look inside MnDOT's decision-making process as engineers weighed benefits and risks, wrestling with options to prevent what they believed was a remote but real possibility of the eight-lane freeway bridge failing.

Their concerns were not generalized, documents show. The San Francisco-based consultant, URS Inc., identified 52 crucial steel box beams deemed most susceptible to cracking. URS also had a specific recommendation that 24 of the 52 members be reinforced while the remainder would be kept on a special watch. Video of the Aug. 1 collapse being examined by the National Transportation Safety Board shows the bridge first falling on the south end over its shoreline pier -- a section of the superstructure where eight suspect beams were specifically tagged for reinforcing.

State officials failed to take action to reinforce the bridge because of concerns about cost and fears they might find problems severe enought to force condemnation of the bridge. The state should be liable for this gross negligence, which has resulted in such tragedy. Unfortunately, state tort immunities may protect the state officials from any negligence claims.

As a lawyer who specializes in negligence suits against wrongdoers who cause serious inuries, I have always believed that federal or state laws that exempt certain industries from a duty to act reasonably for the safety of others were unfair, and dangerous. Thankfully, Congress and the Bush administration have decided to allow suits against a protected industry--the railroads--to go forward:

“Tucked inside the huge homeland security legislation signed into law by President Bush recently is a provision to ensure that the Federal Railroad Safety Act of 1970 does not preclude state lawsuits against railroads by injured persons in general and the residents of a small city in North Dakota in particular. The provision, entitled ‘Railroad Pre-emption Clarification,’ is in the new law implementing the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission, but its impetus can be traced to Jan. 18, 2002.”

Reported by Marcia Coyle in the National Law Journal, Law.com, 8/13/07

A 49-year-old man charged with aggravated DUI and improper lane was acquitted on charges of drunken driving and improper lane usage after arguing to the trial judge that his obesity prevented him from successfully completing field sobriety tests. After Downers Grove, Illinois police pulled the man over for suspected drunken driving, the man, while polite and respectful, was unable to perform the standard field sobriety tests, which included standing on one leg for 30 seconds and a straight line heel-to-toe walk. The driver allegedly apologized to police when he could not complete the tests.

The man, who was 6 feet tall and weighed 260 pounds, argued in the DuPage County Circuit Court that fat to perform the field sobriety tests properly. At the end of the trial, the judge ruled that the trial evidence created reasonable doubt which prevented a conviction.

This story was reported by Jennifer Golz in the The Herald News.

On early Saturday morning a drunk driver ran a red light at the intersection of 47th Street and South King Drive on Chicago's South Side and killed three people in their 20's. A Chicago Tribune article by Jason Meisner describes the occurence.

Chicago police charged the drunk driver allegedly responsible for the collision with reckless homicide, leaving the scene of a fatal accident, and driving under the influence. Chicago police also ticketed the drunk driver for driving without insurance, disobeying a red light, speeding and failure to yield.

The families of the victims in this case would have causes of action against the allegedly drunk driver responsible for the accident for negligence and willful and wanton conduct. The families may also have claims for damages under the Illinois Dram Shop Act, 235 ILCS 5/6-21 against anyone, including a bar or restaurant, that sold or gave liquor to the alleged intoxicated motorist, causing her intoxication at the time of the occurrence.

Dram Shop Act cases have a strict one year statute of limitations under the Illinois statute. If you have been injured by a drunk driver, you should consult legal counsel immediately.

The I-35W Bridge collapse in Minneapolis shows that tort immunity that shields states and municipalities from liability for negligence leads to complacency, neglect and disaster. Citizens assumed that teams of qualified professionals made sure the bridge was safe for use and would not fail--or that we would be warned if it was dangerous to use the bridge. The bridge was not safe, the state's professionals knew it, yet no warnings came.

The same people who knew of the danger of the bridge, and did nothing, will likely never be held accountable for their complacency, due to state tort immunities which protect state officials from negligence claims. The only ones who will pay for this lack of responsibility are the friends and loved ones of those who died or were injured in the collapse.

Tort immunity, a concept that shields governments from liability in injury cases, may prevent those injured and the families of those killed from ever obtaining justice in this tragedy. After the recovery effort has finished, and the investigations are complete, talented lawyers will try vigorously to hold the responsible governmental and private entities accountable. Hopefully tort immunity will not block their efforts.

Efforts at protecting people, companies and government entities whose actions can kill and injure, commonly called tort reform and tort immunity, serve only to breed complacency and sanction irresponsible behavior. Tort reform and tort immunity are bad for everyone. The lawyers at my firm remain committed to the fight against tort reform.

The Illinois Appellate Court has affirmed the largest known verdict for a plaintiff in an institutional negligence case ever obtained in Illinois. The case is also the first reported case in Illinois dealing with a hospital's liability for negligently credentialing a physician, podiatrist or other health care provider. Christopher T. Hurley and Mark R. McKenna of Hurley McKenna & Mertz obtained the $7,775,668 verdict in August of 2004 for their client, a long-time critical care nurse who went to Silver Cross Hospital in Joliet, Illinois for removal of a bunion on her left foot. Dr. Paul Kirchner, a podiatrist with surgical privileges at Silver Cross Hospital, performed the procedure, known as a bunionectomy, in spite of the fact that the patient had a diabetic ulcer present at the site of the bunion. Diabetic ulcers are a known source of infections, and podiatric standards generally require that an elective surgery such as a bunionectomy be delayed until the ulcer is completely healed.

During the original trial, the jury heard testimony that Dr. Kirchner made an incision near the diabetic ulcer, and placed a screw in patient's left foot. As a result, the bones in patient's left foot at the site of the screw became severely infected. No attempt was made to remove the infected screw until February of 1999 at Silver Cross Hospital, and trial testimony indicated that Dr. Kirchner was unable to remove the screw at that time because of his alleged lack of proper surgical training.

As a consequence of the negligent October, 1998, left foot surgery at Silver Cross Hospital, the bones in the patient's left foot became so infected that she was forced to undergo the amputation of her left foot. The patient has been unable to return to work as a nurse since the surgery.

During the case, Hurley and McKenna presented evidence to the jury that Silver Cross Hospital granted hospital privileges to Dr. Kirchner in 1992 contrary to the hospital’s own by-laws. The hospital’s by-laws required all podiatrists seeking surgical privileges at the hospital to have completed either a 12-month podiatric surgical residency program, or be board-certified by the American Board of Podiatric Surgery. Dr. Kirchner met neither of these requirements in 1992, when he initially began performing procedures at Silver Cross Hospital, or in 1998, when he performed surgery on the patient. During that time period Dr. Kirchner re-applied several times for continuation of his surgical privileges at Silver Cross Hospital, and each time the hospital’s Board of Trustees granted the privileges in violation of its own rules and by-laws.

Illinois law requires hospitals to use reasonable care to determine the qualifications of health care professionals added to a hospital’s medical staff. A hospital's failure to use reasonable care to select and supervise health care professionals to care for patients, which leads to serious injury, can give rise to a claim for institutional negligence.

In this case the jury agreed that podiatrist Dr. Kirchner was professionally negligent in performing the surgery and failing to properly treat the foot infection, and that Silver Cross Hospital was negligent in giving hospital privileges to Dr. Kirchner to perform the surgery in the first place.

You can read the Illinois Appellate Court's opinion here.

Chicago-based Hurley McKenna & Mertz, founded in 1991, is devoted solely to the representation of severely injured persons. The firm has tried and settled hundreds of cases, and obtained numerous multi-million dollar verdicts. If you believe you or a loved one has been a victim of institutional negligence by a hospital or health care facility, feel free to contact us at 312/553-4900.