Chicago Injury Lawyer Blog

Earlier today, Chicago lawyers Hurley McKenna & Mertz filed a lawsuit in Winnebago County, Illinois against the Boy Scouts of America alleging that Charles “Chuck” Bickerstaff, a long-time paid senior district executive with the Rockford-based Blackhawk Area Council, Boy Scouts of America, sexually abused a Boy Scout over a ten-month period in 2006.

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. One of the victims was known to be younger than 13 years old when the abuse occurred.

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. The BSA staffer “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 BSA “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 BSA knew for decades that sexual predators “had infiltrated scouting,” but its leadership “failed to inform Scouts’ parents of that fact.”

Earlier today, Chicago lawyers Hurley McKenna & Mertz filed a lawsuit in Winnebago County, Illinois against the Boy Scouts of America alleging that Charles “Chuck” Bickerstaff, a long-time paid senior district executive with the Rockford-based Blackhawk Area Council, Boy Scouts of America, sexually abused a Boy Scout over a ten-month period in 2006.

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. One of the victims was known to be younger than 13 years old when the abuse occurred.

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. The BSA staffer “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 BSA “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 BSA knew for decades that sexual predators “had infiltrated scouting,” but its leadership “failed to inform Scouts’ parents of that fact.”

An interesting phenomenon occurs bicycles equipped with disc brakes that makes wheel separation more likely. The link describes this phenomenon more fully, but essentially, when the caliper is mounted behind the fork, the braking force actually works to eject the wheel from the fork. This obviously increases the likelihood of severe personal injury.

There are several alternate designs, but the bicycle should never become more dangerous when the brakes are applied. This is an area where product liability litigation is likely to increase.

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

I grew up in Minneapolis. I traveled over the I-35W Bridge hundreds of times. I drove under the bridge on a boat dozens of times. I marveled at the beauty of the bridge and the beautiful views from the bridge. I never imagined that the bridge might fail. I assumed that teams of qualified professionals made sure it would not fail.

I was horrified when I heard that those charged with the responsibility to keep the bridge safe did nothing despite knowing the bridge might fail. I am frightened that those same people will likely never be held accountable for their complacency. I fear that 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.

I am a Chicago lawyer and I fight for the rights of injured people. Efforts at protecting people and companies 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. That is why I, and the lawyers at my firm, remain committed to the fight against tort reform.

The threat of product liability judgments helps keep product manufacturers honest.

CNN reports that Fisher Price has announced it plans to recall nearly one million plastic preschool toys made by a Chinese vendor and sold in the United States between May and August. It is the latest in a wave of recalls that has heightened global concern about the safety of Chinese-made products. (See here for the full story.)

It has been estimated that the recall will cost Fisher Price $30,000,000.00. This cost, however, is far less than what Fisher Price might face in product liability lawsuits if the products were allowed to remain in the marketplace and children were harmed.

There is no excuse for any product manufacturer, much less a giant multi-national corporation exposing our children to toxins. Fisher Price needs to provide significantly better oversight of the products it imports from China. It should start by testing the products before it places them in stores.

I think this is an evidence that lawyers make the world safer for everyone.

The U.S. Supreme Court, in Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., threw out a woman's equal pay claim because it held that the statute of limitations had expired. The Court held that, because she learned she was paid less than her male counterparts years after the discrimination occurred, she was out of luck.

David A. Drachsler from Legal Times writes that the "Discovery Rule" should apply to these claims. His approach is the only reasonable approach to statutes of limitation. Under the discovery rule, the statue of limitations does not begin to run until the plaintiff discovers the harm.

Where the discovery rule is not followed, wrongdoers can avoid liability if they can hide their wrongdoing from an injured person. Surely this is not the intent of a statute of limitations.

Conservatives who champion tort reform are often the first to file the lawsuits that they defile as "frivolous". Remember Rick Santorum filing a lawsuit as he argued on the Senate floor for caps on damages? Here is the latest example of Republican hypocrisy with Judge Robert Bork filing a suit seeking punitive damages, the sort most detested by tort reformers:

Leading Conservative Activist Seeks Punitive Damages

Judge Robert Bork, one of the fathers of the modern judicial conservative movement whose nomination to the Supreme Court was rejected by the Senate, is seeking $1,000,000 in compensatory damages, plus punitive damages, after he slipped and fell at the Yale Club of New York City. Judge Bork was scheduled to give a speech at the club, but he fell when mounting the dais, and injured his head and left leg. He alleges that the Yale Club is liable for the $1m plus punitive damages because they "wantonly, willfully, and recklessly" failed to provide staging which he could climb safely.

Judge Bork has been a leading advocate of restricting plaintiffs' ability to recover through tort law. In a 2002 article published in the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy--the official journal of the Federalist Society--Bork argued that frivolous claims and excessive punitive damage awards have caused the Constitution to evolve into a document which would allow Congress to enact tort reforms that would have been unconstitutional at the framing:

State tort law today is different in kind from the state tort law known to the generation of the Framers. The present tort system poses dangers to interstate commerce not unlike those faced under the Articles of Confederation. Even if Congress would not, in 1789, have had the power to displace state tort law, the nature of the problem has changed so dramatically as to bring the problem within the scope of the power granted to Congress. Accordingly, proposals, such as placing limits or caps on punitive damages, or eliminating joint or strict liability, which may once have been clearly understood as beyond Congress's power, may now be constitutionally appropriate.

Ted Frank, another leading proponent of tort reform, questions the merits of Judge Bork's claims:

I sympathize with Judge Bork's serious injuries, but it's beyond me what his lawyers are thinking in asking for punitive damages. And if any danger is open and obvious such that there is an assumption of the risk, surely the absence of stairs to reach a lectern on a dais is—especially if the dais is of the "unreasonable" height that the complaint alleges it to be.

It is widely being reported today that Catholic Charities is dropping its foster care program becasue it is unable to obtain insurance after a $12 Million settlement last summer. I am one of the attorneys who represented the three children and I would like to set the record straight. Here are the facts of the case taken from the mediation submission we made on behalf of the minor children:

Continue reading "The Truth About Catholic Charities Foster Care Settlement" »

Several reports today, including one by Ofelia Casillas and Manya A. Brachear the Chicago Tribune, state that Catholic Charities of the Archdiocese of Chicago has been forced to drop its foster care program because it is unable to obtain insurance after a $12 Million settlement last summer. I was one of the attorneys representing the plaintiffs in that case, and I would like to set the record straight.

I represented three minors who were subjected to severe abuse while in Catholic Charities' foster care system. The children were repeatedly sexually abused, physically abused, malnourished, and neglected. The case finally came to the attention of DCFS when a medical provider reported that the foster parent forcibly placed the middle child's hands in a pot of boiling water.

There was evidence that Catholic Charities was guilty of gross neglect while responsible for these children:

1. Licensed an unqualified foster parent;
2. Failed to obtain an employment verification for the foster parent;
3. Placed the children in the foster parent’s home even though there were not enough bedrooms;
4. Failed to perform home visits as often as required by DCFS regulations;
5. Never acted upon reports that indicated the children were being abused and malnourished;
6. Failed to remove the children from the home when the foster parent requested Catholic Charities to do so;
7. Lost or destroyed key records with respect to this foster home

I feel that justice has been served here. The children of Illinois will be better served by being transferred into the care of other social service agencies that follow the rules.

This case did not come about by any single lapse by Catholic Charities. It took the combined failures listed above to result in the devastating abuses to these children. If Catholic Charities had acted responsibly with respect to any of the foregoing lapses, the children I represent would not have been abused, the case would never have existed, the settlement would not have occurred, and Catholic Charities would not be subject to increased insurance premiums.

WBBM's Bob Roberts reports that a South Shore family Tuesday became the first to file suit in Cook County Circuit Court against Con-Agra Foods over salmonella contracted from tainted peanut butter.

The lawsuit was filed by Chicago attorneys Hurley McKenna & Mertz, P.C.

"That's all it takes when you have food poisoning from salmonella," said attorney Chris Hurley. "One peanut butter sandwich will do it."

When Con-Agra recalled Peter Pan and Great Value-brand peanut butter bearing the code "2111" on the lid earlier this month, Hurley said the woman checked her cabinet and found a recalled jar.

Hurley said the single, stay-at-home mother required rehydration at an area hospital, and the children missed more than a week of school. Hurley said all suffer residual effects, including moderate cramping.

Public health officials have documented more than 300 cases in 39 states since last August. The recall covers all peanut butter made at Con-Agra Foods' Sylvester, Ga., plan since August 2006.

Hurley said the family decided to file the suit to try to force Con-Agra to take greater care in the future.

The Chicago Tribune and Associated Press are reporting that a Chicago woman sued ConAgra Foods, Inc. after she and her family became violently ill after eating Peter Pan peanut butter that was tainted with salmonella.

The lawsuit was filed by Chicago lawyers Hurley McKenna & Mertz, P.C. in Cook County Circuit Court Tuesday. At least three similar lawsuits nationwide have been filed against the company.

Federal officials have linked the peanut butter to a salmonella outbreak that has sickened almost 300 people nationwide since August. At least five people in Illinois have tested positive for the same form of salmonella.

Salmonella sickens about 40,000 people a year in the U.S. and kills about 600. It can cause diarrhea, fever, dehydration, abdominal pain and vomiting.