Posts Tagged ‘Chicago Personal Injury Lawyer’

Dangerous Individuals and the Duty to Warn

Wednesday, January 19th, 2011

Periodically, our nation is rocked by a senseless tragedy:  a gunman who attacks and kills innocent students or bystanders.  Most recently, Americans were shocked as a deeply disturbed individual, Jared Loughner, attacked those assembled at a “Congress on your corner” event, claiming lives and leaving others injured, including a brain injury to a U.S. representative.  In the wake of such tragedies, many people, including the wrongful death attorneys of Passen Law Group, are left wondering if something more could have been done to prevent these needless deaths and injuries.

Immediately following the Tucson shooting, videos Loughner had posted on YouTube revealed, even to the untrained, that Loughner was suffering from mental illness.  As we learn more about Loughner and his background, it becomes painfully obvious that many, many individuals were aware of Loughner’s illness, and his potential for violence, yet chose to do nothing.

In this case, the institution with the most knowledge of the threat Loughner posed was Pima Community College, which Loughner attended prior to the shooting.  The college has identified Loughner as a threat, and potentially violent.  In the wake of the shooting, Pima Community College officials released 51 pages of documents from the campus police, describing Loughner as, among other things, “creepy,” and “very hostile.”  These documents detailed at least five incidents that had required a response from campus police – including the final incident, Loughner’s posting of a bizarre video on YouTube describing the college as a “scam” and linking the institution to genocide.

So, what action did the college take?  Pima Community College chose to remove Loughner from the school, thus protecting the school and its students.  The college informed Loughner, and his family, that he could not return unless a mental health examination revealed that he was not dangerous.  Unsurprisingly, he never came back.

Could the college have done more?  Maybe. As our personal injury lawyers are well aware, the law varies from state to state, in Arizona state law permits a college to force a student whom the school identifies as sick or potentially violent into counseling.  This issue is becoming more and more significant as the number of students suffering from mental illness steadily increases.  Recently, the American College Counseling Association published survey results showing that of the students who visit college counseling centers, 44 percent suffer from a severe psychological disorders – increased from only 16 percent in 2000. Likewise, 25 percent of all college students are now on psychiatric medication, up from only 17 percent just a decade ago.

Of these students, most do not pose any threat to themselves or others.  But for those that do, schools such as Pima Community College have options available.  And the school need not know absolutely that a student poses a threat – it simply must have a valid basis for believing that without treatment, the student could become a threat.  As Chick Arnold, who serves on the board of Mental Health American of Arizona, has stated, “You don’t have to wait for that dangerousness to have manifested itself yet. If you think the guy has a mental disorder, is not willing to get treatment and in the absence of treatment might become dangerous, that would be covered to get someone into the system.”

Pima Community College did nothing of the kind.  Indeed, a school representative stated that the college had never taken advantage of this law.  The school did not file a petition to force Loughner to receive a psychiatric assessment.  It also appears that the college never even alerted authorities outside the school to the potential danger Loughner posed.  Our wrongful death lawyers are deeply saddened by the consequences of the school’s failure to take advantage of this state law.

Can the school be held liable, in court, for this failure?  That is a complicated question, and one that has not yet been answered under Arizona law.  Had the school taken action, Loughner could have received the help he needed, perhaps preventing this tragedy.  And action by the school would have placed Loughner in the care of those who do have a legal duty to take action.

Specifically, action by the school would have forced Loughner into the care of a mental health professional – whether a psychiatrist, psychologist, or therapist.  As our wrongful death attorneys know, such professionals have a duty to warn third parties and inform the authorities if a client may pose a threat to himself or any other identifiable individual.  This duty has been established since the 1970s, when the landmark case of Tarasoff v. Regents of the University of California established the duty.

Even when there is no threat to an identifiable victim, but simply the threat of violence against innocent bystanders, the mental health professional can then take action – by forcing the patient into treatment, or institutionalization (temporary or permanent) if necessary.

It is too late to save the victims of Loughner’s Tucson rampage.  But our personal injury lawyers hope that Pima Community College, and other schools nationwide, take note of the consequences of failure to act.  Perhaps if they do, there will be fewer innocent victims in the future.

For a free consultation with an experienced Chicago wrongful death attorney at Passen Law Group, call us at (312) 527-4500.

share save 171 16 Dangerous Individuals and the Duty to Warn

Signing of Release Precludes Negligence Liability: IL App. Ct.

Tuesday, October 19th, 2010

Our Chicago personal injury attorneys are sometimes asked to represent clients whose injuries may have been contemplated by a contract between the client and the possible defendants.  Where a potential plaintiff has signed a waiver or release that may cover the claims at issue, obtaining relief can become more difficult.

Experienced personal injury attorneys such as those at Passen Law Group know that a release does not
make recovery impossible. But we also know that the best way to ensure that a release does not prevent you from obtaining the compensation you deserve after an accident is not to sign the release at all.

A recent opinion from the Illinois Appellate Court, First District confirms that the onus is on the consumer to avoid signing releases which might prevent recovery down the road – even when the consumer is affirmatively misinformed as to what she is signing.

In Oelze v. Score Sports Venture, 09-1476, the Circuit Court of Cook County was faced with an injury sustained by Ms. Oelze while playing tennis at the defendant sports club.  Each of the tennis courts at the club was separated from a walkway area by a heavy curtain.  When a player ran back to intercept a ball, he or she could run into the curtain, moving in up to a couple of inches.

This is precisely what happened to Ms. Oelze.  Unfortunately, when Ms. Oelze ran into the curtain, a rope ladder used for conditioning had been left directly behind the curtain.  Ms. Oelze’s foot became entangled in the ladder, and she fell, breaking her elbow and tearing her rotator cuff.

Ms. Oelze brought suit against the club for its negligence in leaving the rope ladder directly behind the curtain.  Prior to her accident, however, Ms. Oelze had signed a membership agreement containing a release of liability broad enough to cover such a claim.

Ms. Oelze attempted to avoid the application of the release she signed by asserting that when she signed the release, she was informed by the club employee who presented it to her that it was an authorization for automatic payments of club dues.  This was, in fact, correct – but the form also contained the terms of membership, including the release, facts not mentioned to Ms. Oelze by the club employee.  But this information was contained on the form itself, and Ms. Oelze admitted that she did not read the form except to confirm that the payment amount listed was accurate.

The Circuit Court held on summary judgment that Ms. Oelze could not avoid the application of the release, and the Illinois Appellate Court affirmed.  In doing so, the Appellate Court had harsh words for consumers such as Ms. Oelze.  The court concluded that even where a consumer is affirmatively misinformed or mislead as to the contents of a form, the consumer has a duty to read that form before signing.

If a consumer does not read language contained on the form, according to the Appellate Court, then it is her own fault that she was mislead and she cannot avoid the application of the release which she had no knowledge of signing.

While this conclusion has some surface appeal, it threatens to swallow the rules of contract.   The appellate court rejected the plaintiff’s assertion that she was forced to sign an “involuntary waiver” agreement.  The Court noted that defendants may contract to avoid liability for its own negligence unless (1) there is substantial disparity in bargaining power between the parties; (2) to enforce the contract would violate public policy; and (3) there is something in the social relationship between the parties that would militate against upholding the contract.  None of these exceptions were found to apply.

The Appellate Court expressly noted that fraud in the inducement (“when the party is induced to enter into the release by false representations by the other party”) and fraud in the execution (“when the plaintiff was induced to sign the agreement not knowing it was a release, but believing it to be another type of document”) allow a plaintiff to avoid a signed release.  Yet the court still concluded that a failure to read is the death-knell of a plaintiff’s claims.

Our Chicago personal injury lawyers are disappointed with this opinion, which places an unreasonable burden on consumers.  To think that corporations may contract-away their own negligence through boilerplate language on some release that most consumers don’t even read, and even if they did read, would be forced to sign in order to use the corporation’s facilities, is plainly unfair.  Companies that open their property and their facilities to the public should be responsible for injuries sustained on their property caused by their own negligence.  Period.

The Oelze opinion teaches consumers a valuable lesson.  The sheer number of forms presented to consumers in our modern world can be overwhelming at times.  Yet it behooves consumers to carefully read, or at least read, each of these forms before signing – even if told what it contains.  While this can be burdensome, impractical, and unrealistic, the alternative is much worse.  If you are seriously injured on the property of another, your unknowing release may preclude recovery, notwithstanding the negligence of the corporate defendant.

Our accident attorneys in Chicago will continue to represent those seriously injured or killed due to the negligence of another, even in instances where those injured signed release of liability agreements.  We believe corporate accountability remains, and will use all our resources and creativity to hold those responsible accountable.

For a free consultation with an experienced Chicago personal injury lawyer at Passen Law Group, call us at (312) 527-4500.

share save 171 16 Signing of Release Precludes Negligence Liability: IL App. Ct.

Whistleblowers Hold Healthcare Providers Accountable

Friday, September 10th, 2010

Our Chicago medical malpractice attorneys have long been concerned about the healthcare fraud that runs rampant throughout the U.S. healthcare system – doctors, hospitals, and drug companies who abuse the trust of the U.S. public and take Medicare and Medicaid funds for their own personal gain.  We are thus pleased to learn that new rules affecting whistleblower lawsuits give ordinary citizens additional powers to curb this offensive and illegal behavior.

In a nutshell, “whistleblower” actions are a mechanism created by federal law that permits ordinary citizens, whether related to the healthcare industry or not, to file a federal fraud action against a perpetrator of healthcare fraud, whether a pharmaceutical company, an insurer, a physician, or a hospital.  In that way, the federal government is assisted in its efforts to reduce or eliminate fraud on the Medicaid and Medicare programs, and concerned citizens can themselves take action to prevent their tax dollars from unfairly lining the pockets of the perpetrators. The federal government then has the option of joining the action under the False Claims Act, a federal law dating back to the Civil War and geared towards preventing fraud against the United States.

From 1999 to 2009, the total amount recovered from whistleblower and related healthcare cases has increased dramatically.  In fact, it has more than tripled.  And this figure, which is drawn from data from the U.S. Justice Department, does not even include the largest whistleblower settlement of all time, which was announced in 2009 but was not effected before the end of the 2009 fiscal year.  In that settlement, pharmaceutical giant Pfizer Inc. paid a staggering $1 billion in settlement money to end an investigation into off-label promotion (the promotion of a drug for a use for which it has not been granted FDA approval) related to the painkiller Bextra and three other drugs.  Nor does this figure include the related criminal settlement, in which Pfizer paid another $1.3 billion .

Moreover, the sheer number of whistleblower healthcare actions has ballooned.  Last year, a record number of these whistleblower actions were filed.  Experts believe that this year’s numbers will easily break last year’s record – a prediction echoed by the medical malpractice attorneys of Passen Law Group.

That is because the laws governing such actions were amended in May of 2009.  The overhauled version of the law adds new risks for healthcare companies in several different ways.  First, the new law makes it easier for ordinary citizens and other whistleblowers to be be compensated or rewarded for uncovering healthcare fraud and reporting it.  Citizen whistleblowers can now file actions when they learn about healthcare fraud, regardless of whether they were ones who actually uncovered the malfeasance.

The new version of the law also changes the substantive rules governing that fraud:  for example, by shortening the amount of time that must elapse before action can be taken against medical providers who withhold overpayments from Medicare and Medicaid.  There are literally pages of new rules with which medical providers must comply.  Perhaps more importantly, the penalties for wrongdoing have also been sharpened.  The fine for a single act of fraud, such as one falsified bill to Medicare, can now run as high as $11,000.

Because the whistleblower rules allow successful whistleblowers to be compensated for their courageous actions, there is now every incentive – both moral and financial – to report and take action to stop healthcare fraud if you learn of it.  If you are aware of an instance of healthcare fraud, we urge you to take action.  Talk to an attorney, and find out if your case is appropriate for a whistleblower action.  All U.S. taxpayers – and perhaps your own pocketbook – will thank you.

For a free consultation with an experienced Chicago personal injury lawyer at Passen Law Group, call us at (312) 527-4500.

share save 171 16 Whistleblowers Hold Healthcare Providers Accountable