Chicago Injury Attorneys Blog
In a personal injury case, you’ll likely need a variety of types of evidence to support your claims. This might include expert opinions, eyewitness testimony, document evidence, and photographic evidence. In the recent wrongful death case of a Chicago-area bicyclist, the bicyclist’s family had all of these things. With this substantial evidence backing up the plaintiffs’ case, the Illinois Appellate Court ruled that the trial court was not unreasonable in finding for the plaintiffs and awarding $1.875 million in damages.
Illinois Appeals Court Affirms Judgment and $1.8M Damages Award for Family of Deceased Bicyclist
If you’ve read enough headlines about air travel, you’ve probably seen it. Whether it was the 
The aftermath of a workplace injury can be a stressful time. In many cases, your injury may leave you so limited that you cannot work. When that happens, it is important to make sure that you get all of the benefits you deserve, such as workers’ compensation, to provide for yourself and your family. For one hospital worker, that involved taking her case to the 
When you’re hurt through the action or inaction of someone else, you know that you’ll face hurdles in your pursuit of compensation. You’ll need to meet procedural obligations. You’ll need to amass sufficient evidence. You’ll need to overcome the other side’s defenses. In some cases, you’ll also need to overcome the other side’s failure to participate in the discovery process properly. When an opponent does this, you’ll need to know how to handle it. In 
In an injury case, as with any civil action, one of the key aspects of the case is the discovery phase of the lawsuit. Whether your case is about liability and damages, or just damages, the discovery process is a vital part of the proceeding, and handling this aspect well can be key to achieving a successful outcome. You certainly want to make sure that you turn over those things that the law says you have to disclose, but you also don’t want to do anything that isn’t required and may weaken your case. In the case of an injured computer analyst, the 
For the fifth consecutive year Attorney
An Illinois auto worker recently succeeded in his effort to get his award of workers’ compensation benefits reinstated. Even though the Ford Motor Company worker injured himself while bending over, which can often be considered by the law a “neutral risk” that does not allow for an award of benefits, he was successful because his evidence was able to persuade the 
Achieving the result you need in a personal injury case is about more than just proving that you were hurt and that it was a foreseeable result of a negligent or intentional act or omission on someone else’s part. In many cases, it is about pursuing (and obtaining a judgment against) the right defendant. Win against a driver who makes $10 per hour for an auto accident that caused you to suffer $5 million in damages, and you may end up with an uncollectable judgment. Obtain a verdict against the driver and the corporate employer for which he was performing an errand when he hit you, and you may have a greater chance of achieving a more meaningful recovery.
If you are a Chicago-area resident who has been injured by someone else’s mistakes, you probably prefer to sue the wrongdoer here in Illinois. Having to carry out your case in some other state means having to hire out-of-state counsel instead of a local law firm, and it very likely means having to travel to this distant location for various events, including the trial. These are just a few of the reasons why it often pays to contest an opponent’s efforts to have a case moved out of state. In one set of cases arising from an Indiana bus crash, a group of Chicago-area plaintiffs successfully persuaded 
In two separate cases involving very similar sets of facts, two different Northern Illinois bicyclists won their respective appeals and got renewed opportunities to pursue compensation for the harm they suffered after they fell while riding along bike paths in the greater Chicago area. In both cases, the plaintiffs’ appeals succeeded because the government entities that owned and were responsible for maintaining the paths were not immune from suit under Illinois statutes.