Chicago Personal Injury Lawyer Blog

On June 8, 2011, the Plaintiff was working as a welder for Parallel Employment Group and was performing welding work at the Unicarriers America Corporation f/k/a Nissan Forklift plant in Marengo, IL.

That morning, a supervisory-level Nissan employee gave the Plaintiff a Hornell HNR 900FV welding respirator 9000, which is a type of protective helmet. That evening, after using the helmet, the Plaintiff began experiencing problems with burry vision. Later that evening the Plaintiff was taken to the emergency room where doctors informed him that he had "welder's flash," a painful condition caused by exposure of insufficiently protected eyes to the ultraviolet (UV) rays.

After receiving additional medical treatment, the Plaintiff learned that his macula and retinas had been completely burned. After follow-up appointments with no improvement or change in condition, the Plaintiff turned to the personal injury lawyers at Power Rogers & Smith in order to pursue a lawsuit on his behalf. The Plaintiff is represented by Devon C. Bruce, a partner at Power Rogers & Smith, P.C.

The Complaint filed on behalf of the Plaintiff contains allegations that the helmet provided to him when he began working at Nissan was defective. Specifically, the Plaintiff alleges that the Hornell helmet was unreasonably dangerous in a number of respects: (1) it was designed to depend and operate on a battery cell; (2) it was not designed to continue to operate if a battery lacks a charge; and (3) it did not contain any way of identifying that the helmet battery was running low. In addition, the complaint contains allegations that Nissan was negligent in providing the Plaintiff with the defective helmet and for failing to warn or instruct him about the operation and use of the helmet.

As Mr. Bruce explained, "because of this unreasonably dangerous helmet, the Plaintiff is unable to read, has no central vision, experiences pain when in sunlight or other bright light sources." Mr. Bruce continued, "this injury was entirely preventable. This helmet was dangerously and defectively designed and the Nissan Plant should not have given him a helmet without instructions and insufficient battery charge."

The lawsuit is currently pending in the Circuit Court of Winnebago County, located in Rockford, Illinois.

On April 18, 2013, the Illinois Supreme Court issued its opinion in Russell v. SNFA, 2013 IL 113909. The State's highest Court agreed with the Plaintiff's argument that the Cook County Court hearing the underlying case has jurisdiction over the Defendant-foreign manufacturer.

The facts of the underlying case are tragic. The litigation resulted from a helicopter crash that took the life of pilot and sole occupant, Michael Russell. Mr. Russell was working as a pilot for a Chicago air ambulance company called Air Angels, Inc. at the time of the crash. The cause of the crash was the failure of one of the tail-rotor bearings, a custom-made metal assembly, which was manufactured by Defendant SNFA.

After the crash, the Plaintiff's Estate retained the Chicago law firm of Power Rogers & Smith. Todd A. Smith and Brian LaCien of the firm filed suit against multiple entitles, aside from SNFA, including the prior owner of the helicopter, the manufacturer of the helicopter, and the American distributor of SNFA's bearings.

After the initial filing of the lawsuit, SNFA moved to dismiss the action, arguing that the Illinois court could not properly assert jurisdiction over it. The Circuit Court of Cook County granted Defendant's motion and dismissed SNFA from the case. Smith and LaCien appealed the decision and the Appellate Court reversed, finding that the Circuit Court could subject SNFA to jurisdiction in Illinois. SNFA appealed and the Supreme Court affirmed the Appellate Court's decision, ruling in favor of the Plaintiff.

In briefing the issue, Plaintiff highlighted the fact that SNFA is a French company that manufactured custom-made bearings for use in airplanes and helicopters. While SNFA does not have a license to do business in Illinois, SNFA knowingly used the helicopter's manufacturer's distributor to distribute and market in the U.S., including Illinois. Indeed, SNFA's sales personnel made multiple sales of other products in Illinois and SNFA maintains a business relationship with a company in Rockford, Illinois for the purpose of selling additional custom-made bearings to Illinois consumers. Consequently, the Court found that these contacts with Illinois were sufficient to ensure due process was satisfied and that the exercise of jurisdiction over SNFA was reasonable and proper.

This was an important win, not only in the Russell case, but for all product liability cases involving a foreign defendant that, although it does not have a license to do business within the state, manufactures a dangerous product that injures someone in Illinois. Mr. Smith, who argued the case before the Illinois Supreme Court, commented, "The Court's recent decision ensures that Mr. Russell's lawsuit against SNFA can move forward, and that other plaintiffs seeking justice against foreign manufacturers will be able to do so, as well."

Continue reading "Power Rogers & Smith Wins Important Argument in Illinois Supreme Court" »

On February 22, 2008, a Chicago-area man was injured when his legs were crushed in a paper baler, a massive piece of industrial equipment used to compact large quantities of paper. The injury occurred when the Plaintiff, who was employed by a cleaning company as a janitor, recognized that the baler was jammed and entered a chute, which fed the baler from above, in order to clear the jam. After he cleared the jam, the Plaintiff fell into the baler. There was nothing preventing the Plaintiff's fall, such as lanyards and harnesses. In addition, no training regarding OSHA lockout procedures had been provided. After the Plaintiff fell, the baler's ram crushed his legs.

Later that year, Joseph A. Power, Jr. and Brian LaCien of the Chicago personal injury law firm of Power Rogers & Smith, P.C. filed a lawsuit on behalf of the Plaintiff seeking compensation for his catastrophic injuries. The suit was filed against both the factory owner and operator. In turn, the Defendants brought a third party complaint against the cleaning company that employed the Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff's complaint alleged that Defendants violated OSHA and applicable safety standards by failing to: (1) ensure that the Plaintiff was properly trained on how to safely clear paper jams; (2) ensure that the Plaintiff had available and utilized fall protection; (3) ensure that lockout was followed while the machine was being worked on and/or when a person is in the chute/; (4) provide a hazard assessment; and (5) ensure there were adequate warning signs and that the hatches be secured by locks so that only authorized personnel could enter the chute.

Defendants denied that they knew the Plaintiff or other cleaning company employees entered the chute to unclog paper at any time prior to and including the occurrence. They contended that the Plaintiff and the cleaning company, as the Plaintiff's employer, were the entities liable for his injuries. However, Mr. Power and Mr. LaCien discovered evidence that individuals had entered the chute to clear paper jams in the past. The Defendants and Third Party Defendant received OSHA violations as a result of the incident.

On February 20, 2013, Mr. Power and Mr. LaCien settled with Defendants for $23,000,000.00 as compensation for the Plantiff's pain and suffering, disfigurement, past and future medical care, wage losses and all other available damages.

Continue reading "Chicago-area Man Receives $23 Million Dollar Settlement after Legs Crushed by Baler" »

During the last two years, Plaintiffs from all over Illinois, from Chicagoland to Rockford, have filed complaints against DePuy Orthopaedics ("DePuy") for its role in designing, manufacturing, marketing and distributing faulty hip implants that led to serious and permanent injuries. Devon C. Bruce of Power Rogers & Smith is representing nine of these Illinois Plaintiffs.

DePuy is a multi-national company owned by Johnson & Johnson that sells products used for repairing and reconstructing joints and other portions of the skeleton. According to The New York Times, it is the largest maker of replacement hips worldwide. And, according to DePuy's website, in August of 2010 it issued a voluntary recall of its hip implants called "ASRs." These ASRs first became available in July of 2003 and remained on the market for 7 years despite mounting research indicating that these ASR implants were unsafe and caused permanent injuries to their users.

The ASRs manufactured by DePuy belong to a category of devices known as "metal-on-metal" implants. Such implants caused concern when it was realized that they generate large amounts of metallic debris during use.

This debris, floating free in a patient's system, can cause severe and permanent damage to muscles and other soft tissues. (See Reference 2, below.) In fact, some surgeons reported finding masses of dead tissue around patients' hip joints when performing surgery to replace the faulty implant. (See Reference 1, below.)

According to certain reports, such as this article that appeared in The New York Times, the ASR hip implant was approved by the Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") because of a loophole in the FDA's approval system. Whereas new products are required to undergo a series of clinical trials before receiving approval from the FDA, an implant, such as DePuy's ASR implant, can be sold without extensive testing if it resembles one that is already in use. Experts criticize this exception to the FDA's general standard because it allows certain untested components to gain approval and be distributed to the general public before it is determined that they are safe for implantation. (See Reference 1, below.)

For some, the faulty ASR implant required additional painful procedures in which the device was surgically replaced with another implant. For others, however, the damage to bone, muscles and nerves left them with permanent disability. In the case of Mr. Bruce's clients, the damage was severe and included extreme pain, permanent scarring and toxic levels of cobolt and chromium in patients' blood. Mr. Bruce commented, "our clients made the decision to have a hip replacement in order to alleviate the pain and dsiability they were experiencing, only to find that the implant they received would cause them even greater injury and, in some cases, permanent disability." He added, "Had DePuy tested this metal-on-metal implant according to industry standards, the implant's defects could have been discovered and all of these injuries could have been avoided."

The cases are currently pending in multidistrict litigation in the Northern District of Ohio and the parties are undergoing discovery in order to determine how much DePuy knew regarding the ASR's faulty design at the time it was first marketed to the public.

References:

1. "The Implants Loophole," The New York Times, Barry Meier (December 15, 2010).

2. "With Warning, a Hip Device Is Withdrawn," The New York Times, Barry Meier (March 9, 2010).

Continue reading "DePuy Hip Implant Lawsuit Moves Forward for Illinois Plaintiffs" »

On September 20, 2011, a brother and sister from Harvey, Illinois, a south suburb of Chicago, filed a complaint against BirdBrain, Inc. and Target Corporation for injuries they sustained when the firepot they were using exploded, causing flammable fire fuel gel to splatter on them, producing third degree burns.

The suit alleges that the Plaintiff-consumers purchased the firepot lantern at the Target store in nearby Tinley Park, Illinois and that after igniting the "fire fuel gel," a flammable lighter gel that comes pre-packaged with the firepot, the two were injured when the firepot exploded. Similar complaints have been made across the country, prompting Birdbrain, Inc. to issue a recall of its fire gel product. According to the U.S. Consumer Product and Safety Commission (CPSC), which issued a warning about two weeks after the Illinois complaint was filed, the pourable gel fuel "can ignite unexpectedly and splatter onto people and objects nearby when it is poured into a firepot that is still burning." The CPSC recall makes reference to at least 20 other incidents resulting in 11 injuries that involved first-, second- and third-degree burns.

Victims of similar accidents involving a competitor's fire fuel gel have compared the flammable substance to Napalm, saying it exploded suddenly, sticking to their clothing and skin and it would not stop burning even when the victims dropped and rolled on the ground or covered the flames with a blanket.

The Harvey, IL Plaintiffs are represented by Devon C. Bruce of Power Rogers & Smith, P.C. of Chicago. The suit alleges counts of strict liability and negligence against BirdBrain, Inc. and Target for their role in manufacturing, selling and exposing the general public to the dangerous and defective fire fuel gel. Additionally, the suit alleges that BirdBrain, Inc. and Target failed to provide adequate warnings to consumers regarding the fuel gel's explosive tendencies. Mr. Bruce commented, "the Defendant's recall of its product together with the number of incidents involving the fire gel demonstrate the dangerous nature of this product."

The case is currently pending in the Northern District of Illinois Federal Court, and the parties are conducting discovery in order to determine exactly how the incident occurred.

References:

• "Bird Brain Recalls Pourable Gel Fuel Due to Burn and Flash Fire Hazards," U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, October 5, 2011
• "Fuel Gel Consumer Recall," BirdBrain Inc.
• "Manufacturer Recalls Pourable Fuel Gel After Injuries in Firepot Accidents," NY Times, June 22, 2011.

Continue reading "Chicago Area Siblings File Lawsuit Against BirdBrain Firepot and Fuel Gel Manufacturer" »