One of the great tools in a plaintiff lawyer’s arsenal in Illinois is the Health Care Services Lien Act, which reduces the amount of certain medical liens in some cases. It can really help increase the total amount your client ends up with in a settlement.
A new case from the 5th District, Stanton v. Rea, notes that the 40% of the settlement that goes to the medical lienholders should not be calculated until after costs have been subtracted from the settlement. In other words, the Act doesn’t mean 40% of the pie, it means 40% of the pie after costs. In some cases, that can make a big difference.
My partner, Mike Warner, just spoke on some new aspects of the Lien Act at the recent Rock Island County Bar Association Seminar. I think a thorough “how to” post is forthcoming.
(Howard Zimmerle is a personal injury lawyer in the Quad Cities of Iowa and Illinois, helping people who have been injured due to someone else’s fault. He can be reached at 309-794-1660 or hzimmerle [at] mjwlaw.com).
About a year ago I blogged about a 5th District case that would allow lawyers to reduce the amount of medical provider liens pursuant to the Illinois common fund doctrine.
Never mind, because the Illinois Supreme Court reversed it.
It was a nice tool while it lasted.
(Howard Zimmerle is a personal injury lawyer in the Quad City area. You can reach him at 309-794-1660 or hzimmerle [at] mjwlaw.com)
It happens too often.
Parent settles case on behalf of minor. The court orders the settlement proceeds to be invested and not to be touched without a court order until the minor turns 18 (or 21). Somehow, a parent dips into the money after all, and by the time the minor finds out, the money’s all gone.
It really does happen often, despite certain protections in the system.
Luckily, in Newell v. Newell, the Third District allowed an action against the parent and the bank in one of these situations. The court held that a three year statute of limitations applied, but also applied the discovery rule, so that the statute of limitations didn’t begin to run until the minor knew or had reason to know that a cause of action might exist.
(Howard Zimmerle is a lawyer in the Quad Cities, regularly handling cases in Moline, Bettendorf, Rock Island, Davenport, East Moline and other areas. You can reach him at 309-794-1660 or hzimmerle [at] mjwlaw.com)
Here is an article about a dram shop case we filed last week. I won’t add much to what is in the article because the case is pending. It should be noted, though, that a bar only needs to be “a cause” not “the main cause” or “the biggest cause” of someone’s intoxication (although it has to be more than de minimis).
(Howard Zimmerle is a personal injury attorney in the Quad Cities who handles car accidents and dram shop cases, as well as many other injury matters. He can be reached at 309-794-1660 or hzimmerle [at] mjwlaw.com).
I guess the headline of this post says it all. Just remember that People v. Clark is a criminal case, and is a Second District case, not Illinois Supreme Court. Still, this is a good weapon to have in your trial lawyer’s arsenal.
(Howard Zimmerle practices plaintiff’s personal injury law in Rock Island Illinois and Davenport Iowa, as well as the surrounding areas. You can contact him at hzimmerle [at] mjwlaw.com, or 309-794-1660).
Hey folks, I just wanted to publicize a few of new posts on the Rock Island Workers Compensation Attorney Blog. That is my other blog, intended to give regular people an overview of Illinois workers comp law. So here are some of my recent efforts:
“How much would an Illinois Workers Compensation Lawyer Charge Me?”
“Is My Workers Comp Case Set in Illinois? What State Can I Bring it in?”
“What is a Leg Injury Worth in Illinois (workers comp)”
(Howard Zimmerle is a trial lawyer in Rock Island and Davenport. You can contact him at 309-794-1660 or hzimmerle [at] mjwlaw.com)
Requests to Admit are a fantastic discovery/trial tool, and recent Illinois cases have eliminated a lot of the BS games attorneys used to play with them.
A change to Illinois Supreme Court Rule 216 creates some new requirements though:
1. No more than 30 RTAs can be served without agreement or court approval (including subparts). What’s a subpart? I’d look to Rule 213 and cases discussing interrogatories for guidance. (Why “RTAs” and not “Rs to A”? Sorry grammar police, I’m taking the lead of baseball and it’s constant reference to “RBIs”).
2. The following language must be included in at least 12 point boldface type:
“WARNING: If you fail to serve the response required by Rule 216 within 28
days after you are served with this paper, all the facts set forth in the requests
will be deemed true and all the documents described in the requests will be
Several other recent changes to the Illinois Supreme Court Rules can be found here.