Mom’s active phase of labor was less than two hours when Dr. Thorpe placed a vacuum on the baby’s head in an effort to extricate him without maternal or fetal threat. The initial cup used was a Kiwi Pro Cup, which is designed for occiput anterior positioning, however the fetal head position was occiput posterior. The cup popped-off and Dr. Thorpe next applied a Kiwi Omni cup which also popped-off after traction. The cups were placed at 0 to +1 station (mid-pelvis) and were not properly positioned at the flexion point. Because of vacuum use, the baby suffered a focal arterial stroke due to occlusion of blood flow in the right middle cerebral artery. The minor plaintiff is disabled and has permanent and severe injuries.

Motor Vehicle/Death: On September 25, 2020, plaintiff’s decedent, age 43, was a front seat passenger in a Ford pick-up truck hauling a camper traveling westbound on I-80 near mile marker 86 in LaSalle County, Illinois. Defendant driver was operating a freight truck travelling immediately behind plaintiff’s vehicle. The driver was making a delivery to a client which was within the course and scope of his employment of the employee’s company. The traffic on I-80 began to slow down and/or come to a complete stop for construction. The defendant driver failed to slow down and/or stop along with the flow of traffic. As a result, he drove his truck at a high rate of speed into the plaintiff’s vehicle. The impact caused the plaintiff’s vehicle to be pushed into another vehicle and a total of six vehicles were involved in the collision. The impact caused an explosion and the plaintiff’s vehicle became engulfed in flames. Plaintiff’s decedent became trapped in the vehicle and was burned to death. Plaintiff’s decedent left surviving a wife, one adult son and one minor daughter. (2021)

B.J. v. City of Chicago

(2018) Police Shooting: On December 26, 2015, Plaintiff’s Decedent, a 55-year-old Chicago resident, lived on the first floor at 4710 W. Erie in Chicago. Antonio LeGrier resided upstairs at 4710 W. Erie. Quintonio LeGrier, Antonio’s son, was home for Christmas break. Quintonio was a 19 year old Northern Illinois University student. 911 tapes reveal that early in the morning on December 26, Quintonio LeGrier called 911 three times in the minutes prior to his shooting, begging to have the police come to his father’s house on west Erie for assistance for a domestic dispute. Antonio LeGrier, his father, also contacted 911 and officers were dispatched in response to his call.

Officer Robert Rialmo responded to 4710 W. Erie, along with Officer Anthony LaPalermo in response to a disturbance/check on the well-being call, with the offender armed with a bat. Upon arriving at the residence and ringing the doorbell, they were greeted by Plaintiff’s Dececent. Decedent pointed to the stairwell and said that the disturbance was upstairs. At that time, according to Officer Rialmo, Quintonio LeGrier appeared holding an aluminum baseball bat. Officer Rialmo was backing down the stairs onto the front walkway away from the front door and drew his service weapon. Officer Rialmo then fired his service weapon in the direction of Quintonio LeGrier. Officer Rialmo never saw her relocate out of the vestibule into her apartment, and he fired his weapon directly at the doorway where he had last seen the Decedent. Officer Rialmo discharged his weapon at least seven times, and one of the rounds that Officer Rialmo fired, struck, and killed Plaintiff’s Decedent. Officer Rialmo never gave her any alert or warning that he would be firing his weapon in her direction.

Plaintiff alleged that the forensic evidence showed that Officer Rialmo had created sufficient space between he and Quintonio and he was not in imminent danger of being struck by Quintonio’s bat. Officer Rialmo discharged his firearm at least seven times at Quintonio LeGrier, striking him six times and she sustained a fatal gunshot wound to her chest. The force used by Officer Rialmo against Quintonio LeGrier resulted in Quintonio and Decedent’s death. Plaintiff maintained that the force used against Quintonio LeGrier was not objectively reasonable and was contrary to generally accepted police practices and procedures.

Additionally, Plaintiff argued that Officer Rialmo gave Decedent no opportunity to position herself in a location where she would not be at risk of harm from him firing his weapon. Plaintiff alleged that Officer Rialmo took no steps whatsoever to ensure that Decedent, an innocent person, was not at risk of injury or harm from the firing of his weapon. Plaintiff maintained that the actions of Officer Rialmo contradicted generally accepted police practices and procedures and constituted willful and wanton conduct.

Plaintiff was represented by partner, Larry Rogers Jr., and associate, Jonathan M. Thomas

H.R.G. v. Gianluca Lazzaro, M.D., et al.

(2017) Medical Malpractice: 37 year old male with complaints of abdominal pain presented to emergency room for care and treatment. Consultation was obtained from gastroenterology and general surgery; CT scanning was performed of the abdomen and pelvis. On the first day of his admission the CT scan was under-read and failed to point out findings consistent with appendicitis. Despite indications of sepsis, the gastroenterologist and general surgeon never took nor advocated for surgery. The following day in the evening, H.R.G. suffered a cardio-pulmonary arrest leading to permanent brain injury. Co-counsel with Joseph A. Power, Jr.
Result: $15,750,000.00

H. v. Rush University, et al.

On February 13, 2002, H. presented to Dr. Lopes at Rush University for a second opinion on treatment of an unruptured, small (3×5 cm), left internal carotid artery aneurysm that was incidentally found in a January MRA for an unrelated condition. Dr. Lopes recommended that H. undergo a neuro-interventional coiling procedure whereby a micro-catheter would be inserted into the femoral artery and advanced through her body and into her skull for purposes of delivering small platinum-coated coils into the aneurysm. H. agreed and on February 20, 2002, Dr. Lopes performed the procedure at Rush University. Within an hour of the procedure, H. was documented as experiencing nausea, vomiting and headache. She subsequently arrested and after being resuscitated was taken for an emergent CT scan where an intracerebral hemorrhage was diagnosed. Despite emergency surgery, H. was left profoundly brain damaged.

Plaintiff’s alleged that Dr. Lopes negligently performed a procedure beyond that consented by H. Plaintiff’s alleged that Dr. Lopes went beyond the coiling procedure H. consented to when he performed a non-FDA approved coiling & stenting procedure. The stent & coil procedure Dr. Lopes performed involved Dr. Lopes advancing a stiff and rigid steel coronary stent along a stiffer and more rigid guidewire, designed for larger heart vessels, into the left internal carotid artery of H.’s brain. Plaintiff’s alleged that this was a non-FDA approved use of the stent device that was not indicated given that H.’s aneurysm was small (3×5 cm), asymptomatic and unruptured. Dr. Lopes’ use of the stiffer and more rigid guidewire and coronary stent required the application of torque and force to manipulate the devices through the curves of the intracerebral vessels causing the tip of the guidewire to perforate a distal branch of H.’s middle cerebral artery resulting in an intracerebral hemorrhage. Plaintiff’s alleged that there were signs of an intracerebral bleed during the procedure and immediate post-procedure period that Dr. Lopes and the nursing staff failed to recognize. Plaintiff’s alleged that Dr. Demetrius Lopes and Rush University spoiled evidence of the bleed when 12 of 19 angiography runs from the procedure were not produced and had not been saved on the system’s hard drive.

Power Rogers recovers $15 million for radiation overdose.

N.G. v. A Local Academic Medical Center

(2020) Medical Malpractice: While undergoing surveillance for a previous history of a ruptured brain aneurysm on a 55-year-old female, a recurrent aneurysm was identified on cerebral angiography. About one month later, a decision was made by neuro-interventionalists to attempt a balloon test occlusion (an additional diagnostic study). During the study the balloon test was not performed as the lesion could not be crossed. Following the procedure, signs and symptoms should have revealed to the team that a perioperative stroke may be occurring. A code stroke team was not timely called despite neurologic signs and symptoms following the procedure. As a result, brain injury occurred due to a perioperative stroke including but not limited to permanent difficulties with walking, arm strength, hearing, speech and dizziness. Plaintiff’s experts opined that the additional diagnostic procedure was unnecessary as the aneurysm should have been coiled and a code stroke team should have responded timely.

R. v. Louis A. Weiss Memorial Hospital

On April 8, 2003, Plaintiff underwent a radical open anterior and posterior slovenectomy for a rare knee disease. She underwent the surgery at VHS Subsidiary Number 3, Inc. d/b/a Louis A. Weiss Memorial Hospital. The surgery was performed by the attending physician, who was not an employee of VHS Subsidiary Number 3, Inc. d/b/a Louis A. Weiss Memorial Hospital. The Plaintiff and her expert did not contend that the attending was liable for compartment syndrome, which was a risk of the procedure. Upon examination immediately following surgery, Plaintiff had no complications and a normal neurovascular status. Into the night of April 8, 2003 and morning of April 9, 2003, Plaintiff repeatedly complained of pain below her knee and in her foot and had an abnormal neurovascular status. In response to her complaints, she was given repeated doses of pain medication and her dosage of medication was increased. Moreover, two resident physicians were contacted by the nursing staff but did not come into the hospital to examine Plaintiff. Attending Physician was never contacted about Plaintiff’s complaints or abnormal neurovascular status. Upon examination by the attending physician, at around 6:30 AM, Plaintiff was diagnosed to have compartment syndrome. Shortly thereafter, the attending physician performed a fasciotomy surgery to treat the compartment syndrome by relieving the pressure caused by the compartment syndrome. In the weeks following the initial fasciotomy surgery, Plaintiff required several debridements due to necrotic muscle and tissue below her knee. As a result of the debridements and prolonged compartment syndrome, Plaintiff lost approximately 90% of the muscle in her lower extremity, has foot drop and severe nerve dysfunction.

The Plaintiff claimed that the nurses and resident physicians failed to adequately recognize the significance of Plaintiff’s condition and communicate her condition to the attending physician. Plaintiff further claimed that this lack of recognition and communication prevented a timely diagnose and treatment of the compartment syndrome which resulted in Plaintiff;s extensive muscle and tissue death in her lower extremity.

Jury Verdict: $14,891,123.02

Last Offer: $2,500,000.00

R. v. United/Goedecke Services, Inc.

On December 22, 1999, United/Goedecke Services, Inc. was lifting a 25 foot I-bar utilizing a hoist called a tugger when the 25 foot I-bar fell 110 feet, striking and killing R. R. was the signalman, directing a 25 foot I-bar up the tugger bay. The plaintiff alleged the defendant was negligent in failing to more securely attach the I-bar as it was lifted up the tugger bay. The defendant claimed that R. never should have been in the tugger bay, under a load, while it was being lifted and should have used a radio next to the tugger operator and outside the bay as a safer, more effective means of communicating. They also claimed R. adjusted the sling, altering the cinch point which was responsible for it falling upon him.

Jury Verdict: $14,230,000.00

Reduced 35% to: $9,250,000.00

Offer prior to Trial: $1,500,000.00

Offer after Closing Argument: $2,500,000.00

R. v. Seadog Ventures, Inc., et al.

On October 12, 1997, R. was run over by a commercial boat named the Sea Dog, near Oak Street Beach in Chicago, Illinois. It was almost six weeks after the swimming season was over and the beaches were closed.

The plaintiffs argued the vessel came too close to shore, failed to keep a proper look-out and that the defendant failed to properly train its captains in the rules of the U.S. Coast Guard as well as its own rules.

The defense argued that with the swimming season over and the Chicago beaches had been closed for almost six weeks it was unforeseeable that there would be a swimmer in the water over fifty yards from shore, with a 60 degree water temperature, three to five foot waves and a small craft advisory. A Chicago Park District rule prohibits swimming over 50 yards off shore.

Prior to the trial commencing the defendants offered $3,000,000.00. During jury selection the defendants offered $5,000,0000.00. It was suggested the offer would never exceed that amount which was equal to the largest amount ever awarded for a below the knee amputation. After opening statements and after three witnesses testified for the plaintiffs the defendants increased their offer to $6,500,000.00. This was the figure the trial judge recommended to settle the case. These offers were rejected by the plaintiffs.

Jury Verdict: $13,500,000.00

Reduced 20%: $10,800,000.00