Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Archives: December, 2011

Tools of the Trade: Responding to the Complaint

A defendant generally responds to a complaint by filing an answer (sometimes including affirmative defenses, counter-claims, cross-claims and/or third party claims) or by filing a motion to dismiss. Dave Collins explains the difference between a substantive motion to dismiss and a non-substantive motion to dismiss.

 

Appellate Court Orders Commission to Award Penalties for Non Payment of Award while Employee’s Appeal is Pending

In Jacabo v. IWCC, the Appellate Court ruled an employer should pay 19(l) and 19(k) penalties after failing to pay TTD/PTD benefits during a lengthy appeal process. The TTD/PTD benefits were not disputed in the appeal.

 

Illinois Supreme Court Clarifies Employer’s Proof Required to Enforce Non-Compete Agreements

On December 1, 2011, the Illinois Supreme Court issued its decision in Reliable Fire Equipment Company v. Arredondo. The Court held that an employer must prove the protection of a legitimate business interest in order for a covenant not to compete to be reasonable and enforceable.

 

Malpractice or Manslaughter: Comments on People v. Conrad Murray

The recent guilty verdict in the criminal prosecution of Dr. Conrad Murray for the death of pop star Michael Jackson has left many wondering, what is the distinction between a death that results from medical malpractice and a death as a result of a crime? Under what circumstances will a healthcare provider face criminal prosecution for a patient’s unfortunate outcome?

 

Fraudulent Concealment Remains a Tough Nut to Crack for Medical Malpractice Plaintiffs

In Hanks v. Cotler, the Illinois Appellate Court reiterated that in order for a plaintiff to overcome the statutes of limitations and repose, he must establish actual affirmative acts calculated to fraudulently conceal the cause of action. In the realm of medical malpractice, the fraudulent concealment exception is exceedingly difficult for plaintiffs to establish.

 

Illinois Appellate Court Awards TTD Benefits Post-Termination and Includes Bonus in AWW Calculation

The Fourth District found that just because an employee has the ability to do light duty work does not necessarily preclude a finding of temporary total disability. In a separate case, the First District ruled that a production bonuses should be included in an employee’s AWW calculation due to provisions in a collective bargaining agreement.