Illinois recently passed Public Act 104-0614, the Supported Decision-Making Act, which will go into effect on February 27, 2022.  This Act will provide an extremely beneficial tool for adults with intellectual and developmental disabilities.
 
Under current Illinois law, those adults with intellectual and developmental disabilities are subjected to restrictive and costly guardianships.  Supported decision-making is a model of assistance for those persons with disabilities who have a range of decisional capacity and could benefit from a supporter that they choose to provide assistance.  This model aims to maximize the person’s potential for autonomy without pursuing guardianship.
 
Examples of possible areas of support include helping the person with acquiring food/clothing and shelter, assisting with decisions related to physical and emotional health, helping with financial affairs, applying for public benefits, seeking and applying for employment, assisting with residential services, helping with school issues, and advocacy.
 
This new mechanism and tool allow for a person with disabilities to maintain control of their decision-making abilities with the help of a designated supporter.  As the enactment date is quickly approaching, our team is preparing the resources and forms necessary for our clients to take advantage of this great opportunity.

​Our team fights for those who have been injured.  So, naturally, we deal with all kinds of injuries: spinal, knee, shoulder, etc.  Oftentimes, the big insurance companies and corporations’ only defense is that our clients were not really injured.  To support its position, insurance companies and corporations hire a doctor to “examine” our client.  This is called a defense medical exam (“DME”) or independent medical exam (“IME”).  However, there is nothing independent about the exam.

What does a defense medical exam mean for our clients?  Our clients take off work, travel to a doctor’s office, and are examined by a doctor they have never met and who will not provide any treatment to them.  In Illinois, our clients have the right to have their lawyer present for the exam.  Our team tries to go to every exam.  First, we know how uncomfortable being examined by a stranger can be.  Second, our team has found that hired doctors often “forget” what they say during the exam.  We want to hold these hired guns accountable.

Our team is known for standing up against the insurance companies and corporations’ hired guns.  In several cases, our client is wrongfully being denied compensation based on these DME doctors and their reports.  Once we dig into their reports, we see flaws, missing records, and even the wrong person named in the report.

In a recent case, our client was notified that the workers’ compensation insurance company would not pay our client’s medical bills based on the insurance company’s hired gun’s report.  Once we questioned the hired doctor about his report, it became very clear that the report was full of errors, discussed treatment our client did not receive, and did not even have the right age for our client.  Angie Zinzilieta asked the doctor whether it bothered him that our client was being denied medical benefits based on his report.  The hired doctor finally relented and affirmed that it did bother him.

What we do is hard work, but it is also heart work.  Our team spends hours preparing for and fighting these hired guns because it matters.  Make sure that the legal team you hire fights for you every step of the way.

By Angie Zinzilieta
​
In the past, property restoration businesses, body shops, and mechanics were made or broken by what is referred to as a “preferred vendor list,” which was created by large insurance companies (i.e. Nationwide, Allstate, State Farm, Progressive, etc.).  Being an insurance company’s “preferred vendor” means a large quantity of work for the vendor, but what does it mean for the policyholder/you?
 
Generally, to become a “preferred vendor” with one of the large insurance companies, you have to agree to work off a discounted price list in return for a large amount of work.  This becomes appealing to restoration businesses, body shops, and mechanics who no longer need to spend as much money marketing themselves.  By sacrificing some of their price margin for a higher quantity of work, they are now able to make more money.
 
So, what happens when a policyholder does not use the insurance company’s “preferred vendor”?  Generally, policyholders have the lawful right to hire anyone they choose to perform claim contracting services, including restoration services, body work, mechanic work, etc.  Insurance companies cannot increase any policyholder’s rates based on who they chose to work for them.
 
Our office often hears stories of large insurance companies trying to bully policyholders into using its “preferred vendors.”  Our clients are told that the restoration business, mechanic, body work technician is “not insurance friendly,” which leaves our clients believing that they will be on the hook for the claim.  This is not true.  Our office has handled multiple bad faith cases against the large insurance companies for substandard work performed by a “preferred vendor” who cut corners.
 
Ask yourself why the large insurance companies fight so hard for you to use one of their “preferred vendors.”  If any restoration business, mechanic, or body shop is receiving most, if not all, of their leads/business from “preferred vendor” calls, do they really work for the policyholder?  Or do they bend to the whim of the insurance company to avoid biting the hand that feeds them?  If a restoration business, mechanic, or body shop is guaranteeing not to charge the insurance company after a set amount is determined, then what do they do when they reach that limit and there are still issues?  Will they continue to work for free?  Or do you leave the job half-done and move on to the next job?  How are they really helping the policyholder cut future costs?
 
The fallout from using a “preferred vendor” is more common than you may initially believe.  See the link below:
State Farm, ServiceMaster, and Servpro Collude to Cheat Disabled Woman and Her Family out of Insurance Benefits, Ruining Their Home in the Process, Shernoff Bidart Echeverria Bentley LLP Lawsuit Alleges
​

By Angie Zinzilieta

​This myth is perhaps the most unfortunate piece of advice I’ve heard.  I tell prospective clients all the time: “Even if you choose not to hire our firm, please look into hiring a lawyer to help and protect you.” 

Insurance companies are for-profit corporations.   There is nothing wrong with wanting to make money.  The problems start when money becomes the focus and goal.  “For the love of money is the root of all evil.”  An insurance company’s goal is to make money.  It does that by offering the lowest settlement amount possible or denying liability altogether. 

The same can be said for your OWN insurance company.  Do no rely on your insurance company to protect your interests.  We have worked on several cases where insurance companies try to employ tactics to avoid paying compensation and protecting their insureds.  In fact (and unfortunately), our office has filed, settled, and won numerous “bad faith insurance” cases for this very reason.  Many times, our clients’ own insurance companies refuse to pay for necessary medical treatment, rental cars, etc.
​
Ever wonder how insurance companies can afford those prime-time commercial slots, celebrity spokesmen, and having sports arenas named after them?  The answer is clear.  Protect yourself.  Even if you choose another firm, please hire a lawyer to protect your rights.

By Angie Zinzilieta

In a review of a book, Professor Mary Coombs, who taught at the University of Miami School of Law until retiring in 2014, makes this observation:
 
“The primary strands of the malpractice myth are the following: that many malpractice lawsuits are frivolous; that many plaintiffs obtain large judgments or settlements although the defendants did nothing wrong; and that, as a result of these lawsuits, doctors have been driven to waste substantial resources on defensive medicine, insurance premiums have skyrocketed, and good doctors have been driven out of the practice of medicine.  The overall result: worse care for patients, demoralized doctors, higher costs of medical care, with no one benefiting but a few greedy plaintiffs and … trial lawyers.”
 
Here are some of those myths we’ve all heard about:
 
MYTH:  There is an increase in medical malpractice lawsuits against doctors.
FACT:  The number of malpractice payments have dropped over the last 10 years.  According to the NCSC, medical malpractice cases represent well under 2 percent of all civil cases.
 
MYTH:  Most medical malpractice lawsuits are frivolous, and the person filing the lawsuit is interested in getting a lot of money.
FACT:  Medical malpractice cases tend to involve severe injuries.  Researchers have found few claims that were without merit. Most negligence claims were meritorious, with 97 percent of claims involving medical injury and 80 percent involving physical injuries resulting in major disability or death. Because these cases are very expensive to bring, it is hard to find medical malpractice cases that are without merit.  See National Center for State Courts; New England Journal of Medicine; Los Angeles Times.  According to research from Harvard, most people file medical malpractice claims to determine what happened to their loved one and why it happened. In fact, medical malpractice claims at the University of Michigan Health System have dropped since it instituted a policy of apologizing and being open with patients when errors occur.
 
MYTH:  Malpractice crises are caused by spikes in medical malpractice lawsuits.
FACT:  On dramatic surges in insurance rates, research shows that the insurance system primarily responds to “the frequency of serious medical injuries,” not litigation results.  They also found that stories of outlandish jury awards are common, but that actual awards typically are greatly reduced in the legal process and that more than 95 percent of payouts are  the result of voluntary settlements.
 
MYTH:  Physicians are one malpractice verdict away from bankruptcy.
FACT:  Doctors rarely make out-of-pocket payments in malpractice cases. Research shows that such payments are “extraordinarily rare.”
 
MYTH:  Physicians move in large numbers to states that adopt damages caps and other tort reform measures.
FACT:  Studies have shown that this is not the reason for any alleged physician migration.
 
MYTH:  Tort reform will lower health care spending dramatically.
FACT:  Research shows that tort reform in various states yield little to no reduction in health care spending.
 
MYTH:  Medical malpractice claims outnumber incidents of actual medical malpractice.
FACT:  Up to 7 in 8 patients never seek relief for the injuries they suffer through medical malpractice, even though it kills about 100,000 people a year in the United States.
 
MYTH:  It is impossible to stop the occurrence of medical malpractice.
FACT:  Most people injured by medical malpractice are victims of preventable errors.
 
MYTH:  Medical malpractice claims increase insurance premiums.
FACT:  Insurance rate increases are more closely linked to the insurance industry’s economic cycle than to medical malpractice claims.  Also, health care costs have risen, but the number of medical malpractice claims has decreased dramatically in the past decade.
 
See Hyman and Silver’s article is titled “Five Myths of Medical Malpractice.”

Also, if you enjoy podcasts, check out "Dr. Death" by Wondery.  It tells the story of an out of control doctor and how he was able to get away with his crimes for so long due to tort reform measures adopted by Texas.

By Angie Zinzilieta
 
Have you ever heard that Madison County, Illinois, is a “judicial hellhole”?  That the verdicts were out of control in Madison County?  To be honest, growing up in Southern Illinois, I always heard that statement and simply took it for the truth.  Yet, that statement couldn’t be further from the truth.  According to the Madison-St. Clair Record, only eight trials went to verdict last year in Madison County, Illinois.  Of those eight trials combined, the total value of the verdicts was $251,464.90, but the highest verdict was an award for $159,464.90 in a breach of contract case, not a personal injury case.  In 2018, nine cases went to trial, and the total value of those verdicts combined was $186,342 according to the Madison-St. Clair Record.
​
Undoubtedly, large jury verdicts get the most publicity, but they are not the norm.  From 2010 to 2016, the median jury award in personal injury cases was $68,189.  Also, while our judicial system gives juries substantial power in determining verdicts, juries do not have the final word.  For example, in the highly publicized Johnson & Johnson baby powder case in St. Louis, Missouri, the Missouri Court of Appeals cut the $4 billion verdict in half.  Despite this, juries typically do their jobs very well.  Studies have shown that judges, who are presumably less prone to bias and passion, agree with juries’ decisions at least 75% of the time.
 
What’s the moral of the story?  Maybe large corporations, insurance companies, and tort reformists aren’t giving us the facts.  Like I once did, many of us just take their statements as true, but the facts paint a different picture.

By: Angie Zinzilieta
 
When I was in law school, I clerked for a judge who would always jokingly say, “There are more lawyers than stray cats around here!”  He wasn’t alone in his thinking.  Late Justice Scalia once said: “We are devoting too many of our very best minds” to the legal profession because “lawyers, after all, don’t produce anything.”
 
Despite this wide-spread opinion, the problem isn’t that we have too many lawyers.  The problem is that those who need access to the legal system and justice are receiving it.  According to a 2017 report by the Legal Services Corporation, low-income Americans received inadequate or no legal help for 86% of their civil legal problems.  According to a task force created in New York, 93% of parents dealing with child custody issues did not have a lawyer, and only 1% of debtors in credit card debt actions had a lawyer.
 
Our team of lawyers comes from a blue collar background.  We base our hiring on not only a lawyer’s resume and law school transcript, but also their personal background.  You can’t teach hungry.  Our lawyers deeply understand the financial struggles which come with being involved in a car crash, having insurance deny your claim, being denied workers’ compensation benefits, or being a victim of medical malpractice.  We’ve been there.  Our team does plaintiff’s civil work because we want to help those who need help.
 
There may be more lawyers than stray cats, but there are very few lawyers who understand.

The portrayal of civil lawsuits is central to American culture from Judge Judy to John Grisham.  But what we see on T.V., watch in movie theaters, and read in newspapers doesn't always reflect reality.  

We all have heard about the infamous McDonald's "hot coffee case" being the poster child for frivolous litigation.  We've also heard about the "tort reform movement" which seeks to put an end to "frivolous" lawsuits.  This campaign which is sponsored by insurance companies and large corporations has worked.  In fact, according to a poll done by the Wall Street Journal in 2016, 87% of all voters said that there "were too many lawsuits filed in America."

However, most cases in our U.S. system are not for personal injury claims.  Nearly half of all civil cases are are actually for contract disputes.  29% of cases are landlord-tenant cases.  Only 7% involve "tort claims" or those for personal injuries.  Also, civil litigation caseloads have dropped steeply since 2009.

So, what is a frivolous lawsuit?  Nearly all of our clients come in and say that they're "not lawsuit" people or they've never sued anyone.  Our clients come to us because they need us.  They need help because an insurance company or large corporation is not willing to take responsibility.  Unfortunately, these large companies force our clients to file suit in order for our clients to finally receive the justice that they are due.  A frivolous lawsuit is one where the defendant does not accept responsibility.

Generally, if you have shoulder, back, or neck injury, that injury is considered to be part of the "Body as a Whole."

We have all seen those TV commercials for lawyers which include someone happily looking into the camera and bragging about how much money they have received from their case or settlement. 

Have you ever noticed the fine print on those commercials?  As Andy Rooney says: “Nothing in fine print is ever good news.”  Below is just a small sampling of some of the fine print your will find if you pause that TV commercial and use a magnifying glass.
 
1. Not an actual client testimonial or based upon a specific case.

2. Not an actual case.

3. Actor portrayal, not a real client.

4. The monetary result referenced is not from an actual case.

5. The monetary recoveries referenced are not typical of most injury claims and [insert law firm/lawyer here] in no way guarantees or promises similar results for specific injury claims.

6. Not a typical injury case recovery.

7. [Insert flashy lawyer’s name here] will not be the lawyer responsible handling your claim or case and the financial recoveries referenced herein are generalizations of atypical injury cases.  No warranty or guarantee of a specific monetary result is made herein.

8. Not a real client or case result.
​
9. Not an actual case result or recovery. [Insert law firm name here] processes claims and cases via a referral to an affiliate law firm.  Referral law firms are solely responsible for claim and case presentation and remit a portion of the attorney fees to [insert law firm name here].

Is this legal?  Maybe.  But it seems deceptive, doesn’t it?  Our team has handled several cases where an angry person comes in and complains that their TV lawyer isn’t doing anything on their case or isn’t even handling their case.  Don’t be duped by the old bait and switch tactic.

Look at a lawyer’s Avvo.com profile which consists of reviews by real clients.  Our office prides itself on making our clients happy and being accessible to them.  Hiring a lawyer is an important decision.  Our office understands the amount of trust that our clients place in us.