Case Note: Forsythe, et al. v. Clark USA, Inc.By Kevin T. VeugelerSeptember 2009In a case of first impression, the Illinois Supreme Court has recognized a cause of action against a parent company for the actions of its subsidiary that results in a workplace injury.
Editor’s noteBy John L. NisivacoOctober 2009Thank you to all of the contributors. The articles are excellent and we hope you find the materials helpful. ■
Editor’s noteBy John L. NisivacoSeptember 2009An introduction to the issue from Editor John Nisivaco.
Editor’s noteBy John L. NisivacoJune 2009An introduction to the issue from Editor John Nisivaco.
Editor’s noteBy John L. NisivacoMay 2009An introduction to the issue from editor John Nisivaco.
The ethics of fee sharing in tort law casesBy Albert E. DurkinOctober 2009In the field of plaintiff personal injury litigation, a substantial amount of business is received on a referral basis. Tort practitioners commonly are referred cases from fellow lawyers who do not practice in that chosen field.
The progeny of Arthur v. CatourBy James K. TheisenMay 2009How much can a plaintiff be awarded for medical bills if the plaintiff’s health insurance pays the medical bills at a discounted rate? Should the plaintiff receive an award for the full amount or just the discounted amount? How much can a plaintiff be awarded for medical expenses provided free of charge? These questions are answered by the collateral source rule.
When consultants’ opinions are discoverableBy Lauryn E. Parks & James F. McCluskeyOctober 2009The purpose of Illinois Rule 201(b)(3), as well as other comparable rules, is focused on protecting the identity of the consultant in order to encourage the communication of expertise.