422 North Northwest Highway, Suite 200
Park Ridge, IL 60068
847-292-1200 | 847-292-1208 (Fax)


Recent Trials, Appeals & Motions Won


Yanello vs. Park Family Dental, et al., Suit No. 11 L 0756, Will County (March 3 to March 14, 2014).

Plaintiff claimed Dr. Jae S. Roh and Park Family Dental improperly placed dental implants in her upper jaw, resulting in implant failure, bone loss and Defendants contended the placement of implants was within the standard of care.

Plaintiff’s Last Demand:                    $975,000
Verdict for Defendant                         Not Guilty


Haskell vs. Housing Authority of Cook County, Cause No. 11 cv 07727 (ND.Ill) (December 9 to December 12, 2013).

Defense contended that Plaintiff was not terminated in retaliation for her complaint of racial discrimination but for poor performance.

Plaintiff’s Last Demand:                     $136,346
Verdict for HACC                                 Not Guilty


U.S. Food Service vs. U.S. Steel , Suite No. 03 L 10249, Cook County

Employee of U.S. Foodservice hit by pallet which fell from storage rack and contended Defendant Loeb negligently designed the rack system.

Plaintiff asked:                                     $500,000
Verdict for Defendant                         Not Guilty

Joshi vs. Township High School District 211, Suit No. 10 L 2739 (Cook County) (October 15 to October 19, 2012)

Plaintiff slipped and fell on concrete peninsula causing trimalleolar fracture on right ankle and soft tissue injury. Defense contended peninsula was adequately illuminated and accumulation of snow was natural event.

Plaintiff asked:                                     $430,000
Verdict for Defendant:                        Not Guilty


Olinyk vs. Fleming, et al., Cause No. 10 cv 5148 (ND. Ill) (April 16 to April 20, 2012).

After Plaintiff was arrested, he claimed officers violated his rights by using excessive force while moving him to an ambulance for treatment.

Plaintiff asked:   $60,000
Verdict:                For Plaintiff on claim of failure to intervene($100compensatory damages)


East vs. Northeast Illinois Regional Commuter RR d/b/a METRA, Suit No. 07 L 8899 (September 14 to September 19, 2012).

Plaintiff working on locomotive tripped and struck his head and shoulder due to height differential resulting in two surgeries. Defense denied negligence and claimed Plaintiff’s injuries were pre-existing.

Plaintiff asked:                          $400,000
Verdict                                        $80,000 for Plaintiff less 82% negligence, net award $13,545



Duran vs. Oak Lawn Community High School, (Rule 23 Order), Docket No. 1-11-0633.

Fourteen year old suffered sudden cardiac arrest during school-sponsored baseball practice and sustained irreversible brain damage.

Appellate Court opined that trial Court did not err in giving jury two special interrogatories regarding the sole proximate cause of Plaintiff’s decedent’s death was a pre-existing heart condition and whether the school district used ordinary care after Plaintiff’s decedent collapsed.

Result:                                            Not Guilty. Affirmed by First District Appellate Court.


Indiana Insurance Co. vs. Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Co., (Rule 23 Order), Docket No. 1-11-0830.

Summary judgment granted for Plaintiff finding Philadelphia owed a duty to defend plaintiffs in an underlying negligence lawsuit.

Result:                                             Affirmed by First District Appellate Court.



Winning cases, making law & saving money for our clients

Our winning results show what we do: win cases, make favorable defense law and save money for our clients — indemnity payment dollars and defense legal expense dollars.

Further showing our firm’s dedication to obtaining outstanding results for our clients are the following excellent results:

        (1) Bremen Youth Services v. Bremen Township, 2016 CH 5081, Cook County.               Plaintiff alleged breach of contract and promissory estoppel due to Defendant’s failure to comply with a purported agreement to provide funding for mental health services and drug counseling for a twenty-year period.  ($5,000,000 claimed.)  Plaintiff also requested an injunction that their funding be restored immediately and a declaratory judgment   finding that the bidding process was null and void due to the new contract being awarded to an unqualified bidder.  Defendant filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action and Plaintiff’s complaint was dismissed with prejudice.

(2) Appellate decision of “first impression” in Illinois holding “a moving train on railroad tracks is an open and obvious danger of which there is no duty to warn.”  Park v. Northeast Illinois Regional Commuter Railroad Corp. (“Metra”), 2011 IL App (1st) 1101283 (1st Dist., 10/20/11).  (Client: Metra)

(3) The Park v. Metra “first impression” case making law in Illinois follows two insurance coverage appeals of “first impression” making law for Liberty Mutual and Illinois Emcasco (Employers Mutual) in Illinois, as follows:

(a) Joe Cotton Ford, Inc. v. Illinois Emcasco Insurance Co., 389 Ill.App.3d 718, 906 N.E.2d 1279 (1st Dist. 2009) (Dealer’s employee’s theft of 75 autos with value of $1.2 million excluded coverage under Auto Physical Damage “False Pretense Exclusion” — case of first impression).  (Client: Illinois Emcasco Insurance Co.)

(b) Konstant Products, Inc. v. Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Co., 401 Ill.App.3d 83, 929 N.E.2d 1200 (1st Dist. 2010) (Where verified complaint against garbage truck driver pleaded driver drove truck without permission, complaint contained a “judicial admission” and truck owner’s insurer owed no defense or indemnity as driver was not a “permitted user” — a case of first impression).  (Client: Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Co.)

(4)  One further comment: When I was a Claims Supervisor, our defense attorneys had a sure winner (through discovery), but when assigned to trial, they always recommended settlement.  It was very frustrating (and costly).  Judge, James, Hoban & Fisher never does that.  Once we evaluate a case and decide we can win at trial or on appeal, we don’t quit on our clients.           —           Jay