Patton & Ryan LLC recently won an important victory in the Supreme Court of Illinois in the case of Carlson v. Glueckert Funeral Home, Ltd. That case involved a question of first impression as to the Illinois Disposition of Remains Act, 755 ILCS 65/5, 15, 40 and 50 (West 2011) (“Act”).

The Act states that where a dispute exists as to the right to control the disposition of a decedent’s remains, a court of competent jurisdiction will resolve the dispute, and the cemetery organization or funeral home will not be liable for refusing to accept the decedent’s remains or to otherwise dispose of those remains until it receives a court order or other confirmation that the dispute has, indeed, been settled.

In Glueckert, a dispute arose between the adult children of Eleanor Carlson as to the manner in which to dispose of Ms. Carlson’s remains. Two days after her death in September of 2007, Ms. Carlson’s son, Scott, contacted the Glueckert Funeral Home to arrange for Ms. Carlson’s funeral and burial. Scott presented the funeral home with Ms. Carlson’s power of attorney, will and trust documents as proof of his authority to dispose of her remains. After discussing funeral arrangements, Glueckert Funeral Home took possession of Ms. Carlson’s body. Shortly thereafter, however, Ms. Carlson’s estranged daughter, Denise, contacted the funeral home, demanding that other arrangements be made. The funeral home then contacted Scott and informed him that the funeral would be delayed because of the dispute. Later that month, Glueckert Funeral Home transferred Ms. Carlson’s body to the Lake County coroner’s office; the funeral home then informed Scott that it considered the body abandoned and noted that it had not been refrigerated for the prior 11 days, causing extensive decay. On October 11, 2007, Scott obtained a court order for the release of Ms. Carlson’s body. Ms. Carlson was buried a week later.

Ms. Carlson’s family brought suit the next year, claiming a number of theories, including breach of contract, common law fraud, intentional infliction of emotional distress and “interference with the next of kin’s right to possess and preserve the decedent’s body.” Glueckert Funeral Home moved to dismiss the Carlsons’ lawsuit on several grounds. The funeral home claimed that it was protected under the Illinois Disposition of Remains Act and, as such, was subject to no liability related to Ms. Carlson’s remains.

The Cook County Circuit Court agreed with Glueckert Funeral Home and granted its Motion to Dismiss. The Carlsons then appealed the issue to the First District of the Illinois Appellate Court. The Appellate Court upheld the trial court’s dismissal.

In doing so, the Appellate Court defined the protections offered to funeral homes under the Illinois Disposition of Remains Act. The Court stated, “It is not the role of funeral homes and cemeteries to judge the relative legal rights of feuding family members. That task is left to the courts and for good reason.” The Court additionally noted that the term “dispute” is undefined in the Act; however, it held that “[t]he conflicting assertions of rights by Scott and Denise, in the plain and ordinary sense of the term, qualify as a dispute[.] Therefore, the circuit court did not err in concluding that a dispute existed between Eleanor’s children and its judgment is affirmed.”

Unhappy with the result, the Carlson’s filed a Motion for Leave to Appeal in the Supreme Court of Illinois. On September 28, 2011, in an unpublished decision, the Supreme Court denied the Carlsons’ Motion for Leave to Appeal, allowing the ruling of the First District of the Illinois Appellate Court to stand.

Once again, Patton & Ryan LLC successfully defended its client on a cutting-edge issue, one brought to the highest court in the State of Illinois. Through diligence, ingenuity and strong advocacy, Patton & Ryan LLC obtained the best possible outcome for its client in a case involving a legal question never before addressed in Illinois. This is the skillful work for which Patton & Ryan LLC is known.

The party was a huge success and a fun time for all who were able to attend. We look forward to working with all our clients on what will surely be a successful 2012!

The JVR award was the result of reviewing over 10 years worth of favorable jury verdicts in Cook County and around the State of Illinois.

To learn more about the Illinois Jury Verdict Reporter, a subsidiary of the Law Bulletin, click here…

DRI is the international organization of attorneys defending the interests of business and individuals in civil litigation.

For more information about DRI, you can click here

John Patton and several of his staff are attending the ABA conference which is the nation’s preeminent forum on lawyers’ professional liability issues and developments.

More Info…

More information about the TIDA event can be found HERE

Only a few weeks before trial, Patton & Ryan was dropped into a products liability case resulting from the explosion of a can of aerosol spray paint. The Plaintiffs in the case had been demanding nearly $10 million and mediation had not been successful. On October 9, 2001, Laura Knabe and her two small children went into their basement to get Halloween decorations. Suddenly, a spray can fell off a shelf, ruptured and spun wildly while spraying paint vapors everywhere. A nearby pilot for the water heater ignited a fireball that severely burned Alexandra, age 7, and Nicholas, age 3. Laura with her son in her arms ran outside suffering burns in the process. Meanwhile, Alexandra saved her sleeping two month old sister upstairs and earned the Girl Scout Lifesaving Medal.

Alexandra suffered 3rd degree burns causing significant permanent scarring on her left calf, thigh and hip. She was admitted to two different hospitals and underwent extensive treatment including numerous skin grafts and debridements. Future plastic surgery is required to reduce the scarring near her ankle. She is embarrassed by her condition and has received psychological treatment. Nicholas suffered burns to his face and both arms. He also underwent extensive and aggressive treatment. He has permanent scarring on both arms and a discoloration on his face. Laura Knabe suffered minor burns but was prevented from returning to work due to her injuries and the increased caretaking responsibilities caring for her children.

At an early date, plaintiffs thought about their case and aggressively preserved damages evidence. They promptly retained counsel who began collecting evidence. Plaintiff’s counsel and experts were on the scene and in the hospitals, immediately taking pictures. Not only did they photograph the burns but also the debridement and surgical treatment. This captured heart wrenching footage of agony and the children’s intensely painful ordeal.

Plaintiffs’ expert conducted numerous tests to show how easy the cans were to puncture. Tapes of this testing also showed how the fumes could ignite and essentially gave plaintiffs a reenactment. Numerous dropC tests of the aerosol cans revealed how falls from even low heights could puncture a can. When the defense called upon Patton & Ryan there was no evidence to challenge plaintiffs’ video proof of defendant’s cans’ vulnerability to punctures from such benign falls. The defense expert even had to admit that a falling can could rupture. While he believed a fall did not cause the subject explosion, he had no test or other proof to support much less confirm his opinion. The defense was in a bind.

Patton & Ryan quickly recognized the glaring, and sharp contrast between the weakly supported defense expert and the extensive workup behind plaintiffs’ theories. The trial team, led by John Patton and Michael Vranicar, began aggressively challenging the Plaintiff on multiple fronts. By leveraging technology, Patton & Ryan was able to conduct depositions in three states over a relatively short time period while controlling costs at an acceptable level.

Although trial was only weeks away, the defense was able to re-depose Plaintiff’s experts and conduct additional discovery. Armed with investigation and research, they vigorously attacked plaintiffs’ expert’s opinions and qualifications. Testimony in different cases and consultation with other experts provided fertile ground for new lines of cross examination. New research into the effect on plaintiffs’ lives, uncovered evidence that Alexandra continues to play soccer and excel at school despite her claimed emotional trauma. She graduated from middle school with honorable mention and had been on the student council. In high school she is a varsity starter in girl’s soccer.

New interviews with witnesses uncovered helpful information about claims of similar incidents. Contacting former employees for the fi rst time produced cooperative witnesses with valuable testimony. Further, we were able to thwart all efforts by plaintiffs to turn the witnesses against us. The newly aggressive defense brought plaintiffs back to the table for successful negotiations on behalf of our clients. While the resulting settlement is confidential, it was very favorable to our client. Plaintiffs even relented and gave in to our request for settlement confidentiality.

• A catastrophic train derailment with admitted liability.
• An extremely sympathetic plaintiff: a pregnant single 28 year old mother with multiple fractures and permanent brain injury who will require 24 hour a day care for the rest of her life.
• The plaintiff’s lead attorney is the on the current cover of Superlawyer magazine and not only refuses to negotiate before trial but turns down an offer of $16.5 million with no counteroffer?

You call Patton & Ryan.

In February, John W. Patton, Jr. defended against such an action and came away with an extremely favorable verdict. The case arose from the derailment of a commuter Metra train in Chicago on September 17, 2005. Among the injured was Renea Poppel, at the time a 25 year old single mother who worked as an admissions counselor for Kaplan University. Ms. Poppel was also pregnant at the time. As a result of the derailment, Ms. Poppel fractured her pelvis, right arm, skull and cervical spine. She suffered a traumatic brain injury with resulting loss of cognitive function, impaired vision and speech and ataxia. She remains unable to walk unassisted and spends most of her day in a wheelchair. The past medical bills totaled almost $1.7 million, and her anticipated future medical bills total approximately $51 million. She is unable to work for the rest of her life and her lost wages totaled over $3.2 million.

By skillful trial tactics and brilliant surgical cross examination, Mr. Patton was able to show the jury how much the plaintiff was still able to do and how she still enjoyed life. Plaintiff’s efforts to portray this unfortunate occurrence as a way to punish Metra was artfully diverted through effective pre-trial motions. When the treating physicians testified as to Ms. Poppel’s injuries, Mr. Patton was able to effectively bring out the favorable testimony of her accomplishments and abilities while continuing to show compassion to her condition. By not only not questioning the nature and extent of her injuries, but also by suggesting how she can continue to improve and live a rich and rewarding life, the jury was guided to a fair and reasonable verdict.

Plaintiff’s economic expert indicated that the total economic award should be over $17 million, and her attorneys asked for an additional $50 million in non-economic damages. Plaintiff’s counsel suggested a total of at least $67 million with indications that $100 million would be proper compensation. In the end, the jury accepted the economic damage analysis provided by the defendant’s economist and ignored the plaintiff’s expert entirely. The amount awarded for future wage losses was, to the dollar, the number suggested by the defense economist. The amount awarded for future medical expenses was the total suggested by the defense economist with a slight increase as suggested by the defense.

As for non-economic damages, the defense said $6 million would be fair and reasonable. The resulting verdict with non-economic damages of $17 million was clearly a sign that they heard and believed the defense’s position.

It is not often that a claimed Superlawyer is upset by an award totaling $29.5, but when it happens it is a surely a defense victory.

James Garrett and Overnight admitted liability, but blamed Illinois Tollway’s traffic safety design. Illinois Tollway’s Maintenance Director admitted that the plan was “grossly inadequate” to channel traffic. Yet, Tollway asserted that the warning vehicles were more than sufficient to prevent the accident. Overnight had two experts who claimed that the safety plan was grossly inadequate to meet Uniform Traffic Control designs and were confusing. However, Overnight dropped their experts in the middle and called Illinois Tollway’s human factors expert who admitted that some of the safety plan was ineffective.  Tollway’s defense was based on the admissions of Garrett and the testimony of Garrett’s coworker who was in training and following behind Garrett.

Illinios Tollway argued that James Garrett was the sole proximate cause of the accident.  The jury deliberated for approximately 1 and ½ hours before returning a verdict of Not Guilty on behalf of Illinois Tollway.