Robinson Helicopter Company opened shop in 1973. Its business model: mass-produce simple, low-cost helicopters and sell them to the civilian public at an affordable price.

From a numbers standpoint, it worked.

Robinson released its first model, the R22, in the late 1970s, and it released the R44 in 1993. Both models dominated the competition and became the best-selling civilian helicopters of their time. The R44 retains that title to this day, partly due to its being one of the cheapest helicopters on the market.

By:  Heather A. Begley

As trucking injury transportation attorneys, we represent individuals from Illinois and nationally who have been injured in motor vehicle accidents involving trucks. Injured plaintiffs are permitted to proceed with lawsuits against brokers in truck accident cases, according to a recent decision in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, Miller v. C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc., et al. No. 19-15981 The plaintiff suffered serious injuries when he was struck by a semi-tractor trailer. A freight broker serves as an intermediary between a shipper who has goods to transport and a carrier who has capacity to move that freight. The freight broker in the Miller case, C.H. Robinson, arranged for the trailer to transport goods for Costco Wholesale, Inc. The plaintiff alleged that C.H. Robinson negligently selected an unsafe motor carrier. The United States District Court for the District of Nevada initially dismissed the plaintiff’s claim based on the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act of 1994 (the “FAAAA”), finding that state law claims that are “related to a price, route, or service of any… broker” are preempted. The appellate court reversed that finding based on an applicable exception: “the safety regulatory authority of a State with respect to motor vehicles”. Congress intended to preserve the States’ broad power over safety, a power that includes the ability to regulate conduct not only through legislative and administrative enactments, but also through common-law damages awards. This is an important finding on behalf of individuals who are injured in catastrophic motor vehicle accidents involving trucks wherein a broker was used to assist in the transport of goods.

By: Eddie Hettel

            On May 5, 2020, the People of the State of California filed a lawsuit for injunctive relief, restitution, and penalties against Uber Technologies, Inc., Lyft Inc., and 50 individuals whose identities remain private. The suit alleges that the defendants made calculated business decisions to misclassify their on-demand drivers as independent contractors rather than employees and continue to do so in violation of California law.

By classifying their workers as independent contractors, Uber and Lyft evade workplace standards and requirements such as minimum wages, overtime premium pay, reimbursement for business expenses, workers’ compensation coverage for on-the-job injuries, paid sick leave, and wage replacement programs like disability insurance and paid family leave.

By: Eddie Hettel

The COVID-19 pandemic has altered day-to-day life across the globe. With traditional face to face interactions coming to halt, schools, businesses, and governments have worked tirelessly to find innovative ways to continue their operations. The Illinois Supreme Court is among this group, and for the first time in history, will hold oral arguments for the month of May via Zoom teleconference.

In an effort to practice social distancing while continuing to conduct court proceedings for eager litigants, the Illinois high court has adopted this contemporary solution to keep its doors open.

In December 2019, Tomasik Kotin Kasserman secured an appellate victory in the Fifth District in a medical negligence case involving injuries suffered by a newborn child during labor and delivery. Recently, the Illinois Supreme Court denied the defendants’ petition for leave to appeal, solidifying the Fifth District’s unanimous decision in favor of the plaintiff, Crystal Williams.

On June 3, 2007, then-26-year-old Crystal, who was pregnant with twins, went into labor. Her OB/GYN, Dr. Bradley Tissier’s office, instructed her to go to St. Elizabeth’s hospital in Belleville, Illinois where medical staff would prepare a “double set-up” delivery, i.e. a delivery which involves a first team of doctors preparing the mother for vaginal delivery with a second team ready to perform an immediate cesarean section if difficulties arise during childbirth. Twin A was born without difficulty. Twin B (Jerrin), however, was positioned in a persistent transverse lie, meaning Jerrin’s head was to one of his mother’s sides and not towards the pelvis. A baby cannot be birthed vaginally when in transverse lie. But, instead of performing a C-section, Dr. Bradley Tissier attempted to rotate Jerrin into the vertex (head down) position, failed, and thereafter, ultimately delivered via footling breech (feet down) extraction. During the delivery, Jerrin’s umbilical cord became compressed, and as a result, he suffered serious, lifelong injuries.

Ms. Williams filed suit on behalf of herself and her son, Jerrin, against Dr. Tissier, his OB/GYN group, and St. Elizabeth’s Hospital for failure to perform a timely cesarean section. The hospital moved to dismiss the claim against it on the grounds that Dr. Tissier, the delivering doctor, was not an agent of the hospital and the trial court agreed. Ms. Williams appealed, and TKK co-founder and partner Timothy Tomasik argued the case on behalf of Ms. Williams before the Fifth District. Tomasik argued that a triable issue existed regarding whether Dr. Tissier was an apparent agent of St. Elizabeth’s Hospital. Tomasik highlighted evidence in the case that showed that: Dr. Tissier was listed as one of the hospital’s doctors on its web site listed; Dr. Tissier’s medical office sign listed the office as a St. Elizabeth’s office; the letterhead for Dr. Tissier’s office identified him as a doctor who provided care to patients at “St. Elizabeth’s Medical Park;” and multiple documents, including consent forms and prescription forms, given to Ms. Williams regarding the care and treatment she received from Dr. Tissier, stated that Dr. Tissier, his medical practice, and his group were located at “St. Elizabeth’s Medical Park.” Tomasik also pointed out to the Fifth District that none of the extensive consent forms signed by Ms. Williams contained Dr. Tissier’s name, and these forms led Ms. Williams to believe that Dr. Tissier was an employee of St. Elizabeth’s.