Jump To Navigation
Don't see what you're looking for? Search our site:
We offer bi-lingual services in both Spanish and Polish.

Success Stories, Settlements & Verdicts

Multi-Million Verdicts

We are a trial firm specializing in serious injury and wrongful death cases involving construction site accidents, Worker's Compensation, medical malpractice, automobile, and railroad cases with 5 MULTI-MILLION DOLLAR JURY VERDICTS AND 2 MILLION DOLLAR PLUS SETTLEMENTS IN THE LAST 18 MONTHS.

$9.5 MILLION DOLLARS jury verdict for a Local 5 construction laborer against a general contractor. (The jury reduced the amount by one-third for contributory negligence). This construction laborer suffered a severe fractured femur and a herniated disc as a result of a fall from a scaffold. We showed that the defendant allowed the plaintiffs' employer, a masonry subcontractor, to use a scaffold that did not have proper fall protection, and in addition was a tripping hazard. Our client had several operations to treat his injuries and is unable to return to work as a Union laborer.

$6.5 MILLION DOLLARS jury verdict obtained for a 12 year old boy who lost his leg below the knee while trespassing and attempting to "hitch" a ride on a freight train. We showed that the railroads should have had better fencing or a pedestrian overpass. The jury agreed but reduced the verdict by 40% plaintiffs' fault.

$2.6 MILLION DOLLARS settlement on a medical malpractice case against a hospital for the death of an attorney's wife because of failing to timely notify her of an E-Coli infection so it could be properly and quickly treated.

$1.75 MILLION DOLLARS on behalf of a lady who was an active member of a Missionary Baptist Church and a prominent member of its' choir whose husband died due to anesthesia errors during a kidney transplant.

$1.5 MILLION DOLLARS another case tried by Marvin Brustin and Milo Lundblad involving a construction laborer's fall from a scaffold where we showed the scaffold was improperly stabilized. The defendant appealed the case and the Appellate Court denied their appeal and upheld the jury verdict. (In addition, the Court restored $200,000 to the verdict for the construction worker's future medical expenses). The Appellate Court's Opinion regarding recovery by an employee of a subcontractor from a general contractor has made new Illinois law which will help all construction workers.

$1 MILLION DOLLARS OCTOBER 2010 - Jury verdict awarded to Railroad Engineer with back injury who had an unrelated gender operation while case was pending.

$2 MILLION DOLLARS OCTOBER 2010 - Jury verdict awarded to farm worker on a Product Liability case. - no offer. LARGEST VERDICT EVER IN FORD COUNTY, IL

JURY VERDICT AGAINST KMART AND MANUFACTUER - For Product Liability due to improper stretch cord on work jacket that "sling shot" and caused vision loss in one eye - trial on damages to follow.

Other Cases

Over $5 Million to Burn Victim injured during the repair of a retort machine. The three defendants in the case argued that he had triggered the steam mechanism in the process of the repair. We contented that the "safety" switch was defective and not adequate in relation to the degree of danger. The original offer of $2 million was increased to $5 million and a settlement was reached. (Settled by Marvin Brustin)

Our $2.5 Million Jury verdict on a products liability case for a truck driver who fell from a car hauler was appealed by the defendant company. The case proceed to the Appellate Court but ended when the defendants agreed to pay the entire amount the afternoon before the scheduled arguments in the Appellate Court. (Tried by Marvin Brustin)

$2.1 Million in medical malpractice case where a woman bled to death after surgery. During trial the defendants offered one million dollars which as the trial progressed they increased to $2.1 million dollars which the family accepted. (Tried by Marvin Brustin and Milo Lundblad)

$1.67 Million Jury verdict from CHA and private landlord for lead poisoning. An 18 month old child had eaten paint chips containing lead over a period of time at two different apartment locations, one owned by CHA and the other by a private landlord. Each defendant claimed the other was responsible for the lead paint. At trial the CHA settled "out of court" and the jury found in our favor against the private landlord. (Tried by Milo Lundblad)

$1.6 Million jury verdict to construction worker who fell through roof. A carpenter fell 15 - 20 feet through a deteriorated section of roof sustaining fractures and knee replacement. Prior to trial the defense offered $500,000, which they increased to $650,000 during the trial, much less than the jury awarded. (Tried by Marvin Brustin)

$35,000 increased to $500,000 after appeal and second trial. In a case where an elderly woman underwent knee replacement surgery that was not properly attended to post surgically at her nursing home, the jury returned a verdict of $35,000. Not feeling this was fair and just compensation we appealed this verdict and won the right to a new trial. In the second trial the defense maintained that the woman's current health problems were due to her age (80) and the infection and knee rupture were only minor factors in her overall problems. At this second trial the jury awarded her $500,000 which was $465,000 more than the original verdict. (Lead attorney at the second trial was Marvin Brustin).

Precedent law we set in the Appellate Court benefiting injured persons:

  • Contractor partially responsible for death of intoxicated pedestrian due to non-functioning street light (Beil v. City of Bridgeview 781 N.E. 2d 555 1St Dist. 2002)
  • Sovereign immunity over-turned - State doctors held responsible for failure to admit suicidal patient (Jinkins v Lee 785 N.E. 2nd 914 1st Dist. 2003)
  • Employer liable to employee for losing evidence (Schusse v. Pace 779 N.E. 2nd 1st Dist. 2002)

Contact Our Firm

Bold labels are required.

Contact Information

The use of the Internet or this form for communication with the firm or any individual member of the firm does not establish an attorney-client relationship. Confidential or time-sensitive information should not be sent through this form.