Personal injury lawyers at Abels and Annes, working with co-counsel, have filed a lawsuit stemming from an auto accident that occurred in Chicago, Illinois.
The plaintiff was injured when the automobile he was driving was hit head-on by a vehicle driven by a negligent driver. Our client was driving eastbound on Grand approaching its intersection with Mulligan in Chicago, Illinois. The defendant was driving westbound on Grand, approaching its intersection with Mulligan.
The other driver signaled his intention to turn left onto southbound Mulligan. Plaintiff was driving straight and had the right-of-way, so he proceeded into the intersection at Mulligan. The defendant failed to yield the right-of-way to our client and turned left, hitting the front of our vehicle with the front passenger’s side of his vehicle.
The fact pattern in this claim is very common. Our office has seen many, many accidents over the years caused by a motorist failing to yield the right-of-way to oncoming traffic while making a left turn.
The force of the impact was so great that it pushed our client’s car off the road and into a parked car.
The Chicago Police Department responded to the scene of the collision. After speaking with both parties, the police determined the collision was the result of the defendant’s failure to yield the right-of-way.
We are alleging the negligent driver failed to keep a proper lookout, failed to stop and/or reduce his speed to avoid a collision, failed to yield the right-of-way, was driving at an excessive rate of speed, and failed to exercise due care for the safety of those in the area, including Plaintiff.
Following the collision, the plaintiff had an immediate onset of neck, back and head pain.
Shortly after the collision, he sought medical treatment from a physician. The plaintiff complained of pain in his back, neck and head as well as pain in his knee. A history was taken and he was examined. Upon exam, he had paraspinal tenderness that was most severe at L4-S1, left knee pain and limited range of motion in his left knee. The doctor diagnosed him with bursitis, contusion, and a knee injury, prescribed him pain medication, and instructed him to follow up as needed.
Due to ongoing and increasing pain, our client sought follow up medical care with another physician. At that time, he continued to complain of neck pain, headaches, and back pain. A history was taken and he was examined, revealing tenderness to palpation over C1-7, T1-12, L1-S1 and bilateral sacroiliac joints, tenderness to palpation over the bilateral trapezius muscles and the occipital region of the head. The doctor noted subluxations throughout his cervical, thoracic and lumbar spine as well as muscle spasms along the spine, severe at the cervical level. His range of motion was limited in his cervical and lumbar spine. The physician ordered x-rays of his cervical and lumbar spine, which revealed a loss of normal cervical lordosis and pelvic and sacral unleveling.
The doctor diagnosed the plaintiff with cervical brachial syndrome, muscle spasm, lumbar facet syndrome, cervical, thoracic and lumbar segmental dysfunction, and sacroiliac dysfunction. He ordered a course of treatment to consist of neuroelectrical muscle stimulation, thermal modalities, and manual therapy to the spine, sacroiliac joints, and soft tissue areas where he experienced pain. Treatment was ordered to reduce his spasms, normalize his muscle tone, decrease his pain, increase his range of motion, normalize joint function and return him to his pre-injury status.
Pursuant to doctors orders, our client began a course of therapy. He engaged in twenty-four (24) sessions over several months, after which time he was discharged.
Due to the collision, our client has incurred thousands of dollars in medical bills. Today, is still having low back pain on a regular basis, some days worse than others. His pain affects the activities of his daily life and restricts him from engaging in some activities as he did prior to the collision.
A lawsuit was filed in Cook County Circuit Court due to the fact that the defendant’s insurance carrier failed to make a reasonable settlement offer out of court.