Cassiday congratulates our 28 attorneys recognized as 2025 Leading and Emerging Lawyers by Leading Lawyers Magazine.
Cassiday Schade LLP
律师事务所
Chicago,IL 2,917 位关注者
We take pride in working with our clients, not just for them.
关于我们
Cassiday Schade is a litigation law firm headquartered in Chicago, with national presence. We focus on providing our clients with expert, efficient representation and act as national or regional counsel for clients facing nationwide exposures. With experience in virtually all areas of civil litigation, we have a diverse client base and our attorneys provide companies of various sizes with extensive trial experience and case preparation acumen. Throughout our history, we have represented companies in a variety of industries, including health and long-term care, insurance, financial services, manufacturing, construction, professional services and transportation. In addition to trial and appellate work, Cassiday Schade also provides clients with the tools they need to analyze and prevent risk before litigation arises.
- 网站
-
https://www.cassiday.com
Cassiday Schade LLP的外部链接
- 所属行业
- 律师事务所
- 规模
- 51-200 人
- 总部
- Chicago,IL
- 类型
- 私人持股
- 创立
- 1979
- 领域
- Appellate; Arbitration/Mediation; Commercial; Construction; Employment; Environmental/Toxic Injury; Family Law; Health Law; Insurance Coverage; Medical Malpractice; Medicare; Product and Professional Liability; Transportation; Worker's Compensation
地点
Cassiday Schade LLP员工
动态
-
Cassiday congratulates the following attorneys as Super Lawyers and Rising Stars. Michael Moothart, Joseph Giannelli, Daniel Sheroff, John O'Donnell, Julie Teuscher, Matthew Weller. Rising Stars: Jennifer Carpenter, Justin Kaszuba, John VanDenburgh, John O'Donnell Jr., Kevin H. Young https://lnkd.in/grEiXHGQ
-
-
Cassiday congratulates Kyle Blair, Bryan Findley, Kevin H. Young on being elected to the Partnership.
-
-
Cassiday attorneys Robin Levin and Michael J. Hennig obtain a defense verdict on behalf of multiple defendants in an alleged failure to prevent and timely diagnose a pulmonary embolism. The trial lasted 19 days.?The jury heard from 23 witnesses and closing arguments took close to 6 hours.?Plaintiff asked for 4.2M.?The jury deliberated for 5 hours and found in favor of all defendants. Congratulations to Robin and Mike,?click to read more about the case.
-
On November 18, 2024, Jackie Hill and Jaclyn Ellwein obtained a defense verdict on behalf of their client, a primary care physician. Plaintiff asserted medical negligence claims in connection with a skin substitute procedure he underwent on his right great toe. Plaintiff claimed the primary care physician improperly cleared the patient for surgery given his uncontrolled diabetes and other comorbid conditions which rendered him a high risk patient. Plaintiff further asserted that as a result of defendants’ negligence, plaintiff developed a postoperative infection which led to amputation of the toe and complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS). The defendants denied all allegations of negligence and alleged plaintiff was contributorily negligent for chronically failing to manage his uncontrolled diabetes and refusing to follow postoperative medical advice. At the conclusion of the ten-day trial, Plaintiff requested upwards of $5.5 million in damages. The jury deliberated for less than 2 hours before returning a verdict in favor of all defendants. This was Ms. Hill’s first trial as first chair and Ms. Ellwein’s first trial as second chair.
-
Cassiday Associate Attorney Kevin H. Young recently published 2 articles regarding mechanics liens in Illinois Defense Counsel’s Survey of Law magazine. Mr. Young reviewed the cases?Sopris Concrete, LLC v. Meeks,?2022 IL App (2d) 210331 and?Am. Steel Fabricators, Inc. v. K&K Ironworks,?LLC,?2022 IL App. (1st) 220181. In?Sopris, a negotiated settlement agreement was ruled to be valid and not violate the ban on confessions of judgement set forth in Section 2-1301(c) of the Illinois Code of Civil Procedure. In?Am. Steel Fabricators, a subcontractor was ruled to have authority under Section 34 of the Mechanic’s Lien Act to file suit based on a lien made by the subcontractor’s subcontractor.?Click below to below to view both articles
-
Congratulations to Cassiday Partners Brian Hickey and Joe Lombardo for receiving a Trial Lawyer Excellence Award in the category of Outstanding Defense Verdict in a Medical Malpractice Case at the Jury Verdict Reporter’s Annual Reception and Awards Ceremony. The Jury Verdict Reporter Trial Lawyer Excellence Awards ceremony honors the cases and career achievements of Illinois Trial Lawyers. Brian and Joe received an award for a case in which they obtained a “not guilty” verdict in a multi-week medical malpractice trial in Cook County. Congrats to Brian and Joe!
-
Cassiday is proud to have 9 attorneys featured as 2025 Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch. Stephen Gorski, Erin Calandriello, Jackie Hill, Thomas C. Kallies, Justin Kaszuba, James Maruna, Lynsey Stewart, Joy Syrcle, John VanDenburgh. Congratulations to our attorneys!
-
Springfield partners Joseph Rupcich and Joy Syrcle tried a medical malpractice claim between August 12 and August 20, 2024. The plaintiff, the estate of a man who died from kidney cancer, alleged that the defendant physicians failed to timely diagnose the cancer and begin treatment, allowing it to metastasize and take the patient’s life.?The case was previously tried, and a jury awarded $11,000,000 damages.?The appellate court vacated the judgment due to trial errors, entered judgment for defendants on some claims, and remanded the case for a new trial on damages on medical malpractice.??At the seven-day retrial, the Plaintiff requested $10,000,000 in damages for pain, suffering, loss of normal life, diminished life expectancy, and medical expenses.?The jury deliberated 1.5 hours before returning a verdict for $155,000.???
-
Springfield partners Joy Syrcle and Joseph Rupcich obtained a defense verdict following a six-day jury trial in the Central District of Illinois.?The plaintiff had sued a medical provider and his employer, claiming the provision of medical care to her in an emergency was without consent and constituted battery and medical battery, among other things.?Plaintiff presented expert testimony that no emergency existed, which was countered by expert testimony from the Defendants on the exigency of the situation.?The jury deliberated approximately one hour before returning a verdict for the defendants on all claims.