BUDWEISER EMPLOYEES - BE CAREFUL!

Saw an interesting story in Jeff Ruby's The Closer column of the March, 2006 Chicago Magazine. Jeff reported on a recent year-end summary of interesting workplace events as compiled by Challenger, Gray & Christmas, a Chicago outplacement firm. The compilation, aptly entitled 2005 Most Unbelievable Workplace Events, described an unfortunate decision made by a Budweiser distributor employee in Greeley, Colorado. Seems the employee, a Mr. Ross Hopkins, was enjoying a Coors at a local establishment and was spotted by the son-in-law of his boss. The son-in-law offered to buy Hopkins a Bud, but Hopkins refused. The following Monday, Hopkins was fired. According to Hopkins lawsuit, he was advised that drinking a competitor's beer was "...putting food on the competitor's table, while we are putting food on yours." According to Ruby's article, Hopkins claimed he ordered a Bud, but the waitress mistakenly brought him a Coors. Moral of the story? If Hopkins ever buys a horse, it damn well better be a Clydesdale.

DRUMBEAT GETTING LOUDER FOR GEORGE??

As reported by Michael Sneed and Eric Herman in the February 24, 2006 Chicago Sun-Times, it appears Cardinal Francis George ignored early warning signs about Rev. Daniel McCormack. As reported in the article, a review board at the Archdiocese of Chicago advised George to remove McCormack in October of 2005. George however, failed to act on the advice and McCormack remained at St. Agatha's Parish until January of 2006 when he was charged with molesting two boys. Recently McCormack was charged with abusing another boy - in January of 2006, some three months after George received the Review Board's recommendation to remove McCormack. The spokesperson for the Cardinal, Colleen Dolan admitted that George had received "interim advice" to remove McCormack, but noted that "There was no formal recommendation." The Department of Children and Family Services has also indicated it is looking into additional allegations against the priest.

PARKINSON'S DRUG ALLEGED TO CAUSE COMPULSIVE BEHAVIOR

Max Wells, retired doctor, filed a lawsuit on friday, February 17th, against drug manufacturer Glaxo Smith Kline and seven casinos after gambling away $14 million. Wells' complaint alleges that Glaxo Smith Kline failed to warn him that the Parkinson's drug he was taking could lead to compulsive behavior and that the Casinos knew of Mayo Clinic studies that documented the danger in a study of 11 patients taking the drug.


Class Action Lawsuits filed as a result of drug's effects.

National Geographic publishes its thoughts on the subject.

TROOPER'S WIDOW SUES MAKERS OF COLD DRUG

Saw an interesting note in the January-February 2006 Vested Interest, the Illinois Trial Lawyers Newsletter. The note described a lawsuit recently filed by the widow of an Oklahoma state trooper who was gunned down by someone high on methamphetamine. The widow filed suit against several makers and sellers of the drug pseudoephedrine. The lawsuit appears to allege that the makers and sellers of the drug were aware the meth addicts were buying pseudoephedrine, not for medicinal purposes, but to extract certain ingredients that would allow them to make, and presumably get high on meth. The widow is also alleging that the defendant companies[including Pfizer, Wal-Mart and Walgreens] knew how to make pseudoephedrine in such a manner that drug addicts couldn't extract the meth ingredients. Presumably the widow has evidence[probably from the criminal trial] that the shooter purchased the medication, extracted the necessary ingredients, got high and then killed her husband. Even if that is the case, the drug manufacturers will certainly argue that the risk of methheads buying a cold medication, altering it, and then cooking up meth wasn't foreseeable - and as a result, they wouldn't have any duty to prevent it. It will be interesting to see if the defendants did in fact have an alternative way to make the drug where vital ingredients couldn't be extracted. If so, that would suggest they were on notice that addicts were using the drug for alternative purposes. That fact may be critical in rebutting the inevitable defense that the makers couldn't forsee this odd string of events taking place. In light of the way meth has taken hold in the Midwest, for some time now, perhaps the defendants did know something like this was possible.

JURY AWARDS MILLIONS AGAINST CHICAGO P.D.

As reported in the Chicago Tribune on Saturday, February 18, 2006, a Cook County jury returned a $6.74 million dollar verdict against the Chicago Police Department for using excessive force and coercion to wrongfully obtain murder convictions against three men that were later vacated. The men, Omar de Jesus Aquirre, 37, Savier Duarte Santos, 33 and Robert Gayol, 42, spent years in custody or prison before being freed in 2002. They alleged that Chicago Police picked them up for questioning in November of 1997 after the murder of Southwest Side furniture store owner. The plaintiffs alleged they were physically abused by the police, who also concocted fake stories to secure their convictions.

The jury awared $3 million to both Aquirre and Santos. Before his sentence was vacated, Aquirre was serving a 55 year sentence. Gayol had been sentenced to life. Santos had cooled his heels in custody for 4 years and then served only six months of a 12 year sentence, pursuant to a deal he had cut with prosecutors. The lawyers representing the three men had requested an award of $21.5 million.

ILLINOIS CITIZENS PREVAIL IN RIGHT TO KNOW CASE

Congratulation to The Southern Illinoisan newspaper for sticking to their guns in a lengthy public health fight they have been waging with the Illinos Department of Public Health[IDPH]. After 8 years of litigation and appeals, the Illinois Supreme Court recently ruled that the IDPH had to fork over certain public health records they had been withholding. The newspaper had been fighting to obtain IDPH data regarding neuroblastoma, a rare childhood cancer. The Supreme Court ruled that the IDPH must comply with the newspaper's Freedom of Information Request that would help identify "clusters" of cancer cases. The original request was filed shortly after a civil lawsuit was filed by several families in Taylorville, Illinois. The families suspected that the cancer developed by their children resulted from coal tar at a nearby utility plant. The families had shown a link between the cancers and the contaminants, and a monetary settlement was reached. The paper wanted to find out if children in others areas of the state were at also at risk from similar contaminants or carcinogens.

So the Southern Illinoisan filed a Freedom of Information Request for the data in 1997. There was no request for specific names. Instead, the paper was looking for the type of cancer, date of diagnosis and zip code of all cancer patient diagnosed since1985. Seems reasonable enought. But the IDPH didn't think so. The Department denied the request, alleging the data could be manipulated to identify the patients. To prove their point, the Department offered evidence that a professor of Computer Science could use the information requested to determine the names of most of the patients. [It should be noted that the Professor had a Ph.D in computer science, used sophisticated search techniques and expensive software to get the names]. The newspaper filed suit in 1998, seeking court intervention to get the records. The trial court ruled for the paper, but the IDPH fought the ruling, and the Appellate Court overturned the lower court's decision. The case was sent back to the lower court. And again, in 2002, the trial court ordered the Department to turn over the data. In fact, the trial judge, William Schwartz, ordered the agency to pay the paper's legal fees, because he found the Department's conduct was "obstreperous". But the IDPH wasn't done. They took the fight to the Illinois Supreme Court. Thankfully the Supreme Court ordered that the records were to be turned over. But the IDPH seemingly hasn't given up. A spokesman for the IDPH was quoted as saying "We are very disappointed and wer are exploring all options" to avoid release of the data, including legislation.

Makes you wonder why the IDPH would fight so hard to keep these records confidential. Wonder what they are so afraid of...

CHICAGO TRIBUNE BLASTS IMESCH

The February 9 Chicago Tribune had a great editorial today regarding the utter failings of Joliet Bishop Joseph Imesch after being confronted with pretty concrete evidence that priests in his archdiocese were sexually abusing young people. The editorial actually quotes deposition testimony from Imesch that was unsealed last week. At one point, Imesch was asked about a report to diocesan officials in 1985 that a Woodridge priest might be having a sexual relationship with a 14 year old girl. Imesch was asked if he contacted police. His response? "I would not do that...There is no verification. There is no hard evidence this was happening. And I'm not going to go say, Hey police, go check on my priest." Later, Imesch testified: "I'm not going to go to the police and say that I've got a suspicion that one of my priests is dating a young girl. I'm not going to do that." Why not? A sexual relationship between an adult man and a child is illegal - Imesch surely knew that, but did nothing.

Another bit of testimony that turns the stomach - came about when the lawyer discussed the victim's age...
Q: She was a 14 year old girl.
A: We didn't know that at the time.
Q: You didn't ask.
A: We didn't know who to ask.
I have an idea - how about the priest who is carrying on with the child? A couple of phone calls could have confirmed the victim's age. But Imesch didn't do a thing. Thankfully someone else[with some character]did go to the police and the priest involved was ultimately convicted of criminal sexual abuse.

There was additional questioning about another priest who was accused of abusing young boys in Lombard. Imesch testified the priest acknowledged skinny-dipping with the boys and playing games with them while nude. Imesch simply moved the priest to another parish where he was also accused of abuse. When questioned about the credibility of the Lombard allegations, Imesch responded: "Well, I think what happened happened. It was not considered a crime or a criminal activity so there was not reason for me not to transfer him." The Bishop of Joliet it seems, thinks it is perfectly acceptable for a grown man to play in the nude with young boys.

To add insult to injury, Imesch released a letter last weekend noting that the incidents occurred "...before psychologists recognized that behavior of that kind was indicative of a severe problem..." What a crock. He didn't know that these incidents indicated problems? He is either remarkably stupid, or simply lying in a misguided effort to protect the archidocese from the inevitable legal fallout. Imesch also bemoaned the fact that the media is portraying him as someone who doesn't care about the safety of children. Having read the excerpts above, what else could you conclude about this creep?

MICHAEL B. HYMAN ARTICLE IN CRAIN'S

For those of you who haven't heard, the American Tort Reform Association[ATRA] recently announced that Cook County, Illinois[the county where Chicago is located] is a "judicial hellhole". Michael Hyman, a Chicago attorney, wrote a nice piece recently in Crain's Chicago Business, explaining why ATRA is all wet. First, in calendar year 2004, jury verdicts in Cook County were 51% for plaintiffs and 49% for defendants - hardly the breakdown you you expect in a "judicial hellhole". [Frankly those numbers suprised me - Cook County has always been regarded as a friendlier forum than some of the surrounding counties. But these numbers suggest, to me anyway, that even Cook County juries are getting more conservative]. The 2005 numbers are apparently also split down the middle.

Hyman also pointed out that in the ATRA article, the authors focused on four cases that Cook County judges kept in Cook, that in ATRA's opinion, should have been transferred to other counties. What ATRA failed to mention[shockingly] was that the cases were decided prior to 2003, when the Illinois Supreme Court enacted a major change in the relevant caselaw. Hyman closed his article by noting that ATRA is nothing more than a well-financed special interest group trying to manipulate the jury system to serve the interests of the corporate world. Well done Michael.

KENNETH P. NOLAN ARTICLE

For those of you who get Litigation, the ABA Quarterly publication, don't miss Kenneth P. Nolan's Sidebar, in the Spring issue, starting on page 57. A short, funny, easy read in which Mr. Nolan explains just why he became a lawyer. In the course of the article he offers a number of simple, practical things young lawyers[and perhaps even some not-so-young laywers] can do to become great trial lawyers. I would link to it if I could, but I haven't figured out just how the hell to do that just yet.

BURGER KING CASE GOES TO ILLINOIS SUPREME COURT

The Illinois Supreme Court will decide if a fast food restuarant has a duty to build barricades around those parts of the restuarant near the parking area. On January 12, 2006, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments growing out of a tragic incident at a Rockford Burger King in 2001. At that time Detroy Marshall II, a patron seated in the restuarant dining area, was killed when a driver lost control of her car in the Burger King parking lot, and crashed into the building. Marshall was crushed by the car. The case had been thrown out at the trial level, but reinstated on appeal. Marshall's attorneys argue that it is reasonable to hold Burger King liable because it should anticipate that cars will have sudden mechanical problems in the parking lot, causing contact with the restuarant structure. The defense response is that this particular circumstance was impossible to anticipate or prevent. A group of businesses filed a "friend of the court" brief in which they argued that holding Burger King liable would alter the business landscape of Illinois by requiring business owners to erect barriers on their property to prevent similar occurrences. My prediction? The Court holds that Burger King does not have any duty to install barricades to protect their customers.

ITS GOOD TO BE AN ISMIE BIGWIG

The drumbeat on medical malpractice reform was relentless. Everyday it seemed like there was another story in the paper about how doctors were fleeing the state because medical malpractice suits had driven up premiums. And there were countless stories about how much the insurance companies for the doctors were paying out in runaway verdicts. So the doctors got to push their "tort reform package" where pain and suffering damages were limited.

So it was interesting to see a Mike Fitzgerald's January 1, 2006 article in the Belleville New Democrat about how ISMIE cuts back in these challenging times. You would expect that with all the settlements and verdicts they were allegedly paying out, there would be a freeze on salaries. Not quite. Let's take ISMIE CEO Larry Lerner for example. Despite all stories in the media, ISMIE actually found some money to give him a raise. The raise he got in 2004 brought his annual salary to nearly $1 million dollars. But that's not all. He also got a low interest $995,000 mortgage on his 4800 square foot home in a fashionable North Shore neighborhood.

And then there is Don Udstuen, a former Illinois State Medical Society lobbyist. He got nearly $5 million dollars in deferred compensation right about the time he quit his post. Yeah, $5 million dollars. They found some money to pay him too. And a word or two about Don. This is the very same "Dr. Don" who was a member of former Governor George Ryan's "kitchen cabinet". As an esteemed member of that group, he accepted kickbacks from people who got state contracts through his influence. Mr. Udstuen also pled guilty to federal tax charges growing out of monies he secretly stashed away and lied about while a member of Metra's board. [Incidentally, it should also be noted that when Dr. Don was in trouble with the feds he agreed to cooperate and wear a wire so he could implicate his long-time friend Governor Ryan. Quite a guy.]

The conclusion? Times are always good if you are an ISMIE bigshot.

IN MARYLAND, MOONING IS OK

In the interests of discussing ground-breaking legal developments, have to share this story I saw the other day in the Chicago Sun-Times. A Montgomery County, Maryland judge recently ruled that the act of mooning[dropping one's pants and flashing one's buttocks]is not illegal. This landmark ruling grows out of an apparent on-going dispute between two Maryland neighbors, Raymond Hugh NcNealey and Nanette Vonfeldt. McNealey and Vonfeldt had a heated argument the night before the "incident". The following morning, as Vonfeldt walked out of her apartment, she ran into McNealey. Words were exchanged and then Nealey mooned Vonfeldt and her eight year old daughter. [Just a quick aside - what kind of loser moons a little girl?] McNealey was charged with indecent exposure and convicted.

McNealey appealed the conviction, arguing that the state law in issue prohibited the display of "private parts" but not the buttocks. His attorneys even cited a 1983 United States Supreme Court ruling holding that indecent exposure only related to a person's genitals. On appeal, Judge John W. Debelius III ruled that although McNealey's actions were "disgusting" and "demeaning", he wasn't guilty of indecent exposure and overruled the lower court. Interestingly, Debelius noted in his opinion that "If exposure of half of the buttock constituted indecent exposure, any woman wearing a thong at the beach at Ocean City would be guilty." True enough. But those young ladies are simply enjoying the beach. Sounds like McNealey was using his ass in an effort to show his disdain with Ms. Vonfeldt. So the key issue goes to the mooner's intent But I digress...The thing that really caught my eye about this piece was the quote from McNealey's attorney, James Maxwell, who noted the ruling should "...bring comfort to all beachgoers and plumbers" in the state of Maryland.

NEW JERSEY COURT: EMPLOYER HAS DUTY TO STOP PORN SURFING

According to a recent article in the ABA JOURNAL eREPORT, the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, recently ruled that when an employer has actual or imputed knowledge that an employee is accessing pornography at work, the company has a duty to investigate and stop the activity. The case, Doe v. XYC Corp. involved an rather ugly factual situation. An employee of the defendant company was viewing pornographic websites while at work. Supervisors became aware, had a talk with the employee, and instructed him to stop visiting the porn sites. Due to company privacy rules, there wasn't much follow-up after the initial discussion. Sadly, sometime thereafter, the worker took pornagraphic images of his 10 year old stepdaughter and submitted them to a child porn site. The child's mom sued, seeking to have the employer held responsible for the subsequent sexual abuse. She argued that had the company taken more agressive action regarding the inappropriate sites, the abuse might have been prevented. Tough sell. And, not suprisingly, the trial court granted summary judgment, saying that the abuse had taken place inside the home, which was not under the employer's control. In addition, the trial court felt that the employer acted reasonably by instructing the worker to stay away from the porn sites. Mom wasn't satisfied and appealed.

And mom must have known something because the Appellate Court reversed. The Court ruled the company knew or should have known that the employee was looking at porn. The Court went on to note that once they knew about this guy's viewing habits, they should have gotten the police involved or terminated him. But the Court didn't completely endorse plaintiff's case. The opinion indicated that the Appellate Court was troubled by the proximate cause issue. The case was remanded back to the trial court, where the plaintiff, according to the Appellate Court, must prove that the sexual abuse would have been averted if the employer had stopped the porn-viewing at work. Just how precisely the plaintiff can prove that is beyond me. Plaintiff may have won this particular battle, but will likely lose the war.

NEW ILLINOIS MEDICAL ERROR REPORTING LAW

According to recently-passed Illinois legislation, Illinois health care facilities[hospitals and ambulatory surgery facilities]will soon be required to report "Adverse Health Care Events to public health officials. The new law, entitled Illinois Adverse Health Care Events Reporting Law of 2005 was passed in June, 2005. The law provides that after an adverse health event[otherwise known as medical malpractice]occurs, the facility will be required to report it to the Department of Public Health. The health care facility will also be required to perform a cause analysis of the event, file a corrective action plan with the state, or explain why no corrective action will be necessary.

The health care facilities will have some time to get their houses in order. The Health Department has until July, 2007 to set up the system. In addition the Department will be allowed to test it for six months. Health care facilities will then be given 30 days notice that the system is operational. The law will become effective January 1, 2008 and health care facilities will be required to begin making the reports on that date.

In addition, the Health Department will be required to publish an annual report setting out, by institution, the adverse events reported, the cause analyses and corrective action plans. The identity of the patients will not be revealed.

And the new law won't result in low hanging fruit for medical malpractice lawyers. The legislation provides that the event, analysis and corrective plans shall not be available to the public and shall not be discoverable in civil, criminal or administrative proceedings.

INTELLIGENT DESIGN TAKES IT ON THE CHIN

I was delighted to read the other day that the right wing Intelligent Design[ID] nutbags took one on the chin recently in a Pennsylvania federal court. On Tuesday, December 20, 2005, United States District Judge John E. Jones ruled that the attempt of the Dover School Board to insert ID into the science curriculum violated the constitutional separation of church and state. The ruling was viewed as a major blow to the ID movement, which holds that living organisms are so complex that they must have been created by a higher power. And it was nice to see that Judge Jones didn't pull any punches. He described the proposed Dover policy[where they would be instructed that Darwin's theory of evolution "is not fact" and "has gaps"] as one of "breathtaking inanity". In addition his opinion also noted that the true motive of board members pushing ID wasn't educational, but instead an attempt to promote religion.

Jones[who is a Republican]went on to note that the six week trial yielded "overwhelming evidence" establishing that ID is in fact a "...religious view, a mere relabeling of creationism". The judge wrote that the students, parents and teachers of the Dover Area School District deserved better than to be dragged into a legal battle over ID, which was an utter waste of resources. The School system said it would not appeal because [shockingly] the board members who had been pushing ID had been shown the door in the last election.

I certainly hope that no one in the Judge's family is a CIA operative. If so, they can expect to be outed in the very near future.

HOLIDAY BREAK IS OVER

Back to work and the keyboard after the Holidays....

Couple of noteworthy items caught my attention over the last couple of weeks...First, a family claiming toxic mold in their home caused brain damage to their infant reached a settlement against a lumber company and 16 other defendants. The parents alleged the baby became ill due to mold on framing studs that had developed because the lumber had been improperly stored. The defendant lumber company settled the day after the trial court had barred 10 of 17 defense experts. The court found that defense counsel was late in his disclosure and then backdated court documents to cover up the tardy filing. Oops. Bad day at the office for defense counsel. (Source: December, 2005 issue of VESTED INTEREST, Newsletter for the Illinois Trial Lawyers Association).

Also, on Monday, December 12, 2005 a federal judge declared a mistrial in the first federal lawsuit against Merck for injuries allegedly attributable to Vioxx. A nine person jury was unable to come to a unanimous verdict whether Vioxx had contributed to the 2001 heart attack death of Richard Irvin, a Florida man. The jury had been deliberating for several days. Irvin had been taking the drug for a month prior to his death for back pain. According to the Reuters Online, Merck faces over 7000 other lawsuits claiming that it had hidden data for years showing that there was a link between the drug and heart attacks and strokes. In August, a Texas jury found Merck liable in a wrongful death case, while a New Jersey trial had found for Merck in another death case. Merch pulled the drug from the market in September of 2004.

WISCONSIN GOVERNOR HAS CAJONES

Pleased to see that Governor James Doyle, governor of our neighbor Wisconsin, vetoed a bill last week that would have capped the amount of money that medical malpractice victims can win in court for non-economic damages[i.e. "pain and suffering"]. The bill set limits of $450,000 for adults and $550,000 for children. The law had been drafted by Republican lawmakers who were in a snit because an earlier version of a caps bill had been ruled unconstitutional by the Wisconsin Supreme Court. The Supreme Court, in so ruling noted that the earlier bill had no rational basis for the caps. So the Republicans, who apparently can't help themselves, promptly drafted another bill proposing caps with no rational basis. And Governor Doyle had the stones to veto what amounted to nothing more than a retread of the earlier bill, with some modification of the numbers. Of course the Republicans won't go quietly. Assembly speaker John Gard, R-Pestigo vowed to override the veto. Doing so may be difficult however - a veto requires a two-thirds majority vote in both the House and Senate and the Republican party doesn't control two-thirds of either chamber. And, if the override fails, Gard has indicated he will "demand" that the Governor give them a number he thinks the Court will uphold.(?) Maybe Gard should take a deep breath before he puts on his Overrider outfit. The flaw in the bills isn't the numbers. The flaw is that the legislation creates two classes of victims: those who are not as seriously hurt who can obtain fair compensation, and those victims who are more seriously injured and cannot obtain fair compensation. Big thumbs up for Doyle for having the guts to chuck the bill.

NEW JERSEY TWIST IN SPORTS LITIGATION

Juat saw a brief article in ITLA's November newsletter about a recent ruling in New Jersey regarding injuries at ballparks. The New Jersey State Supreme Court recently ruled that a ballpark patron hit by a foul ball while buying a beer can sue the park owner for negligence. As the article explained, the decision altered the long-standing "baseball rule" that essentially decreed that fans assume certain risks when they enter the old ballpark - risks like being clocked by a foul ball or thrown bat. The ruling affects eight minor league baseball stadiums that have opened in New Jersey in the last several years. The article went on to note that some of the owners were likely to erect nettings, screens and other protective barriers. I haven't seen the actual opinion, but I would be shocked if stadium owners in New Jersy have, until now, been allowed to skirt liability by claiming that that some 6 year old going to his first baseball game assumed the risk of being hit by a baseball bat(?). MLB has required netting behind the plate[where most foul balls go]for years in order to protect fans. Shameful to think New Jersey stadium owners were allowed to forego an easy and relatively inexpensive safety precaution this long.

FORD FUEL TANK ISSUES

According to a recent ATLA Law News Digest Article, Ford Motor has acknowledged that fuel tanks in some of its larger sedans pose an increased risk of explosion in rear end collisions. Ford recently offered to provide protective fire shields to owners of the Lincoln Town Car stretch limos but will not offer the fire shields to millions of other drivers who own cars with the same fuel system. Ford has taken the position that the risk of explosion is specific only to the limos. Safety advocates however, have called upon Ford to recall millions of other models that recently had the same fuel styem built in, including the Crown Victoria and Mercury Grand Marquis. Interestingly, Ford has begun to notify owners of the stretch limos that they will provide the protection kits free of charge, but will not pay for installation.

LATE REQUEST TO ADMIT

Saw an recent opinion out of the Second Appellate District the other day regarding the late filing of a response to a Request to Admit. In Robbins v. Allstate the plaintiff sued Allstate for failing to pay for fire damages to his home. Allstate defended the case, saying that the plaintiff had torched the place. Defendant had issued a Request to Admit to the plaintiff two months after his lawyer had withdrawn from the case - the plaintiff was acting as his own attorney. The requests were all directed the to the plaintiff being directly involved in the fire. Plaintiff actually answered the requests within 28 days, but the responses were contradictory. And, he didn't swear to them, as required by Rule 216. The defense moved for summary judgement, arguing that the responses were not proper, and as a result, the Requests were all admitted. On appeal, the plaintiff appealed to the discretion afforded the trial court to deviate from the 28 day response timeframe. The Appellate Court ruled however, that in order for the trial court to exercise its discretion, the plaintiff must show good cause. And the Appellate Court decided that the plaintiff had failed to show good cause for an extension of the deadline. The Court further noted that "...while we sympathize withe the plaintiff's position, the fact that he was acting pro se at the time provided no basis for the trial court to exercise its discretion...". Tough result. Bottom line - answer those Rule 216 Requests to Admit and have them sworn within 28 days.