Comments on: Illinois Supreme Court Denies Appeal Against Parents of AIDS Carrier

By: karen lakey

karen lakey — Sat, 19 Sep 2009 12:02:41 +0000

This is reply To number 2 wife I have a ltter Telling number 2 wife fr om jack carter telling her to leave him alone she tried desperate ly to ruin my fathers friendship with her ex and it didnot work and her ex s my good friend and all the letters and all the information he has and I sold all to the highest bidder . W ho needs abook I have the real thing Goodbye ms greed.

By: victoria dilling

victoria dilling — Thu, 10 Sep 2009 15:32:39 +0000

Yes, Karen Lakey is the daughter of my dear friend Jack Carter (John Lakey).

Jack was a dear friend, and lived with my former husband and me for many years spring, summer and fall in Illinois.

I came across these comments which I gather most persons would disregard as “sour grapes” and off the charts. I have never said anything unkind about Karen in the past. I have never met Karen. Jack, her father was concerned about Karen’s many harassment charges resulting in jail time. He warned me not to be involved with his daughter. He kept a distance between us. I helped Jack in his dying days when he needed his daughter’s help by contacting her. Karen’s father would be appalled at this attempt to cash in on his private and inconsequential letters. How about the o n e Karen sent me from Jim Walgreen’s bookkeeper outlining my Jim Walgreen’s affair long before our divorce?
Who cares?

Anyone want to offer Karen a book deal?

By: karen lakey

karen lakey — Wed, 02 Sep 2009 17:58:51 +0000

Ihave all the letters written by vickie walgreen dilling writig about the walgreen family the court case and everything about it in her own hand writting to my Dad jack carter Iam his heir and Iam selling them to the highest bidder

By: karen lakey

karen lakey — Tue, 25 Aug 2009 16:39:08 +0000

Ihave all the papers on what happened written by number2 wife of walgreen on the details of what ws happening the number2 wife is no different then number3 wife they cheat on a husband who has money marry for money and then they get mad when he has enough They use the money from divorce to get back at the husband with the money , If they never married him they would not have money and number 2 and 3 wifes cheat on him . In the end he is made to be a bad guy In reality he is not.

By: karen lakey

karen lakey — Tue, 28 Jul 2009 09:27:43 +0000

this is too tell you that vickie cheated on jim with his a friend of jims and made alot of money in the divorce and is eeling her property for 1200000million she is not hurt by the walgreens she has said pretty bad things about alot of people in cluding me and i have letters she wrote I have the documentation and I am going too one day make it all public withe her letters she is not the victim she used everyone including my parent as a pawn so yes she won but she is not different then any other wife they all includidng this one cheat on him even the new one have a good liife.

By: karen lakey

karen lakey — Mon, 27 Jul 2009 20:49:34 +0000

knowing both parties and having ties I do agree that power and anger were the big factor here and I am thankful that the dillings are safe now It is too bad that ex suse there power to hurt people

By: mespo727272

mespo727272 — Sun, 04 Jan 2009 13:37:26 +0000

Victoria:

In now 25 years of law practice, I always find the facts and motivations of the back story to be more fascinating than the case itself. Your story seems to be the paradigm.

By: Victoria Dilling, twin sister of Albert

Victoria Dilling, twin sister of Albert — Sun, 04 Jan 2009 07:11:00 +0000

The biggest problem existed when James Walgreen, my former husband, became involved.
The former head of the law department of Walgreens Co. (William Shank) with Hall Adems suggestion, contacted James Walgreen and asked him to become involved with the case.
James Walgreen did everything in his power to ruin my parents financially so that I would possibly be forced to loose everything. If I were not able to put up a letter of credit, my Mother would of lost her home of 30 years just after my father died. Took a toll on us, but we made it through and prevailed.
The case would not have had merit if not for James Walgreen’s testimony which was false.
We are thankful that after 7-8 years and over 1/2 million dollars in legal fees, we have finally seen justice.
Hall Adems used William Shank, our trustee, to involve James Walgreen.
The story has been interesting to movie companies with crazy suit against an adult’s parents, vindictiveness of the sister of Albert’s,former spouse, AIDS component, etc.
Our story has been about greed, money and power behind the scenes along with the
lack of responsibility of Trina (Jane Doe) to look after herself and expecting to win a huge amount of money from the Dillings who did nothing wrong.
Upstanding citizens, both of them.
The case should never have gone so far…

By: vxpjaro mxpcau

vxpjaro mxpcau — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 08:59:54 +0000

bofn uldcq tesdqr wldazcy inszkfwy jqwo yelchngs

By: e. dilling/sister

e. dilling/sister — Sat, 19 Apr 2008 04:35:49 +0000

thank you for you sensible comments, this was a travesty of justice and fueled by an angry powerful force.

By: mespo727272

mespo727272 — Sat, 05 Apr 2008 17:54:51 +0000

Were it to be imposed, I wonder what the logical extension of the scope of this duty would be for treaters of AID’s patients. If the treating family practice physician, knows about the ignorance of the patient’s fiance’ or spouse as to the real condition must he/she disclose same to them or face liability. Under the Second Restatement of Torts the treating physician does have superior knowledge and there is substantial risk of harm to the spouse/fiance. If he is asked point blank by the spouse, and misrepresents, is he liable? What if he is physician to both? If he discloses confidential patient information to protect himself from liability here, is he liable under HIPAA? What about other STD’s? Yeesh, I think I’ll stay in my profession.

By: jonathanturley

jonathanturley — Sat, 05 Apr 2008 15:15:21 +0000

Mespo and Jill:

Great discussion. I agree about the limits for an assumption-based decision and the proper emphasis on third-party liability. Given the fact that this was an adult son, it would extend such liability considerably from past cases. It would also present some poor incentives for relatives of AIDS victims, who may unsure of their potential liability and over-compensate by disclosing conditions are that are private and harmful for the carrier. It is a very tough question for these reasons. I felt that she had presented some serious questions about the failure of the family to inform her. However, in the end, a ruling in her favor could open the floodgates for such lawsuits.

By: Jill

Jill — Sat, 05 Apr 2008 14:20:46 +0000

I will. I’m still on Yoo’s “opinion” and need to read the article Susan referenced. I’m way behind. I would like to hear your anaylsis of the other related opinion. I’m not an attorney so I can’t fit these things into legal frameworks as many of you do (quite well I must add!).

Jill

By: mespo727272

mespo727272 — Sat, 05 Apr 2008 14:04:23 +0000

Jill:

If you get a few minutes, read the opinion. There is another related legal malpractice case wrapped in this situation and the medical choices made by the patient are fascinating.

By: Jill

Jill — Sat, 05 Apr 2008 13:57:22 +0000

Hello Mespo,

I think it is not reasonable for a court to rule that she or any other layperson should be able to make a differential diagnosis of a medical illness. Certainly someone might believe another person is sick but how they should know what is making them sick is beyond me. Thanks to you and others for linking information in your posts. I really appreciate that.

Jill

By: mespo727272

mespo727272 — Sat, 05 Apr 2008 13:31:48 +0000

JT:

I am usually in favor of expansion of tort liability for fraudulent conduct, but I do agree that the line is stretched too far here. It appears to be an unusual case as the Illinois Supreme Court notes that “… neither Doe in her argument to this court, nor the appellate court in its opinion below, cites to a single case in the country where a court has imposed liability under the tort of fraudulent misrepresentation against the parents of a competent adult tortfeasor for their failure to disclose information about that tortfeasor to a third party.”

I disagree that the case turns on an assumption of risk analysis,as Justice Freeman writes. I think the more salinet legal issue is the imposition of a duty on the parents simply due to their relationship with their son as opposed to the relationship with his fiance’. The Court notes:

“The Dillings further assert that, in contrast, no such inherent duty
to disclose exists within the purely private encounter that is at issue in the instant cause. The Dillings therefore contend that extending the tort of fraudulent misrepresentation from its traditional commercial setting to the facts presented in the matter at bar would have the potential for dire consequences, in that, unlike in the case of commercial transactions where the parties’ duty to deal honestly is circumscribed by the scope of the business dealings, in purely personal settings such a duty would be without limits.”

To impose upon the plaintiff, the duty to diagnose in this murky medical situation fraught with notions of holistic remedies and a lawyer rendering medical diagnoses, is just as preposterous as requiring the patient’s parents to diagnose and the disclose. All in all, I think the Court makes the proper decision to keep the typical claim within the ambit of commercial setting, but I can imagine better fact patterns where one might extend the tort to a more personal case. The adoption case cited in the opinion comes to mind.