Source: https://www.briskmanandbriskman.com/our-attorneys/paul-a-greenberg/
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 18:50:31+00:00

Document:
Paul Greenberg is the managing member of the law firm of Briskman Briskman & Greenberg, where he represents injured individuals in personal injury and workers’ compensation claims. Prior to joining Briskman Briskman & Greenberg, Paul was a member of the law firm of Aronberg Goldgehn Davis & Garmisa and the co-chair of its Appellate Advocacy Group, which focused on representing plaintiffs in personal injury appeals. In addition to being an experienced practitioner in the federal and state courts, Paul has been an adjunct professor of appellate advocacy at Loyola University School of Law and has authored several articles on a wide array of legal topics.
Bowman v. Chicago Park District, 2014 IL App (1st) 132122 (1st Dist. 2014). Artenia Bowman, on behalf of her 13-year old daughter, Cheneka Ross, filed a lawsuit against the Chicago Park District after Ross fractured her ankle on a defective slide . The Circuit Court of Cook County granted summary judgment in favor of the Chicago Park District finding that Ross was not an intended user of the park where she was injured. The First District of the Illinois Appellate Court reversed, holding that if the park district intends to restrict the intended use and users of park property and equipment, it must publish such restrictions or post signs in and around the park or equipment.
Chas Levy Circulating Co. v. Benevides, 393 Ill. App. 3d 1096 (1st Dist. 2009). The Court reversed the decision of the Circuit Court and held that Benevides’ injury was compensable under the Illinois Workers’ Compensation Act.
Mitchell v. Groot Industries, Inc., 361 Ill. App. 3d 1083 (1st Dist. 2005). In this case, the plaintiff, while working for a temporary employment agency, died after being run over by a wheel loader being operated by a representative of the “borrowing employer.” As the parent corporation of the “borrowing employer,” Groot Industries argued that it was a joint employer of the plaintiff and, as a result, was immune from suit under the Workers’ Compensation Act. The circuit court agreed, granting summary judgment in favor of Groot Industries. The appellate court reversed, holding that the facts did not establish that Groot Industries was a joint employer of the plaintiff.
Trippe Mfg. Co. v. Niles Audio Corp., 401 F.3d 529 (3rd Cir. 2005). The Court reversed the District Court’s decision compelling the Plaintiff to arbitrate the Defendant’s multi-million dollar successor-liability claims. The Court held that the Plaintiff had not assumed responsibility for the Defendant’s claims and thus was not bound to arbitrate them. The ruling effectively brought to an end several years of contentious litigation.
Methode Electronics, Inc. v. Adam Technologies, Inc., 71 F.3d 923 (7th Cir. 2004). The Court, based on a legal theory that was not raised by trial counsel, affirmed the District Court’s imposition of sanctions against the Plaintiff.
Represented a family-owned business whose bookkeeper, over an 18-month period of time, stole nearly $1 million in checks made payable to the company and deposited them into the bookkeeper’s accomplice’s account. The depository bank accepted the deposits and made payment on the checks. The business sued the depository bank alleging that it converted the checks, within the meaning of Uniform Commercial Code. The court granted the business’ motion for summary judgment, holding that the depository bank, by failing to ensure that the checks contained valid endorsements, was liable for the entire loss.
Superior Environmental Corp. v. Marlin Environmental Inc., 247 F. Supp. 2d 1001 (N.D. Ill. 2001). The District Court granted Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss. However, on Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration, the Court vacated its dismissal order and sustained the Plaintiff’s claims for, among other things, breach of fiduciary duty and imposition of a constructive trust.
In re O’Shaughnessy (Ovid, Inc. v. O.Shaughnessy), 252 B.R. 722 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. 2001). Represented Plaintiff/franchisee in suit against the former officer of the franchisor-corporation seeking in excess of $1 million in damages. The Bankruptcy Court allowed the Plaintiff to file a complaint objecting to the dischargeability of its debt, holding that the Debtor intentionally omitted Plaintiff from the bankruptcy schedules.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.