Family of Allegedly Unsupervised Student Files Wrongful Death Lawsuit

The family of a 10-year-old boy with a known seizure disorder has filed a wrongful death lawsuit against Chicago Public Schools, claiming his school failed to provide the supervision and medical response his condition required.

Case: Lakesha Monica Jones Townsend v. Chicago Public Schools (CPS), the Chicago Board of Education, and the City of Chicago

Court: Cook County Court

Case no.: 2025L007034

Townsend v. Chicago Public Schools: About the Plaintiff and the Child

Lakeisha Monica Jones-Townsend, mother of Kody Townsend, filed the wrongful death lawsuit after her son died following a seizure and choking incident at school. Kody was diagnosed with Lennox-Gastaut Syndrome, a rare and severe seizure disorder, along with developmental delays that made him dependent on adult assistance during daily activities, especially eating. Kody had both an Individualized Education Plan (IEP) and a seizure action plan, which specified that he must be supervised by a paraprofessional at all times and receive prompt intervention during seizures. The suit was filed in Cook County Circuit Court.

Learn More About the Defendant: Townsend v. Chicago Public Schools

The defendants in the lawsuit, Chicago Public Schools (CPS), the Chicago Board of Education, and the City of Chicago, are allegedly the entities that are collectively responsible for the operation of Clissold Elementary School, where Kody was enrolled. The plaintiff argues that the public school system is legally responsible for properly implementing medical and education plans for students in their care (like Kody).

What Allegedly Happened:

According to the lawsuit, on October 18, 2024, while Kody was eating lunch at school, he suffered a seizure and began choking on food. The paraprofessional assigned to supervise him was allegedly not present, in violation of his IEP and care plan. The school also failed to notify a nurse or initiate either of the two seizure treatments included in his medical plan. Paramedics arrived nine minutes later, unaware that food was obstructing Kody's airway. It wasn't until Kody reached the hospital that doctors discovered the obstruction, but tragically, it was too late to save him.

Key Legal Question: Townsend v. Chicago Public Schools

The key legal issue is whether Chicago Public Schools breached its duty of care when they allegedly failed to provide the required supervision and proper medical intervention for Kody, their student with a documented seizure disorder. The court also has to consider whether that failure directly caused Kody's death. The finding in the case will hinge on whether the school's inaction constituted negligence that resulted in the wrongful death of their student, Kody.

Legal and Educational Implications: Townsend v. Chicago Public Schools

This case raises urgent questions about how public schools implement and monitor special education and medical care plans, especially for students with life-threatening conditions. A ruling in favor of the family could lead to stricter enforcement of IEPs and more robust accountability mechanisms to ensure that schools fulfill all obligations under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and relevant state laws. It also has the potential to set a precedent on institutional responsibility in cases where noncompliance results in the death of a student.

Townsend v. Chicago Public Schools: Did the Defendant Respond?

As of now, Chicago Public Schools has not filed a formal response in court. However, a district spokesperson issued a statement saying:

"Chicago Public Schools (CPS) is committed to the safety and well-being of our students. The district does not provide comments on ongoing litigation."

Townsend v. Chicago Public Schools: Will This Case Make a Difference?

This case is a powerful and heartbreaking reminder of what's at stake when schools fail to follow legally mandated care plans for vulnerable students. It highlights systemic gaps in oversight, training, and emergency response, particularly for students with disabilities. As Kody's mother stated, "No parent should send their child to school in the morning and not be able to welcome them home in the afternoon." The case speaks to a broader need for reform in how public schools support students with complex medical needs.

What Comes Next for Townsend v. Chicago Public Schools

Filed on May 30, 2025, in Cook County Circuit Court under Case No. 2025L007034, the lawsuit is now in the early litigation stages. The defendants are expected to file a response, after which the court may set discovery deadlines and schedule hearings. At this time, no trial date has been announced, but the case is being closely watched by disability rights advocates, education professionals, and families with medically fragile children.

FAQ: Townsend v. Chicago Public Schools

Q: What medical condition did Kody have?

A: Kody had Lennox-Gastaut Syndrome, a serious seizure disorder, along with developmental delays that required constant supervision and medical readiness during the school day.

Q: What was the school's legal obligation?

A: The school was legally required to provide a dedicated aide to supervise Kody at all times and to follow his IEP and seizure action plan, including emergency response/protocols.

Q: Why is the school being sued for wrongful death?

A: The family alleges that school staff failed to supervise Kody or respond to his seizure promptly and that this negligence led to his death (after the initial choking incident).

Q: Has CPS acknowledged fault?

A: No. CPS did not admit liability, and they do not comment on pending litigation.

Q: Could this case lead to changes in how schools support students with special needs?

A: Potentially, yes. If the court rules in favor of the plaintiff, it may prompt school systems to strengthen their compliance with IEPs and emergency care standards—especially for students with high-risk medical conditions.

Do you have questions about filing a California wrongful death lawsuit? Please contact Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Knowledgeable wrongful death attorneys are ready to assist you in various law firm offices in Riverside, San Francisco, Sacramento, San Diego, Los Angeles, and Chicago.

Seeking Justice After a Public Transit Accident: The Stout's Charter Bus Lawsuit

In a groundbreaking lawsuit filed in the Superior Court of New Jersey in Burlington County, a guardian ad litem has stepped forward on behalf of an injured minor, alleging that Stout's Charter Bus and others failed to maintain safe operating conditions, resulting in severe traumatic injuries.

The Case: Denise Steele, Guardian Ad Litem of Russel Steele, Jr. v. Stout's Charter Bus, et al.

The Court: Superior Court of New Jersey, Burlington County

The Case No.: BUR-L-001407-18

Guardian Ad Litem Claims Negligence Caused Traumatic Injuries

Representing the interests of her minor ward, Denise Steele claims that due to negligence on the part of Stout's Charter Bus and its associates, Russel Steele, Jr. sustained traumatic injuries from an accident involving a public transit vehicle. The plaintiff contends that inadequate safety measures and maintenance lapses contributed directly to the accident and the subsequent harm suffered by the injured minor.

Defendants Accused of Failing to Uphold Safety Standards

Stout's Charter Bus and other named defendants are accused of failing to uphold minimum safety standards. The defendants are alleged to have neglected critical maintenance protocols and operational procedures, leading to an accident that caused significant physical trauma and emotional distress for the injured child and his family.

Lawsuit Following Public Transit Accident Resulting in Traumatic Injury

After a public transit accident involving Stout's Charter Bus resulted in the traumatic injury of Russel Steele, Jr., Steele’s guardian ad litem filed a lawsuit. The complaint points out a lack of adherence to safety regulations and proper maintenance that allegedly resulted in the incident. According to the plaintiffs, regular maintenance and proper safety measures could have prevented the accident. The lawsuit seeks compensation for the extensive injuries and hardships caused by the incident for the minor and his family.

What Should You Do if You're Injured in a Public Transit Accident?

If you or a loved one suffers traumatic injuries from a public transit accident, you should:

Seek Immediate Medical Care: Ensure you receive proper medical treatment as quickly as possible. Document both injuries and treatments.

Document the Incident: Record detailed notes, take photographs, and gather witness information about the accident.

Preserve All Records: Retain copies of medical reports, treatment bills, and any communications with the transit company or public transit group.

Contact a Lawyer: Contact a qualified, experienced traumatic injury attorney to discuss your legal options and potential compensation claims.

If you have questions about filing a traumatic injury claim, contact Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Experienced and knowledgeable traumatic injury attorneys are ready to assist you at one of their various law firm offices in Riverside, San Francisco, Sacramento, San Diego, Los Angeles, and Chicago.

Electrocution Injury Jury Verdict: $4.8M Award for Traumatic Brain Injuries from Unchecked Power Lines

In a groundbreaking verdict, a jury awarded nearly $4.8 million in damages to Heydi Velez and others who suffered traumatic brain injuries after an unchecked power line from Florida Power & Light Company (FPL) caused a devastating electrocution incident.

The Case: Heydi Velez et al. v. Florida Power & Light Company

The Court: Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County

The Case No.: 17-022854-CA-21

The Plaintiff: Heydi Velez et al. v. Florida Power & Light Company

Heydi Velez and her co-plaintiffs, who experienced severe injuries including traumatic brain injury, PTSD, migraines, panic attacks, anxiety, and cognitive impairment, claim that FPL’s negligence led to an avoidable electrocution accident. The plaintiffs allege that a faulty, unchecked power line resulted in a dangerous situation where a 57-year-old individual was electrocuted while leaning on a metal fence in contact with water, ultimately causing extensive long-term health issues.

Did FPL's Power Line Maintenance Policies Create an Unsafe Environment?

Florida Power & Light Company (FPL) policies and preventive measures regarding power line maintenance are at the heart of the litigation. The plaintiffs allege that FPL failed to maintain a safe electrical infrastructure and that the failure led directly to the incident. Allegedly, FPL's oversight created a dangerous environment and failed to protect its own workers and customers.

Jury Verdict Following a Rigorous Trial with Multiple Experts & Extensive Evidence

Following a rigorous trial featuring multiple expert testimonies and extensive evidence, the jury delivered a verdict awarding $4,847,000 in damages. This decision is expected to serve as a critical precedent, highlighting the importance of strict adherence to safety regulations and the severe consequences of neglect by utility companies. The appeal process is underway at the Third District Court of Appeal under Case No. 3D22-181, as FPL seeks to challenge the ruling.

What Can You Do If You Suffer from Traumatic Injuries Due to Negligence?

If you or a loved one has suffered traumatic injuries caused by negligent maintenance or unsafe conditions, it is important to document your experience, gather evidence, and seek expert legal advice as soon as possible.

If you need to discuss filing a wrongful death lawsuit or traumatic brain injury claim, reach out to Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Experienced and knowledgeable wrongful death attorneys are ready to assist you at one of their various law firm offices in Riverside, San Francisco, Sacramento, San Diego, Los Angeles, and Chicago.

Lil Durk's Legal Woes: Family of Saviay'a Robinson Files Second Wrongful Death Suit

In a new twist to his legal challenges, Lil Durk faces his second wrongful death lawsuit as the family of Saviay'a Robinson files fresh claims in Cook County Circuit Court.

Case Details: Family of Saviay'a Robinson v. Durk Banks (aka Lil Durk), Cook County Circuit Court in Illinois, Case No.: 3138246

Tragic Event Allegedly Directly Linked to Actions of Lil Durk:

In a tragic string of events, Saviay'a Robinson (a.k.a. Lil PAB) was shot and killed during an alleged attempt on her cousin Quando's life in August 2022 in Los Angeles. Durk (aka Lil Durk) is accused of masterminding the crime. Alleging that Saviay'a's untimely death is directly linked to Lil Durk's negligence and actions, her family filed a wrongful death complaint. There is currently limited public information regarding Durk's response to the allegations made by Robinson's family, as there hasn't been a formal announcement from his legal team regarding the second wrongful death lawsuit in connection with the fatal LA incident in 2022.

Interpreting Negligence & Liability Standards in Wrongful Death Claims:

The Family of Saviay'a Robinson v. Durk Banks case could set an important legal precedent in wrongful death litigation, particularly in cases involving celebrities or high-profile figures. A ruling in the family's favor could influence future interpretations of negligence and liability standards in wrongful death claims and help reinforce stricter accountability measures for celebrities and public figures in similar cases.

Could We See Greater Accountability in the Entertainment Industry?

This wrongful death suit has already sparked discussion regarding the consequences when celebrity behavior compromises public safety. As the case continues, it could lead to a much-needed closer look at accountability in the entertainment industry.

If you have questions about filing a California wrongful death lawsuit, please contact Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Knowledgeable wrongful death attorneys are ready to assist you in various law firm offices in Riverside, San Francisco, Sacramento, San Diego, Los Angeles, and Chicago.

Medtronic MiniMed Prevails: Wrongful Death Lawsuit Dismissed

When they found themselves facing wrongful death allegations (again), Medtronic MiniMed turned to a defense they were already familiar with: a preemption defense. Their efforts met with success when they secured a dismissal at the summary judgment stage.

Case Details: Rieger v. Medtronic MiniMed, Inc., Los Angeles Superior Court, Case No.: 20STCV33401

Did Medtronic MiniMed Downplay the Risks and Exaggerate the Benefits?

According to the plaintiff, Rieger, Medtronic violated manufacturing and safety standards; the complaint argued that Medtronic downplayed the risks of the insulin pump while exaggerating the benefits. Rieger's wrongful death lawsuit alleged that a defective Medtronic insulin pump caused significant injuries.

Preemption Defense: Medtronic MiniMed's Tried and True Method of Case Dismissal

Medtronic MiniMed, a global medical technology company that develops and manufactures healthcare technologies and therapies, acquired MiniMed in 2001. MiniMed insulin pumps and continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) systems are often used for diabetes treatment. Medtronic MiniMed approached the wrongful death lawsuit with a preemption defense, arguing that state law claims should be dismissed because the state claims are preempted by federal law under the U.S. Constitution's Supremacy Clause.

The Case: Rieger v. Medtronic MiniMed, Inc.

Rieger v. Medtronic MiniMed, Inc., was filed in Los Angeles Superior Court. After extensive litigation and briefing, the court concluded that the insulin pump used by the plaintiff was U.S. Food and Drug Administration-approved and subject to the rigorous premarket approval process. This meant the plaintiff's California state law claims were preempted (under the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Riegel v. Medtronic (128 S. Ct. 999)).

If you have questions about filing a California wrongful death lawsuit, please contact Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Knowledgeable wrongful death attorneys are ready to assist you in various law firm offices in Riverside, San Francisco, Sacramento, San Diego, Los Angeles, and Chicago.

The Reversal in a Far-Reaching Toxic Exposure Case

In a far-reaching toxic exposure case, the District Court's dismissal was reversed on appeal when the Supreme Court of Nevada ruled in favor of the injured plaintiffs.

The Case: Adkins et al. vs. Union Pacific Railroad Company et al.

The Court: Nevada Supreme Court

The Case No.: 85569

The Plaintiff: Adkins et al. vs. Union Pacific Railroad Company.

The plaintiffs, Melinda Adkins et al., worked at Clark County Government Center (CCGC), where they were allegedly exposed to toxic chemicals. The exposure eventually led to personal injury and wrongful death claims after numerous Clark County employees contracted terminal cancer, and the exposure led to multiple employee deaths. According to the complaint, toxic chemicals were released on a Union Pacific property. After the CCGC opened on the same property in 1995, their on-site workers started to get sick. Workers also noticed black soot accumulating in air vents and workstations. However, Clark County reassured their workers - insisting the site was safe. In 2020, experts established the connection between the CCGC workers' illnesses and the toxic exposure linked back to when Union Pacific Railroad Company owned the property. Plaintiffs argue that they could not have discovered the link between their illnesses and toxic exposure until 2020 when experts established the connection. Wrongful death claims continued to arbitration.

In District Court: Adkins et al. vs. Union Pacific Railroad Company, et al.

In Clark County's Eighth Judicial District Court, the plaintiffs' first amended complaint was dismissed after the court concluded that the claims were time-barred since the statute didn't specify discovery-rule tolling. (The court ruled that the discovery rule didn't apply to the two-year statute of limitations (NRS 11.190(4)(e)).

In Appellate Court: Adkins et al. vs. Union Pacific Railroad Company, et al.

On appeal, the Nevada Supreme Court reversed the district court's decision after a review. The Supreme Court held that the discovery rule (NRS 11.190(4)(e) could apply despite the specific language referencing discovery-rule tolling emphasizing that fairness and justice require a claim not accrue until the claimant is aware or "should be" aware of the possibility of a claim based on reasonable diligence. The court also pointed out that the plaintiffs raised issues of fact about their awareness of the cause of action and the concealment of relevant information (on the part of the defendant). The Supreme Court also found the district court erred by not considering equitable tolling and remanded the case for additional proceedings.

Supreme Court of Nevada's Reversal: Adkins et al. vs. Union Pacific Railroad Company

The Nevada Supreme Court's reversal of the district court's dismissal in Adkins et al. vs. Union Pacific Railroad Company et al. made it possible for the plaintiffs to proceed with their personal injury and wrongful death based on toxic exposure claims. Based on the Supreme Court's findings, the case could proceed to discovery and trial. The findings on appeal emphasized the applicability of the discovery rule and equitable tolling. The decision allowing the plaintiffs' claims to move forward despite the initial statute of limitations dismissal was a notable victory for the plaintiffs that reinforced the protections the law offers for individuals harmed by corporate negligence.

If you have questions about filing a California wrongful death lawsuit, please contact Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Knowledgeable wrongful death attorneys are ready to assist you in various law firm offices in Riverside, San Francisco, Sacramento, San Diego, Los Angeles, and Chicago.

Traumatic Brain Injury Lawsuits: Is Submission of Medical Records an Abuse of Discretion?

Following a rear-ending car incident in 2017, Samantha Braun claimed various injuries including traumatic brain injury, while the other party admitted fault.

The Case: Braun v. Wollman

The Court: South Dakota Supreme Court

The Case No.: 30440-a-PJD

The Plaintiff: Braun v. Wollman

The plaintiff, Samantha Braun, filed a traumatic brain injury lawsuit and the case proceeded to a jury trial to determine damages. Claming various injuries in addition to trauamatic brain injury, Braun sought significant damages.

The Defendant: Braun v. Wollman

The defendant, Wollman, admitted fault for the vehicular accident.

The Trial: Braun v. Wollman

During the trial, Braun objected to the submission of several of her medical records citing business records hearsay exception. The Circuit Court of the Fifth Judicial Circuit overruled most of Braun’s objections and admitted the records. After the jury awarded her $125,000 (a significantly lower amount than she originally requested in damages), Braun appealed, claiming that the admission of her medical records was an abuse of discretion that prejudiced her right to a fair trial.

On Appeal: Braun v. Wollman

Braun appealed the $125,000 in damages awarded by the Circuit Court of the Fifth Judicial Circuit Jury, claiming the admission of her medical records was prejudicial and erroneous. After reviewing the case, the Supreme Court of South Dakota found that the circuit court erred in admitting the medical records under the business records exception since there did not appear to be sufficient foundation. They also determined that Braun’s statements in the records were admissible as non-hearsay, and some statements were admissible under the medical diagnosis or treatment exception. However, the Supreme Court concluded that Braun, the plaintiff, did not demonstrate substantial prejudice affecting the jury verdict and affirmed the circuit court’s decision upholding the $125,000 award of damages.

If you have questions about filing a California traumatic brain injury lawsuit, please contact Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Knowledgeable traumatic brain injury attorneys are ready to assist you in various law firm offices in Riverside, San Francisco, Sacramento, San Diego, Los Angeles, and Chicago.