$5,100,000
SETTLEMENT
Adam J. Zayed and Julian D. Hoshell secured a $5,100,000 settlement on behalf of the estate of our client in connection with an injury during an admission at a Chicagoland Hospital.
These are Zayed Law Offices' published verdicts and settlements from across the firm's whole practice — every kind of case it takes, in the firm's own words. They are firm-wide results, not a record in any single practice area. That belongs at the top of this page, not in a footnote.
Every figure on this page comes from Zayed Law Offices' published record across all of its practice areas. The list is reproduced whole and in the firm's own wording — nothing has been selected, subtotalled, or re-described to suit this site.
It is published that way on purpose. Presenting results as results in a particular practice area is a specific claim about a firm's record in that area, and which matters carry that label is the firm's decision to make, not a website's. So this page does not make it. What you are looking at is the whole published record of a firm that prepares cases and is willing to try them.
Past results never guarantee a future outcome. Every claim turns on its own facts, its own evidence, and the law of the state where it is filed. No number below is a prediction, an estimate, or a promise about any other case.
Because a selection is itself a claim. Choosing which past matters to put in front of you asserts something about this firm's record in this kind of case, and that assertion belongs to the firm rather than to the page. Publishing the record whole, in the firm's own words, lets you read it and draw your own conclusion — which is the more useful thing anyway.
These totals cover Zayed Law Offices' whole practice. They are not a practice-area figure and they are not a projection for any claim. Each one is published with the wording that makes it accurate.
$5,100,000
Adam J. Zayed and Julian D. Hoshell secured a $5,100,000 settlement on behalf of the estate of our client in connection with an injury during an admission at a Chicagoland Hospital.
$3,000,000
Adam J. Zayed and Julian D. Hoshell secured a $3,000,000 settlement on behalf of our client involved in a trucking-company negligence case just 2 days before trial was set to begin in Will County, Illinois.
$3,000,000
Adam J. Zayed and Julian D. Hoshell recovered a $3,000,000 settlement on behalf of a client who sustained a permanent injury during a surgical procedure.
Adam J. Zayed and Julian D. Hoshell secured a $2,750,000 settlement on behalf of a client who sustained injuries in a collision with a 1-800-GOT-JUNK? truck.
Adam J. Zayed of Zayed Law Offices Personal Injury Attorneys negotiated a $2.75 million settlement on behalf of a 47-year-old Chicago-area woman just 2 days before trial was set to begin.
Adam J. Zayed and Julian D. Hoshell secured a $2,500,000 settlement on behalf of a client in a medical malpractice case involving the failure to diagnose metastatic renal cell carcinoma.
Adam J. Zayed of Zayed Law Offices Personal Injury Attorneys secured a $2.35 million settlement on behalf of a man rear-ended by a commercial vehicle on I-294. Our client suffered neck and back injuries that required a lumbar fusion.
Jeremy D. Lee and Adam J. Zayed secured a $2.25 million settlement for a client who suffered back injuries requiring a lumbar fusion due to a commercial vehicle crash in Cook County.
Adam J. Zayed and Jeremy D. Lee recovered $2,000,000 for a client who suffered injuries in a commercial vehicle crash.
Zayed Law Offices Personal Injury Attorneys secured a settlement for a young client after a motor vehicle accident caused by a Cook County Sheriff.
Adam J. Zayed and Julian D. Hoshell secured an award on behalf of a client who sustained severe injuries in a commercial vehicle collision.
Adam J. Zayed and Julian D. Hoshell secured a $1,500,000 settlement on behalf of a client who sustained injuries in a commercial vehicle collision.
Adam J. Zayed and Julian D. Hoshell secured an award for a client who suffered non-surgical injuries in a commercial vehicle crash.
Every birth injury claim turns on its own record, its own causation evidence, and the care that particular child will need across a life. Change any one of those and the analysis changes with it — and whether causation can be established at all changes it more than any of them.
No firm can tell you what a case is worth before the record has been read by qualified experts, causation has been assessed, and the lifetime care picture is established. Any figure offered before that work is done is a marketing number, not an assessment.
Most resolve by negotiated settlement rather than by trial, and frequently in stages — a hospital, an obstetric group and an individual clinician resolving at different times. Where care was delivered at a federally funded health center the claim runs against the United States instead, through an administrative process before any suit. And in any resolution involving a disabled child, the lien on care already paid by public benefits and the structure that preserves future eligibility are settled as part of the agreement, not afterwards. Where an offer does not reflect a lifetime of care, the case is tried.
These are the factors that actually move the analysis in a birth injury matter. None of them can be assessed from a phone call alone.
What was injured, what treatment it has required, and what care it will require — proved through medical records and a projection of future costs rather than estimated. Lost income and lost earning capacity are established the same way, from employment and earnings history.
The hardest half of a birth injury case, and where most of them fail. Establishing that something should have been done differently is not the same as establishing that doing it differently would have changed anything. That is answered by cord blood gases, the newborn examination, neonatal imaging and the placental pathology — and those findings rule cases out as readily as they support them.
Obstetricians, anesthesiologists and neonatologists are frequently contracted rather than employed by the hospital where they work. Illinois allows a hospital to be answerable for a contractor's negligence under apparent authority, but it is not automatic and consent documentation is where the argument usually happens. It decides who is across the table, and how much insurance stands behind them.
A claim against a local public entity in Illinois is governed by its own statute, with its own periods and its own treatment of patient-care claims. A claim arising from care at a federally funded health center is a claim against the United States, requiring an administrative claim before suit and proceeding in federal court. A private hospital carries neither. Which applies is frequently not obvious to a patient, and it is one of the first things established.
The sequence a claim moves through — and where the recovery actually comes from.
The complete maternal and neonatal record is obtained and read by qualified experts. Illinois requires a written report finding reasonable and meritorious cause before a healing-art malpractice complaint can proceed, so this happens before anything is filed — and it is where a substantial number of matters stop.
Causation is assessed from the cord blood gases, the newborn examination, neonatal imaging and the placental pathology. Where it holds, a life care planner and an economist build the projection that will dominate the claim’s value.
Where the provider is a local public entity or a federally funded health center, the separate prerequisites are satisfied first — including, for federally funded care, an administrative claim against the United States. The civil claim is then filed in the appropriate venue.
Most matters resolve by settlement, often with different defendants resolving at different times. Where an offer does not reflect the losses, the case is tried.
What these results are, what they are not, and what actually drives the value of a birth injury claim.
Zayed Law Offices’ published verdicts and settlements from across the firm’s whole practice, in the firm’s own words. They are presented as firm-wide results — a record of what this firm has done across every kind of case it takes — and not as a record in any single practice area. The descriptions are the firm’s own and are reproduced without editing, selection, or re-description.
Because there are none to show, and because presenting a result as a practice-area result is a specific claim about a firm’s record in that practice area — the most closely regulated statement on a law firm’s website. None of the firm’s published results is a birth injury or medical malpractice matter. Selecting a subset and presenting it here would imply a record in this practice area that the published list does not support. So the page publishes the whole record, labeled for exactly what it is.
Overwhelmingly the cost of future care rather than what has already happened: attendant care hours across a life, therapy, equipment and its replacement cycles, home modification, anticipated surgery, and the earning capacity a child will never have had the chance to establish. That projection is built by a life care planner and reduced to a present-day figure by an economist, and every assumption in it is contested. Whether the provider was a private hospital, a public one or a federally funded clinic changes the analysis again. No two claims share the same combination.
A verdict is the decision reached at the end of a trial by a judge or a jury. A settlement is a negotiated agreement that resolves the claim without that decision. Most birth injury matters resolve by settlement, frequently with different defendants — the hospital, an obstetric group, an individual clinician — resolving at different times and on different terms.
No. Any figure describing a recovery is the gross amount recovered. Case costs — expert fees, records retrieval, depositions, filing fees — and the contingency fee are paid out of that amount under the engagement agreement. The net figure is discussed with the client before any settlement is accepted.
No. Every claim turns on its own facts, its own evidence, its own defendants, and the law of the state where it is filed. Past results are not a guarantee, a prediction, or an estimate of what any new matter would produce. Be skeptical of any firm that presents them as one.
Was your child injured at or around birth?

A trial firm handling birth injury and cerebral palsy claims in Illinois.
Call 24/7312.626.6230