Andrew Roth

Practice Groups:

Medical Malpractice Defense

Long Term Care/Nursing Homes

Civil Rights Litigation/Section 1983

Trucking

Toxic Torts & Asbestos

Product Liability

Office Locations:

Chicago, IL

Phone: 312.853.8700

Email Me

News

Firm Succeeds in Getting IHSA Dismissed from Catastrophic Injury Case - 06/08/2016

Firm Prevails on Appeal for Construction Subcontractor and its Insurer - 10/23/2014

Heyl Royster Announces Four New Partners - 01/10/2014

Education

  • Juris Doctor, Northern Illinois University College of Law (magna cum laude), 2003
  • Bachelor of Science-Psychology, Western Illinois University, 1996 

Year Joined Firm

2003

 

Find an ATTORNEY

Choose by Alphabet

A B C D E F G H I J K L M N
O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z

Select an Area of Practice

Select an Office

Enter Keyword(s)


Heyl Royster

 

Attorneys

Andrew Roth (Partner)

PRINT

Andy's practice is focused on defending toxic tort and asbestos cases, and healthcare professionals in both medical malpractice litigation and federal civil rights lawsuits. Licensed in Illinois and Wisconsin, Andy also has a wide range of experience defending civil cases involving premises, auto and product liability, trucking, construction, dramshop, and insurance coverage.

Andy has tried a number of cases involving medical malpractice, personal injury, and contractual disputes. He has also represented clients in alternative dispute resolution, including mediations, settlement conferences, and arbitrations. He has deposed countless plaintiffs, experts, treating physicians, co-defendants, and witnesses.

Andy graduated magna cum laude from Northern Illinois University College of Law in 2003, and served as an associate editor on the school's Law Review. Andy began his career at Heyl Royster by clerking in the firm's Rockford office.

Significant Cases

  • Represented defendant cardiothoracic surgeon at jury trial in the defense of allegations that defendant doctor improperly operated on the wrong vessel during a coronary artery bypass surgery (CABG). Plaintiff, who had a prior history of CABG presented with unstable angina, and an angiogram showed a clogged obtuse marginal vessel (OM). Defendant doctor recommended CABG. A post-surgery angiogram showed that the bypass graft was on the left internal mammary artery as opposed to the intended OM. An additional surgery then proceeded placing a stent in the OM, resulting in plaintiff having little if any coronary symptoms at the time of trial. Plaintiff claimed the doctor bypassed the wrong vessel and that he was therefore required to undergo an additional surgery, that his damages included additional morbidity and mortality. The defense argued that significant scar tissue existed on the second CABG that obscured the features and vessels in the heart. The jury returned a verdict for defense on all counts.
  • Defended pain management doctor at jury trial against claims that the doctor improperly utilized a brachial plexus injection that pierced the plaintiff's long thoracic nerve, allegedly resulting in a deformity known as a "winged scapula." Plaintiff presented to defendant doctor with a serious condition known as Reflex Sympathetic Dystrophy Syndrome (RSD). Plaintiff's theory was that when defendant doctor treated the plaintiff with brachial plexus injections, he inadvertently pierced her long thoracic nerve causing permanent injury, including a winged scapula. The defense argued that the treatment resolved the plaintiff's limb threatening RSD symptoms, and it was physically impossible for the brachial plexus needle to pierce the long thoracic nerve as alleged by plaintiff. The jury returned a verdict for defense on all counts.
  • Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's London v. Central Mutual Insurance 2014 IL App (1st) 133145 (2014) Representation of Central Mutual Insurance Company (Central) and its insured (Subcontractor) in a case in which the general contractor (Builder) and its insurer, Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's London (Underwriters) claimed that Central should have been the primary insurer in regard to coverage for severe personal injuries that allegedly occurred to a worker at a home construction site. The dispute arose because, although the subcontractor was contractually obligated to maintain insurance for the builder, the subcontractor agreement was silent as to whether this additional coverage was to be primary or excess. At the trial court level, the firm succeeded in getting Underwriter's declaratory action dismissed on motion for summary judgment, and Underwriters appealed. On appeal, the first district agreed with the firm in holding that Central's insurance would be considered excess and there would be no duty to defend or indemnify unless the primary limits were exceeded.

Public Speaking

  • “Penalty Flags: Case Update - How Do These Cases Change the Game Plan?”
    Heyl Royster's 32nd Annual Claims Handling Seminar 2017
  • “New Cases, New Issues?”
    Heyl Royster's 31st Annual Claims Handling Seminar 2016
  • “Recent Developments in Premises Liability”
    Heyl Royster's 30th Annual Claims Handling Seminar 2015

Professional Associations

  • Illinois State Bar Association
  • Illinois Association of Defense Trial Counsel
  • Defense Research Institute
  • Winnebago County Bar Association
  • Wisconsin State Bar Association
  • Chicago Bar Association 

Court Admissions

  • State Courts of Illinois
  • State Courts of Wisconsin
  • United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois
  • United States District Court, Eastern District of Wisconsin
  • United States District Court, Western District of Wisconsin