Heyl Royster

Andrew Roth

Office Managing Partner & Shareholder
Chicago, IL

Joined Firm in 2003

Andy Roth is a skillful defender of complex civil litigation at trial or when engaged in alternative dispute resolution.

  • Leading Lawyer by Law Bulletin Media
  • Graduated Northern Illinois University College of Law, magna cum laude
Read Full Bio

Andrew Roth

Attorney in Chicago, IL

Andy concentrates his practice in the defense of complex civil litigation, with an emphasis on defending medical malpractice, nursing home, and civil rights cases. He began his career at Heyl Royster as a Summer Associate in the firm's Rockford office. After graduating magna cum laude from Northern Illinois University College of Law, he joined the firm as an Associate in 2003 and became a Partner in 2011.

Licensed in Illinois and Wisconsin, Andy has a wide range of experience defending civil cases involving professional liability, product liability, toxic tort, trucking, construction, auto, and premises cases. He has tried a number of cases involving medical malpractice, personal injury, and contractual disputes and has represented clients in alternative dispute resolution, including mediation, settlement conferences, and arbitrations. Throughout his career, he has deposed countless plaintiffs, experts, treating physicians, co-defendants, and witnesses.



J.D., Northern Illinois University College of Law, magna cum laude

B.S., Western Illinois University, Psychology

Licensure(s) and Admission(s)

State Courts of Illinois

State Courts of Wisconsin

United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin

United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois

United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin

Professional Affiliations

Defense Research Institute

Illinois Defense Counsel

Illinois State Bar Association

Winnebago County Bar Association

Wisconsin State Bar Association


  • 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.
  • Represented 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 Insur. Co., 2014 IL App (1st) 133145, 12 N.E.3d 762 – 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 Court 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.



“Throwin’ Shade: How to Reptile the Reptile – Countering Reptile Tactics,” Heyl Royster's 33rd Annual Claims Handling Seminar (2018)

“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)


  • Leading Lawyer by Law Bulletin Media
© 2024 Heyl Royster. All Rights Reserved.