Atty. Andrew John Roth

Practice Details

• Firm Information
  Position

  Partner

  Firm Name

  Heyl, Royster, Voelker & Allen Professional Corporation
• Representative Cases & Transactions
  Cases

  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,
  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
  that he was therefore required to undergo an additional surgery, that his damages included additional morbidity
  mortality. The defense argued that significant scar tissue existed on the second CABG that obscured the features
  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,
  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 )
  its insured ( Subcontractor ) in a case in which the general contractor ( Builder )
  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,
  Underwriters appealed. On appeal, the First District agreed with the firm in holding that Central's insurance would be considered excess
  there would be no duty to defend or indemnify unless the primary limits were exceeded.