Heyl Royster



Eight Attorneys Author IDC Quarterly Articles


Eight Heyl Royster attorneys were featured in the Illinois Association of Defense Trial Counsel (IDC) Quarterly publication for the second quarter of 2015 (Volume 25, No. 2). John Heil, chair of the firm's Drone Law Practice Group, authored a feature article, "Attack of the Drones: Small Unmanned Aircraft Claims Are On Their Way," which discussed the emerging laws and regulations concerning drone usage. Craig Unrath authored the Amicus Committee Report, which provided an overview of the various amicus briefs filed on behalf of the IDC over the past few months. The Report included a description of Folta v. Ferro Eng'g, 2014 IL App (1st) 123219, a brief that Brad Elward and Melissa Schoenbein helped draft that has to do with whether an employee can file a common law action against his employer for claims that are time-barred under the Workers' Compensation Act. 

Dave Perkins and Melissa Schoenbein wrote the Civil Rights Update, discussing the application of qualified immunity to prosecutors and police officers who failed to disclose inadmissible evidence about alternative murder suspects. Roger Clayton and Greg Rastatter authored the Health Law Column, which discussed a recent appellate court decision that reinforced broad protections for hospital credentialing and privileging decisions under the Hospital Licensing Act. In her Recent Decisions column, Stacy Crabtree highlighted two appellate court decisions. The first involved the right of substitution of judge in a newly filed case where the same judge in a prior case had previously issued a substantive ruling, and the second concerned the death of a plaintiff and whether that event, which occurred prior to the attorneys' entering into settlement talk, invalidated the settlement.

Finally, Brad Peterson's Workers' Compensation Update covered the RG Construction Services v. Illinois Workers' Compensation Commission decision, wherein the appellate court considered whether medical opinions contained in the claimant's medical records were properly admitted into evidence where no foundation was provided for the opinions.