Served as first or second chair in four trials, with all four trials ending in defense verdicts:

• Co-counsel in securing defense verdict in Madison County, Illinois, jury trial involving professional negligence claims against an oral and maxillofacial surgeon. Plaintiff claimed surgeon was negligent in recommending extraction of partially impacted third molar, a procedure which carried a “heightened risk” of nerve injury and of jaw fracture. (The plaintiff, a nurse, sustained a permanent nerve injury as well as a fractured jaw.) Despite these recognized risks, defense contended that the benefits of extraction outweighed the risks of extraction; therefore, the recommendation to extract it was within the standard of care.
• Secured defense verdict in Madison County, Illinois, jury trial involving premises liability claims against a hospital. Plaintiff claimed she tripped on the hospital’s uneven sidewalk near the entrance to hospital, suffering a facial fracture. Defense contended that Plaintiff did not trip over sidewalk, and if she did, that the hospital’s sidewalks met regulations and that the hospital had no notice that this part of the sidewalk was a trip hazard.
• Secured defense verdict in Madison County, Illinois, jury trial involving premises liability claims against a hospital. Plaintiff claimed she fell in a hole on the hospital’s property, suffering a back injury. Defense contended that Plaintiff did not fall in a hole in the area she claimed, and if she did, that she was the sole proximate cause of her injuries because she failed to take the sidewalk to enter the hospital. Plaintiff walked through the grass to enter hospital.
• Co-counsel in securing defense verdict in Effingham County, Illinois, jury trial involving professional negligence claims against an oral and maxillofacial surgeon. Plaintiff claimed surgeon was negligent in recommending extraction of completely impacted third molar, a procedure which carried a “heightened risk” of nerve injury. Despite this recognized risk, defense contended that the benefits of extraction outweighed the risks of extraction; therefore, the recommendation to extract it was within the standard of care.