The Appellate Court of Illinois First District First Division upheld an Illinois medical malpractice judgment against a podiatrist in the amount of $2,865,495, in its Order dated May 19, 2025.
Background
One December 13, 2016, plaintiff, who had been previously diagnosed with osteoporosis and Type 1 diabetes, visited Foot First Podiatry for an appointment with Dr. Samantha Sklar, Dr. Keith Sklar’s daughter. On December 28, 2016, plaintiff again visited Foot First Podiatry, and Dr. K. Sklar discussed with her both conservative treatment and surgical correction. On January 12, 2017, Dr. K. Sklar performed surgery on plaintiff’s left foot, which involved the following
procedures: (1) modified transpositional osteotomy with cheilectomy and A.O. internal screw fixation; (2) oblique proximal closing wedge osteotomy of the hallux with screw fixation; (3) Zplasty tenotomies with sequential release of the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th extensor apparatus and metatarsal phalangeal joints; and (4) arthroplasty 5th digit. After the surgery, plaintiff had multiple post-operative follow-ups with Dr. S. Sklar.
On February 9, 2017, Dr. K. Sklar performed surgery on plaintiff’s right foot, identical to the January 2017 surgery on her left foot. She visited Foot First Podiatry multiple times in February 2017 for follow-up appointments where she complained of foot pain, and Dr. S. Sklar informed her that the pain was normal. On February 23, 2017, Dr. K. Sklar removed screws on plaintiff’s left foot. In June 2017, plaintiff had an appointment with Dr. K. Sklar, during which
she complained of constant, chronic pain in her feet, and more hardware was eventually removed.
Plaintiff alleged in her Illinois medical malpractice lawsuit that as a result of these surgeries, she remained in constant pain and required more surgeries. She also experienced “limitations on her mobility,” “reduced tolerance for normal activities such as cooking, driving, walking, grocery shopping, and other activities[,]” and “lifestyle changes” to her life and job. Plaintiff alleged “negligence – healing arts malpractice” against Dr. K. Sklar (count I), “negligence – healing arts malpractice” against Dr. S. Sklar (count II), and vicarious liability against Foot First Podiatry (count III).
Just prior to trial, on plaintiff’s motion, Dr. S. Sklar was voluntarily dismissed as a defendant in the lawsuit. The trial began on March 27, 2023. Plaintiff alleged that the surgeries were unnecessary and caused her harm. The jury ultimately returned a verdict in favor of plaintiff for $2,865,495, and on March 29, 2023, the trial court entered judgment in accordance with the jury’s verdict.
On November 17, 2023, defendants filed a motion for approval of an appeal bond in the amount of $1,850,000, reflecting the amount of insurance coverage available to them under their liability policy. Plaintiff objected to the amount of the bond. The trial court granted defendants’ motion. The parties appealed.
The Illinois appellate court held that the alleged errors in plaintiff’s opening statement and closing argument were not properly preserved because the defendants failed to contemporaneously object during plaintiff’s opening statement and closing argument, and the forfeiture doctrine is applicable. Furthermore, “Under these circumstances, we do not find that the brief improper statements made during opening statement and closing argument resulted in an unfair trial for defendants.”
The Illinois appellate court further held: “plaintiff’s single improper question during cross-examination, which the court instructed the jury to disregard, did not result in substantial prejudice to defendants, and even had defendants properly preserved their claims of error as to plaintiff’s opening statement and closing argument, the cumulative effect would not have resulted in an unfair trial.”
With regard to the defendants’ argument on appeal that plaintiff’s billing witness’ testimony lacked sufficient foundation, the Illinois appellate court stated “it is not necessary for the witness to be a billing specialist to have knowledge of the usual and customary charges for the services” and that the billing witness’ “familiarity with usual, customary, and reasonable medical charges was bolstered by regular auditing from an outside company. There is no requirement that a billing witness must have direct experience in the specific type of medical services rendered and their associated charges. Thus, the trial court did not abuse its discretion.”
Appeal Bond
With regard to the appeal bond issue, the Illinois appellate court stated, “we first note that this is an issue of first impression in this court. Our research has not revealed any case involving the sufficiency of an appeal bond under Rule 305(a) since the language allowing for less than the amount of the judgment plus interest and costs was added in 2004 … We agree with plaintiff and find that the trial court’s failure to comply with Rule 305(a) was an abuse of discretion. The plain language of the rule and the committee comments are clear that, “normally,” the appeal bond should be in the amount of the judgment plus costs and interest. Ill. S. Ct. R. 305, Committee Comments (adopted June 15, 2004). However, the rule was amended to allow for an appeal bond that is less than that amount, “in some limited instances,” where “the relevant circumstances, including the amount of the judgment, anticipated interest and costs, the availability and cost of a bond or other form of security, the assets of the judgment debtor and of the judgment debtor’s insurers and indemnitors” demonstrate that the full amount is not reasonably available to the judgment debtor. Id.; Ill. S. Ct. R. 305(a). There is nothing ambiguous about this language, and the committee comments only serve to emphasize that this is a limited exception with clear guidelines and requirements … nothing in the record below or on appeal shows that the full amount for an appeal bond would create a barrier to defendants’ ability to appeal the judgment or that they would be required to declare bankruptcy. Because the trial court did not consider any circumstances of defendants that would necessitate the $1.85 million appeal bond, the court failed to comply with the rule and abused its discretion.”
Source Walsh v. Sklar, 2025 IL App (1st) 231830-U.
If you or a loved one have suffered serious harm as a result of podiatrist malpractice in Illinois or in another U.S. state, you should promptly find an Illinois medical malpractice lawyer or a medical malpractice lawyer in your state who may investigate your podiatry medical malpractice claim for you and represent you or your loved one in a podiatrist medical malpractice case, if appropriate.
Click here to visit our website or call us toll-free in the United States at 800-295-3959 to find podiatrist medical malpractice attorneys near you who may assist you.
Turn to us when you don’t know where to turn.
