SRNM News & Community
On Tuesday, November 18, 2025, SRNM partner Jim Hansen argued in front of the Illinois Supreme Court on a case that he tried in 2023. Specifically, Hansen defended a family care physician and a medical group in defense of a medical negligence case that resulted in a Plaintiff sustaining a below knee amputation. Plaintiff had alleged that the physician failed to timely diagnose a Lis Franc injury which resulted in delayed treatment, complications and after multiple attempts to salvage his leg a below knee amputation. After six days of testimony the jury deliberated for a day and a half. On the eighth day of trial the jury returned a verdict of not guilty in favor of the Defendants. Plaintiff appealed claiming the trial court erred in denying the Plaintiff's motion for a mistrial after a juror sent a note back indicating to end deliberations, s/he would sign the verdict form for the Defendants. After receiving the note, the Court called the jury into the courtroom and issued the Prim instruction. The jury went back to deliberate further. After receiving an additional question, the jury returned a verdict 50 minutes later. The jury was polled. Plaintiff claimed the trial court erred in the polling process. On appeal, the Court of Appeals unanimously affirmed the trial court's decision and the verdict (2024 Ill.App. 4th) 240520-U . The Plaintiff petitioned for leave to appeal to the Illinois Supreme Court who accepted the case. ( See link to article from Law 360 ).
SRNM partner Jim Hansen and associate Katherine Frieden recently secured a defense verdict for a surgeon SRNM was representing at trial in McDonough County, Macomb, IL. The case stemmed from treatment in November 2019. The patient had undergone a Nissen Fundoplication surgery performed by the surgeon at McDonough District Hospital ("MDH"). The patient was seen post-op day one by our physician in the early morning hours when rounding. The patient had a normal abdominal exam. Late in the evening, into the early morning hours the following day, the patient's condition began to deteriorate. The patient was transferred for kidney failure due to lab results and further examination after the surgeon was called into the hospital at approximately 5:00 a.m. Our client arranged for a transfer to a regional hospital and spoke with the accepting ICU physician. The patient was intubated and taken by helicopter to the regional hospital. The patient ultimately received a surgical consultation after arrival at the second hospital. An emergency abdominal surgery was performed and the patient died on post-op day five while at the second hospital. Plaintiff alleged our client negligently performed the surgery, failed to appreciate an intra-abdominal injury created during the surgery, failed to take the patient back for exploratory surgery and failed to timely transfer the patient with proper communication to the outside accepting physician. The Plaintiff also sued MDH, the accepting physician and regional hospital. The case was tried over a period of seven days. The testimony included expert testimony from two Plaintiff's experts and three defense experts. The jury deliberated for an hour and a half before rendering a not guilty verdict on behalf of all Defendants.
We are pleased to announce that SRNM Partner David Penn has been reappointed by the Illinois Supreme Court to serve another three-year term on the Minimum Continuing Legal Education (MCLE) Board, beginning January 1, 2025. David currently serves as Treasurer of the nine-member Board, which along with the Director and staff, oversee the administration of continuing legal education requirements for Illinois attorneys. His focus on education law not only in day-to-day legal practice as SRNM’s Chair of the Education Law Group but on attorney education in the state is a testament to his leadership in the legal field. Congratulations on a well-deserved reappointment!
SRNM Newsletter
SRNM News Alerts & Legal Updates
By Joseph B. Ott of Schmiedeskamp Robertson Neu & Mitchell LLP, Illinois Estate Planning Attorney
Click Here for PDF Version On May 7, 2024, the new FTC Rule banning most non-competition clauses or agreements is scheduled to be published in the Federal Register. With this publication, the new FTC Rule is set to take effect on September 4, 2024. The FTC summarized the Rule with the following key points: • The Rule introduces a comprehensive ban on new noncompetes with all workers, including senior executives; • Noncompetes found to be an unfair method of competition; • Existing noncompetes with workers other than senior executives are not enforceable after the effective date (currently September 4, 2024); • Different approach for some - existing noncompetes for senior executives can remain in force IF "senior executive" earns more than $151,164 and in "policy-making position." Noncompete Rule The Final Rule is very broad and, pending litigation challenging the Rule, will impact most noncompete clauses and agreements between entities subject to FTC jurisdiction and employees, independent contractors, externs, interns, vohu1teers, apprentices, and certain sole proprietors. Note that the Final Rule does not apply to most not-for-profit entities, and certain financial institutions, because those entities are outside the FTC's jurisdiction. Further, it does not apply to a "worker" for a franchisee in the context of a franchisee-franchisor relationship. However, the Final Rule permits employers to enforce noncompete covenants that are entered pursuant to the bona fide sale of a business entity, of the person's ownership in a business entity, or of all or substantially all of the entity's operating assets. The Final Rule defines a "non-compete clause" broadly to include a term or condition of employment that either "prohibits a worker from, penalizes a worker for, or functions to prevent a worker from" seeking or accepting work with a competitor, or operating a competing business. The Final Rule, therefore, captures agreements that "penalize" a worker who takes (or seeks to take) a job with a competitor. Further included in the definition are covenants in a severance agreement between an employer and employee that conditions payment on non-competition. Finally, the Final Rule imposes a substantial procedural burden on employers to provide written notice to all workers who do not fall within the "senior executive" or sale-of-business exceptions that existing covenants not to compete will be invalid as of the effective date of the Final Rule. Specifically, the Final Rule requires employers, by the effective date, to provide "clear and conspicuous notice" in writing to such workers that their non-compete clauses will not be, and cannot legally be, enforced against them. The FTC included an approved form of notice with the Final Rule. WHAT DOES THIS MEAN FOR YOU? 1. Lawsuits have already been filed challenging the legality and enforceability of the Final Rule. As a result, there is still a possibility the effective date of the Final Rule could be delayed and pushed later into the future. 2. Notices - we do NOT recommend providing the required written notice to employees at least until August to see what impact pending litigation has on the enforcement of the Final Rule. 3. In the meantime, identify all individuals that you have noncompete agreements with to be ready. Employment Law Alert is a service to our clients, friends, and colleagues. This is not intended to be legal advice, but rather, to provide accurate information regarding employment law matters. For more information regarding employment law matters, please contact David G. Penn (dpenn@srnm.com). Our telephone number is (217) 223-3030. Please visit our website: www.srnm.com. We invite and welcome all questions and comments. © 2024 Schmiedeskamp Robertson Neu & Mitchell LLP
Community Service Is Important To Us
Schmiedeskamp lawyers and staff are well-known throughout the region as leaders who care about the people and the communities they serve.
The firm, along with numerous lawyers and staff, financially support and volunteer their time to help many agencies, both civic and charitable in ways that make a difference for their neighbors, clients and communities.
For more than 100 years, passion for their clients and their partners have made the Schmiedeskamp firm a model for longevity and success.
