Respecting his clients’ business realities and objectives, Anthony Goldner takes a proactive approach to resolving litigation with maximum cost effectiveness. With a primary focus on defending product liability, toxic tort and general liability matters, Anthony has handled - and successfully disposed of - numerous claims against clients in the manufacturing, medical products, construction, trucking and transportation industries. He also has a strong background in obstetric medical malpractice and other types of medical malpractice cases both in his current practice and his prior work at plaintiffs’ firms.
As the lead attorney in the Chicago office’s toxic tort practice, Anthony has supervised thousands of asbestos, mold, benzene, carbon monoxide and welding rod cases and continues to represent clients in these matters. He has a growing practice in the construction and premises liability area and currently supervises the Chicago offices defense of a prominent Illinois road construction company in personal injury and property damage claims. He also represents a number of clients in commercial disputes over vendor contracts and other types of business agreements.
Areas of Focus
Anthony is responsible for supervising the day-to-day management of the Chicago office’s toxic tort defense practice, which has handled thousands of asbestos, mold, benzene, carbon monoxide and welding rod cases during the past several years. He has obtained summary judgment and dismissal of hundreds of asbestos cases in Cook and Madison counties in Illinois on behalf of the firm’s appliance, heavy equipment, recreational products, automotive, motorcycle, trucking, general contractor and shipbuilder clients. He also successfully defended a multimillion-dollar mold personal injury case brought by several employees of a Chicago law firm against a premises owner and landlord.
Anthony is the author or co-author of several articles and alerts concerning significant developments in Illinois case law that affected asbestos litigation, and also has been quoted in legal journals regarding such developments. In addition, he has spoken on emerging issues in asbestos litigation to insurers, insureds and outside counsel.
In the product liability area, Anthony defends U.S., Japanese, Korean and German manufacturers of industrial machinery, medical devices and pharmaceuticals, and construction, aviation and recreational equipment, among other products.
Anthony’s medical products experience includes the defense of manufacturers of spinal hardware, implants, grafts, wheelchairs and syringes, as well as manufacturers of brand and generic pharmaceuticals, in single-plaintiff and mass tort litigation in state and federal courts. In addition, he has tried numerous medical malpractice cases as lead or co-counsel in Illinois and Wisconsin courts.
Anthony has extensive experience representing clients in the construction, trucking and transportation industries in general and premises liability cases involving personal injury and wrongful death claims. Throughout his career, Anthony has defended general contractors, project managers and premises owners in construction personal injury claims and has vast experience with a large body of Illinois case law in the construction and premises liability areas.
In the transportation area, Anthony has experience with wrongful death lawsuits arising from rail crossing incidents, including claims brought against national and local passenger rail services as well as municipalities that had oversight of crossing signals or the design of railroad intersections. In addition, Anthony has represented an aircraft company and several of its subsidiaries in a Cook County, IL, wrongful death product liability case arising from an aviation crash, and has represented a flight services business in cargo loss and personal injury cases involving accidents at Chicago’s O’Hare International Airport.
Chicago Federal Court Bars Expert Testimony Espousing the “Any Exposure” Theory
“Any Exposure” Theory in Illinois Federal Court Asbestos Case
January 12, 2015
In a recent pre-trial ruling, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois barred perennial plaintiff’s expert Dr. Arthur Frank and other experts for the plaintiff from providing opinions espousing the “Any Exposure” theory of causation. Subject to this preclusion, however, the ruling leaves the door open for the plaintiff’s experts to provide case-specific causation opinions against defendants if such opinions are based on the experts’ analysis of the fact witnesses’ asbestos exposure testimony.
Illinois District Court Rejects Strict Application of the “Bare Metal” Asbestos Defense
Illinois Takes Middle Path in “Bare Metal” Defense Opinion
March 13, 2014
A recent decision by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois in a case of first impression rejected strict application of the “bare metal” defense, under which defendants cannot be held liable for the dangers of asbestos-containing parts supplied by third parties. The court instead favored a middle path, holding that a defendant owes a duty to warn in certain circumstances.
Illinois Supreme Court Shapes Forum non Conveniens Debate on Plaintiff’s State of Residence and Location Where Asbestos Exposure Occurred
IL Supreme Court Analyzes Forum non Conveniens in Pending Asbestos Cases
January 10, 2013
A recent Illinois Supreme Court ruling expands the options for the defense of non-resident asbestos cases pending in Illinois. Illinois is often considered one of the countrys most attractive jurisdictions due to its plaintiff-oriented substantive law and the ability for plaintiffs diagnosed with a malignant disease to get a trial date as early as nine months from the date of filing. In its ruling, the Illinois Supreme Court emphasized that the plaintiff must have a connection with Illinois. While each forum non conveniens case is unique and must be considered on its own facts, the ruling may result in the transfer of hundreds of pending asbestos cases where the non-resident plaintiff was never exposed to asbestos in Illinois.
Madison County, IL, Judge Eliminates Advance Trial Date Reservations for Asbestos Plaintiffs
April 2, 2012
The newly assigned judge to the asbestos docket in Madison County, IL, has ended the ability of local plaintiffs’ firms to “market” trial dates for mesothelioma cases, thereby changing the way plaintiffs’ counsel practice law in Madison County. Judge Clarence Harrison entered an order on March 29, 2012, stating that trial dates will be assigned on a case-by-case basis rather than by pre-assigned trial settings given to specific plaintiffs’ counsel.
Toxic Tort Newsletter
Hydraulic Fracturing & Asbestos Litigation
This edition of Wilson Elser’s Toxic Tort Newsletter examines issues relating to important industry developments and notable cases. These include litigation exposure from hydraulic fracturing and formulating strategies to assess and respond to non-party subpoenas in asbestos litigation.
Duty to Protect Employees’ Families at Issue: Is Employer Liable for Secondhand Asbestos Exposure at Premises?
Amid disagreement among Illinois appellate courts, the Illinois Supreme Court will hear and should ultimately rule on employer liability in secondhand asbestos cases.
Toxic Tort Newsletter
High Profile Toxic Tort Cases
Wilson Elser continues to monitor developments and trends in high-profile toxic tort cases. Most notably, these include the massive litigation that continues beyond the nine-year anniversary of the World Trade Center attacks and landmark filings that signal likely improvements for defendants in cases of asbestos personal injury trusts. Read about these and other cases in the Toxic Tort Newsletter.
Employer asbestos defendant owes duty of care to families of employees
On June 10, 2010, the Fifth District Illinois Appellate Court ruled in Simpkins v. CSX Corporation and CSX Transportation that employers owe a duty to protect their employees immediate family members against take-home asbestos exposure even though no relationship exists between the employer and the family member.
Toxic Tort and Environmental Newsletter
Asbestos, Environmental Law and EPA
This Toxic Tort and Environmental newsletter discusses the status of the component parts defense in asbestos litigation, developments in environmental law, and new EPA lead rules.
Premises liability asbestos defendant is not liable for second-hand exposure
Second-hand or bystander asbestos exposure litigation has been increasing in Illinois, but a recent Illinois Appellate Court opinion has held that premises defendants cannot be found liable under a second-hand exposure theory. On May 29, 2009, the Second District Appellate Court ruled in Nelson, et al. v. Aurora Equipment Company, in a case of first impression, that an asbestos defendant is not liable for alleged asbestos injuries under the theory of premises liability to a plaintiff who was never present on the defendants premises.
Nolan v. Weil-McLain decision changes legal landscape
On April 16, 2009, the Illinois Supreme Court issued its long-awaited decision in Nolan v. Weil-McLain, providing some relief to defendants who have been barred from introducing evidence of other asbestos exposure.
“Premise Liability Defendants Are Not Liable for Second Hand Asbestos Exposure” Asbestos Case Alert, 2009.
“ Nolan v. Weil-McLain Decision Changes Legal Landscape in Illinois,” Asbestos Case Alert, 2009.
“Sole Proximate Cause in Illinois Medical Malpractice Litigation,” Wilson Elser Medical Malpractice Newsletter, 2002.
“Conducting Written Discovery in Illinois State Cases and Federal Cases,” Wilson Elser CLE Manual.
Recent Trends and Developments in Mold Litigation
May 29, 2013 2:00 pm ET
“How to Use Bankrupt Asbestos Trusts to Your Advantage,” Forum for Environmental and Toxic Tort Issues (FETTI) annual conference, 2009.
“A Proposal to File Contribution Claims Against Employers in Asbestos Litigation,” FETTI annual conference, 2009.
“Plaintiff’s Response to State Tort Reform in Asbestos Litigation,” FETTI annual conference, 2008.