Garth Madison

Attorney and Counselor at Law
  • 773.893.0456
  • 309.258.0456
  • garth.madison [AT] gmail.com
Photo of the 7th Circuit Courtroom in the Dirksen Federal Building

Litigation Expertise

Representative Cases

McBride v. Grice, 576 F.3d 703 (7th Cir. 2009): Argued before the Seventh Circuit on behalf of defendant City and police officer. The Court affirmed summary judgment, holding that the officer had probable cause to arrest the plaintiff for battery, despite the officer's refusal to examine additional video evidence, which the plaintiff claimed would demonstrate that he was acting within his right to evict a disruptive person from his store.

Jones v. Lockard, 956 N.E.2d 623, 353 Ill.Dec. 761 (3d Dist. 2011): Drafted appellants' briefs and argued before the Third District that complainant's IDHR complaint for sexual harassment was untimely. Although Illinois courts have adopted the federal rule in National Rr. Passenger Corp. v. Morgan, 536 U.S. 101 (2002), allowing liability for untimely acts if the last act was timely, few Illinois cases have applied the Morgan rule. Argued that the ALJ failed to apply the Morgan rule's exceptions for unrelated last acts and intervening employer action.

Martis v. Pekin Memorial Hospital Inc., 395 Ill.App.3d 943, 917 N.E.2d 598 (3d Dist. 2009): Drafted and argued trial pleadings and obtained denial of class certification of multimillion dollar claims for unfair billing practices relating to a purported class of all uninsured patients treated at defendant hospital over a decade. Drafted and argued hospital's motion to dismiss claims against hospital and pathology group for double billing professional component and violations of Medical Practice Act, Consumer Fraud Act, and Medical Patients Rights Act. Drafted hospital's brief before the appellate court, which affirmed dismissal.

Ioerger v. Halverson Construction Co., Inc., Case No. 3-06-0367, Ill. App. Third Dist. 2007: Drafted brief and argued before the Third District on behalf of defendant safety inspector, payroll company, and insurer in bridge construction accident case. The Court affirmed summary judgment granted to defendants, holding that the exclusivity provision of the Workers' Compensation Act applied to each defendant as an entity involved in providing safety inspections, even if not expressly acting as a workers' compensation insurer.

Appellate Updates

eDiscovery Updates