An Illinois appellate panel has upheld a $2.86 million jury verdict in a medical malpractice case against podiatrist Dr. Keith Sklar and his clinic, Foot First Podiatry Centers. The June 16, 2025 decision, however, remanded a key procedural issue: the defendants’ posting of an appeal bond equal to their insurance coverage but below the judgment amount.
Maureen Walsh, a financial planning consultant, sued Dr. Sklar after undergoing surgeries on both feet that she alleged were unnecessary and left her with chronic pain, reduced mobility, and multiple corrective operations. The jury sided with Walsh, awarding damages for her medical costs, lost quality of life, and ongoing disability.
Following the verdict, the defendants moved to stay enforcement by filing an appeal bond for $1.85 million - the full amount available under their professional liability insurance policy. The trial court accepted the bond without requiring additional financial documentation or conditions.
That decision did not sit well with the First District Appellate Court. While affirming the jury’s award, the panel found the trial court erred by not requiring more than a policy limit to justify the lower bond amount. Under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 305(a), trial courts may approve a reduced bond only after weighing whether the full judgment is reasonably unattainable - and must impose safeguards to prevent the defendant from shifting or depleting assets during appeal.
The appellate court said those steps were skipped. It noted there was no meaningful evidence about the defendants’ financial position beyond the insurance policy, and no restrictions were placed on assets that could impact the plaintiff’s ability to collect should the verdict stand through appeal.
The case now returns to the trial court for reconsideration of the bond, though the judgment itself remains intact.
For insurance carriers, particularly those underwriting professional liability in healthcare, the ruling reinforces the importance of robust post-verdict planning. Relying on policy limits alone to cap exposure on appeal may no longer suffice. Defense counsel and insurers may now need to be more proactive in presenting a complete financial picture and accepting stricter conditions when verdicts outpace coverage.
While this decision is unpublished and not precedential, it offers a cautionary example of how courts may tighten the reins on post-trial strategy - and puts liability carriers on notice that policy ceilings won’t always set the floor for appeal protections.
