Mr. Schoemaker is an Officer in the Litigation Practice Group. He represents clients in a broad range of litigated matters including hospitals, physicians, attorneys and accountants. He concentrates his representation to defendants in employment, product liability, complex litigation and personal injury matters.
Mr. Schoemaker has tried to verdict over 70 matters in the "judicial wasteland" of Madison and St. Clair County, Illinois. Locations nationally known as two of the most difficult venues in the United States for defendants. He has tried matters in courtrooms ranging from Chicago to Cairo, Illinois and from St. Louis to Springfield, Missouri. He has represented the defense in matters involving medical malpractice, catastrophic auto/trucking accidents, product liability, employment discrimination, and commercial litigation. In addition to trial work, Mr. Schoemaker provides advice and counseling to professionals in the area of medical corporations and ancillary services/facilities.
He also has substantial experience in overseeing and managing mass tort litigation and the use of computer technology in organizing defense material. Mr. Schoemaker is a member of the firms technology committee and advises members and clients on the effective use of technology in the Courtroom.
Mr. Schoemaker is a member of the Defense Research Institute and has been a Speaker for them on the topic of Trial Tactics. He has authored numerous articles on litigation strategy and trial techniques.
Publications
- "Document Collection, Review, and Production." For the Defense. vol. 37, No. 1. (January 1995)
- "Chapter 5: Informal Discovery." Illinois Products Liability. Illinois Practice Library. (1991)
Seminars
- Cross-Examination of Witnesses 1994 DRI Young Lawyers Trial Techniques Seminar Cross examination of expert witnesses at trial
Cases
- Terry L. v. Railway Company 91-1219, Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal, 1992 Issue of when the Statute of Limitations began to run on a “discovery basis” for a FELA claim.
- Plaintiff Spouse/Co-owner v. Defendant Ex-Spouse/Co-owner, Citation: Cause No. 00-L- 668, Madison County, IL. Plaintiff/Co-owner, was married to Defendant/Co-owner, when they created a company called XYZ. XYZ created drug testing kits for the racing industry. In 1993 Mrs. Plaintiff and Mr. Defendant were divorced. XYZ was disclosed as part of the marital assets and each of them was given 50% of the company. As part of the divorce proceeding Mr. Defendant also disclosed the existence of ABC, Corp. to Ms. Plaintiff. ABC was a shell corporation created for billing purposes so that a third party could receive proceeds from the company and that Defendant could hide proceeds from Plaintiff. However, Mr. Defendant never fully disclosed the amounts of cash involved with XYZ and ABC’s internal billing. From 1993 to 1999, ABC was paid approximately 1 million dollars by XYZ for “services rendered.” When Ms. Plaintiff objected in February 2000, Mr. Defendant effectively removed Mrs. Plaintiff from all day-to-day contact with the company and took over the financial records of the company. He then proceeded to bill ABC at an even higher rate so that the money stopped flowing to Plaintiff as an owner of XYZ.
- Ronald R. v. James T., Insurance Co. No. 1 and Insurance Co. No. 2 Cause No. 972-08456, St. Louis City, Description: Plaintiff was an employee of service company in St. Louis. He had completed a job and was returning to the office in a company van at the time of the accident. Plaintiff alleged that on January 27, 1997 at 9:30 p.m. he was driving his vehicle on the exit ramp off of 170 onto 70. Weather was very bad that evening with ice and snow on the ground. As Plaintiff got into the turn on the ramp he observed a black vehicle totally blocking the roadway. He brought his vehicle to a stop. Approximately 5 seconds later he was rear-ended by defendant Tucker who was unable to stop due to weather conditions. R's vehicle did not come into contact with the black car he had stopped for. The black car that had been blocking the roadway departed the scene of the accident before he could be identified. Insurance Company No. 1 had R's personal Uninsured Motorist Coverage. Insurance Company No. 2 had R's employer's Uninsured Motorist Coverage. R alleged that he had $15,769.55 in medical, including treatment for soft tissue injury to his low back.
- Distributing, Inc. v. Major Production Company, Cause No: 99-l-44A, St. Clair County, Illinois Plaintiff was Distributing, Inc. Distributing was one of Major Production Company’s product distributors. There were approximately seven other companies in the exact same business in Southwestern Illinois. MPC also used Distributing, Inc. to do haulage for a flat rate to certain locations. In October of 1996 MPC sent a letter stating they were going to do own hauling to MPC’s direct customers. Plaintiff believed this would run them out of business so they ceased operations completely. Even through MPC offered to buy-out Distributing at a premium, Distributing refused to sell out and instead closed down operations. (Discovery revealed that this was a tactic to increase damages for the suit against MPC.) After MPC sent the letter, a different executive at MPC changed the policy and it never had its own drivers do the hauling. Plaintiff sued MPC alleging Fraud for the letter and an “attempt” to run them out of business. Defendant denied the allegations.
Community Involvement
- Shiloh, Illinois School Board, President
- Rotary International
- Chamber of Commerc
- Boy Scout’s International