Co-founder of the firm, Neal A. Roth has demonstrated his strength of conviction, legal skill, and formidable knowledge by winning significant verdicts and obtaining favorable settlements for his clients in some of Florida’s most hard-fought cases. Roth has more than 45 years of experience in medical malpractice, personal injury, legal malpractice, bad faith insurance, and age discrimination cases.
Lawdragon Honors
| Honor | Year | Practice |
|---|---|---|
| The 2025 Lawdragon 500 Leading Plaintiff Consumer Lawyers | 2025 | Medical Malpractice, Personal Injury, Insurance Bad Faith |
| The 2024 Lawdragon 500 Leading Plaintiff Consumer Lawyers | 2024 | |
| The 2023 Lawdragon 500 Leading Plaintiff Consumer Lawyers | 2023 | |
| The 2022 Lawdragon 500 Leading Plaintiff Consumer Lawyers | 2022 | |
| The 2021 Lawdragon 500 Leading Plaintiff Consumer Lawyers | 2021 | |
| The 2020 Lawdragon 500 Leading Plaintiff Consumer Lawyers | 2020 | |
| The 2016 Lawdragon 500 Leading Lawyers in America | 2016 |
Shortly after founding the firm, Roth handled a case that changed hospital protocol involving pediatric EKGs. As an infant, Chantelle Berman had an EKG performed and interpreted by an adult cardiologist instead of a pediatric cardiologist. Had a pediatric cardiologist interpreted the EKG, Chantelle’s congenital heart defect known as a patent ductus arteriosus would have been detected. This condition, if diagnosed timely, is highly treatable. Unfortunately, by the time the diagnosis was made Chantelle suffered irreversible pulmonary hypertension, and later died. As a result of the settlement of this case not only was the family compensated, but the hospital involved agreed to change its policies and procedures so that EKGs on children 12 years of age and younger were to be interpreted by pediatric cardiologists.
Another significant case in Roth’s career began in the early part of 2003, when a young girl nearly drowned at an apartment complex in Hollywood. Her lawyers brought a claim against the complex and tried to settle the case for the policy limits. The insurer, through its lawyers, refused to settle the case on two separate occasions. As a result, a substantial verdict was rendered against the apartment complex, and the insurers were exposed to a bad faith claim which would have required them to pay enormous damages well in excess of the policy limits.
The firm was retained to settle the underlying case and bring a legal malpractice action against the two law firms who mishandled the case. After two and half years of intense litigation, Roth recovered for the group of insurers from Lloyds of London an amount of money that approximated 75% of what they actually had to pay. The lead underwriter was made whole through the settlement and its own insurance coverage.