Dinsmore's Product Liability Team recently received a ruling in favor of The Procter & Gamble Defendants ("P&G") which is the first in the country to assess and reject the scientific basis for lawsuits filed by a number of Fixodent® users.

Frank C. Woodside, III, and his team serve as counsel for P&G defendants concerning Denture Adhesive Litigation. In that litigation, Judge Cecilia Altonaga oversees discovery in the Multi-District Litigation involving more than 150 plaintiffs who seek damages for personal injuries that allegedly resulted from their use of excessive amounts of Fixodent, manufactured by P&G, and/or Poligrip, manufactured by GlaxoSmithKline. The current litigation was initiated in 2009 against P&G. The Federal cases were eventually consolidated in Miami with a number of other cases pending in state courts throughout the country. P&G has steadfastly defended the safety of Fixodent.

On June 13, 2011 Judge Altonaga issued a Daubert opinion granting P&G's motion to exclude virtually all of the Plaintiffs’ proposed expert opinion testimony that purportedly supported the link between extremely excessive use of Fixodent denture adhesive and neurological disease.

We defended a husband and wife, homeowners, who had rented their home to the plaintiffs, a husband, wife, and infant child. Approximately 2 months after moving into the home the infant child was diagnosed with autoimmune pancytopenia a relatively rare but known blood disorder. Autoimmune pancytopenia is a depression of the blood cell lines, reds, whites, and neutrophils. At about the same time that the infant child was diagnosed with autoimmune pancytopenia, mold, including stachybotrys mold, was discovered in the home. The plaintiffs claimed that they were forced to abandon the home, destroy all of their personal property, and further that the mold exposure caused the infant child's autoimmune pancytopenia. The theories of recovery asserted against the defendant home owners were of negligence, breach of contract, and breach of the warranty of habitability. At trial plaintiffs proceeded solely on their negligence theory.

During pretrial discovery it became clear that the plaintiffs' expert on the contention that the alleged mold exposure caused the infant's autoimmune pancytopenia was not following generally accepted scientific/medical methodology to reach his causation opinion. On behalf of the home owners, we filed a Frye motion to exclude this expert. After extensive depositions of both the plaintiffs' expert and our expert as well as briefing and arguing the issue, the trial judge excluded the plaintiffs' expert's testimony that mold caused the infant son's autoimmune pancytopenia. At trial, plaintiffs proceeded on their property damage claim and also on the theory that their infant son's asthma was caused by the alleged mold exposure in the home.

Following three days of trial, the jury returned a verdict for less than 10% of the claimed property damage and a defense verdict on the asthma claim.

Plaintiffs filed post trial motions seeking to reverse the trial court's decision to exclude the plaintiffs' expert on autoimmune pancytopenia. The trial judge affirmed his decision. The plaintiffs then took an appeal to the Pennsylvania Superior Court. The Superior Court affirmed the trial court's decision to exclude the plaintiffs' expert's testimony that mold caused autoimmune pancytopenia.

We represented a debt collector against claims of violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”). The consumer argued that the debt collector violated the FDCPA by suing on a time-barred debt. In particular, the consumer argued that a borrowing statute should be applied under the terms of a credit card agreement, such that a shorter statute of limitations than that of the forum state barred claim s to collect a debt. The Portage County Court of Common Pleas dismissed the complaint in its entirety.

We represented a national insurance company against claims of breach of contract and bad faith. Plaintiff alleged breach of contract and bad faith relating denial of a claim for fire loss. The Northern District of Ohio granted summary judgment to our client on the grounds that the insured made intentional misrepresentations relating to his financial condition and the loss of multiple items in the fire in the course of the insurer’s investigation. The district court concluded that the insured’s “misrepresentations were numerous and ever changing and material to [the insurer’s] investigation of this intentional fire.”

We represented an insurance company in a suit for breach of insurance contract and bad faith arising out of the client’s decision not to pay benefits under an automobile accident insurance policy. The case was removed to federal court and eventually settled at mediation.

We represented a residential home services provider in a dispute pending in the Montgomery County, Ohio Court of Common Pleas. The case involved allegations of fraud and alleged violations of Ohio’s Consumer Sales Practices Act. We successfully pursued an appeal to enforce the provisions of an arbitration agreement between the parties. As a result of the victory in the court of appeals, we were able to assist the client in obtaining a favorable settlement of the litigation. The Motion we prepared to Stay the Proceedings and Compel Arbitration was selected for inclusion in Ohio Forms of Pleading and Practice.

Our client, the chief operating officer of a corporate vendor in the railroad industry, was indicted for allegedly engaging in mail fraud by improperly outsourcing business to a company owned by his brother. We performed a significant amount of pre-trial work, and the prosecutor agreed to a pre-trial diversion, which led to all charges being dismissed with prejudice. We also successfully obtained an injunction that required the client’s former company to indemnify him from legal fees.

We represented a debt purchaser when a consumer brought a class action counterclaim against the client for alleged violations of the FDCPA and Kentucky usury laws. The consumer argued that the National Bank Act did not preempt Kentucky usury laws and that the Dodd-Frank Act no longer allowed federal preemption to assignees. Summary Judgment was granted to debt buyer.

We defended our client against a claim in excess of $100 million for alleged defamation and tortious interference.  The case resulted in summary judgment for the defense.

I represented an individual in an administrative disciplinary action before the relevant State Board. The case was dismissed.

Dinsmore & Shohl represented a church whose control of a hospital was challenged by community residents in a class action.  The case was settled.

Dinsmore & Shohl represented the manufacturer of dental equipment in a claim alleging personal injuries as a result of exposure to sewer gas.  The case was settled.

I represented the Defendant, a regional restaurant business, in a $75,000 claim for food liability.  The case resulted in a zero verdict.

We serve as regional counsel to an insurance carrier by providing coverage opinions and advising the carrier as to appropriate and consistent claims handling for multiple property and casualty claims, including wind, fire, vandalism, water damage, hail and similar perils. We have consistently prevailed in motions for summary judgment on issues of coverage and alleged bad faith.