Mass Tort

Experience

Lewis v. Synthes, et al.

Dinsmore & Shohl represented Synthes, a medical device manufacturer, in the Ohio cases involving alleged injuries from the use of pedicle screws.  The cases were dismissed.

Other Litigation Experience

Debbie Lydon has represented manufacturers, pharmaceutical companies, managed care organizations, hospitals, individual healthcare providers, employee leasing companies, staffing companies, importers, distributors, recruiters, insurance companies, publishers, accountants, fiduciaries, and others.

Representative matters:

The Procter & Gamble Company - Defense of Mass Tort Litigation, Regulatory, Transactional and Compliance Advice
Humana - Litigation Counsel
HealthSouth - Resolution of disputes with Ohio entities
Showa Denko KK - Defense of Mass Tort Litigation
Staffmark - Litigation Counsel
Yamaha Motor Corporation U.S.A. - Litigation Counsel
LasikPlus - Litigation Counsel and Risk Management
Shelter Insurance Companies - Litigation Counsel
Franciscan Health System - Litigation Counsel and Risk Management
Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center - Litigation Counsel
Inova Health System - Litigation Counsel
Professional Risk Management Services - Litigation involving Psychiatrists
SST Bearing Corporation - Litigation Counsel
Riverhills Healthcare, Inc. - Outside and Litigation Counsel
Interlake Material Handling, Inc. - Litigation Counsel
Anonymous Hospitals - Defense of RICO, Health Care Fraud, Qui Tam and Malpractice allegations
Health Care Providers - Litigation counsel; advisor on various issues including regulatory matters, fraud & abuse, licensure, credentialing, risk management, criminal allegations, etc.
Fiduciaries - Litigation Counsel

Multi-District Product Liability Litigation

National liaison counsel for Recreational Vehicle Manufacturer in multi-district litigation involving more than 300 product liability lawsuits involving the design of a side-by-side utility vehicle. Co-trial counsel for 12 of these lawsuits involving Kentucky plaintiffs.

Fixodent Denture Cream Litigation

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.

Anonymous Plaintiff v. Cereal Manufacturer

We represented the Defendant's insurer in a suit for $10,000 against a cereal manufacturer for Plaintiff's broken tooth due to an alleged foreign object in the cereal.  The case was settled prior to mediation.

Anonymous Plaintiff v. General Contractor

Plaintiff filed suit against our client, a general contractor, seeking $100,000 for defects in Plaintiff's home related to the use of synthetic stucco (EIFS) material.  Dinsmore & Shohl obtained a dismissal in favor of the general contractor on the basis of the North Carolina Statute of Repose.

Anonymous Plaintiff v. General Contractor

Plaintiff filed suit against our client, general contractor, seeking $1 million for defects in Plaintiff's home related to the use of synthetic stucco (EIFS) material.  Dinsmore & Shohl negotiated settlement with the homeowners on the general contractor's behalf and prosecuted third-party claims against the EIFS product manufacturer.

Anonymous Plaintiff v. General Contractor

Plaintiffs filed a $300,000 suit against our client, the general contractor, for defects in Plaintiff's home related to moisture intrusion and structural defects.  The general contractor in turned filed suit against 12 different subcontractors.  The case was settled favorably for the client after two days of mediation.

Anonymous Plaintiff v. General Contractor

Plaintiff filed suit against our client, a general contractor, seeking $1,000,000 for defects in Plaintiffs' home related to the use of synthetic stucco (EIFS) material.  Dinsmore & Shohl obtained dismissal in favor of the general contractor, individually, which was affirmed on appeal.

Anonymous Plaintiff v. General Contractor

Plaintiff filed suit for $1,000,000 against our client, the general contractor, for defects in Plaintiff's home. The claim went through a week-long arbitration, settling favorably for the client before a verdict was rendered.

Anonymous Plaintiff v. General Contractor

Plaintiff filed suit for $300,000 against our client, the general contractor, for defects in Plaintiff's home.  The claim went through three days of arbitration, settling favorably for the client after a minimal verdict was rendered.

Anonymous Plaintiff v. Insurance Company

Plaintiff filed a class action lawsuit against our client, an insurance company, seeking coverage in excess of $75,000 for moisture intrusion damage due to defects in Plaintiff's home.  The case was removed to Federal court, was never certified as a class action and was eventually dismissed.

Anonymous Plaintiff v. Manufacturer of Dental Equipment

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.

Anonymous Plaintiff v. Plastics Manufacturer

Plaintiff sued our client, a plastics manufacturer, for personal injury and product liability when a chair manufactured by the client broke.  The case was settled at mediation.

Anonymous Plaintiff v. Smoke Alarm Manufacturer

Plaintiff filed suit against our client, a smoke alarm manufacturer, seeking $1 million for the wrongful death of a university student killed in an off-campus apartment fire.  Plaintiff ultimately dismissed the suit with prejudice and no settlement payment was made.

Anonymous Plaintiffs v. Window Manufacturer

Plaintiffs filed a $200,000 suit against the general contractor, who in turn filed suit against our client, a window manufacturer, for alleged defects in the windows.  The case was settled after mediation.

Anonymous Plaintiffs v. Window Manufacturer

Plaintiffs sued our client, a window manufacturer, for $75,000 for allegedly defective windows.  The case was settled.

Asbestos Litigation

Dinsmore & Shohl represented Owens Illinois in lawsuits filed in Southern Ohio by numerous workers alleging personal injuries as a result of exposure to asbestos.  These cases resulted in either settlement, dismissal or a jury verdict for the defense.

Class Action Defense - Manufactured Housing

Dinsmore & Shohl defended a national seller of manufactured housing in state and federal court against class action claims related to the alleged inherent risks of fire and injury associated with manufactured housing. Following successful motion practice, all claims were dismissed in both state and federal courts.

David Burton v. American Tobacco and R.J. Reynolds

Dinsmore & Shohl represented a major cigarette manufacturer (American Tobacco) in a smoking and health case involving allegations of peripheral vascular disease causation and corporate misconduct that was tried in Federal Court in Kansas City, Kansas in 2002.  The case resulted in a small compensatory damages verdict against American Tobacco in the amount of $1984.00 (yes, that is the correct number) and no punitive damages.  After the verdict was rendered the case against American Tobacco was dismissed without payment.

Frederick Moore v. The Glidden Company

Dinsmore & Shohl represented Glidden in connection with several lawsuits brought by children and parents alleging personal injuries as a result of exposure to lead paint.  The cases were dismissed by the Plaintiffs.

Hotel Owners v. Painting Subcontractor

Plaintiff hotel owners filed a $300,000 suit against our client, a painting and moisture proofing subcontractor, and against the coating manufacturer for moisture damage to the hotel.  The claim settled favorably for the client after mediation and before trial.

In re: Silica Product Liability Litigation

Dinsmore & Shohl represented Robert Bosch Tool Corporation in the MDL litigation involving claims of personal injury for exposure to silica.  The United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Corpus Christi Division, remanded the cases to the Mississippi State Courts.  The cases were then dismissed.

In re: Tobacco Litigation: Medical Monitoring

A medical monitoring action tried to a defense verdict in state court in Wheeling, West Virginia in 2001 that was instituted against multiple tobacco companies by a class of West Virginia smokers who sought medical monitoring in the form of CT scanning and spirometry to screen for smoking related disease.  In this action (which was affirmed on appeal) Dinsmore & Shohl represented The American Tobacco Company and Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corporation.  In addition to acting as trial counsel, Dinsmore & Shohl consulted with and retained pre-eminent experts in the fields of public health, preventive medicine and pulmonology to develop and present a scientifically sound defense in emerging areas of law and medicine.

Linda Welch v. Brown & Williamson, et al.

Dinsmore & Shohl served as trial counsel for Brown & Williamson in a smoking and health case involving allegations of bronchioloalveolar cancer causation and corporate misconduct that was tried in state court in Missouri in 2005. The case resulted in a verdict for the defense after a two-week trial.

MDL 1023: In re: Diet Drugs (Fen-Phen)

As national coordinating counsel and trial counsel, Dinsmore & Shohl defended a distributor of phentermine in the multi-district product liability litigation related to the diet drug commonly known as fen-phen.  Mr. Brittingham assisted the team that represented the client nationally.  Additionally, as local and regional counsel, Mr. Brittingham managed the litigation and discovery of claims pending in Kentucky, successfully obtaining their dismissals.

Michael Thompson v. Brown & Williamson, et al.

Dinsmore & Shohl served as trial counsel for Brown & Williamson in a smoking and health case involving allegations of laryngeal cancer causation and corporate misconduct that was tried in state court in Independence, Missouri in 2005.  The case resulted in a small compensatory verdict for plaintiffs against Brown & Williamson ($200,000.00); no punitive damages were awarded.

Michael Thompson v. Brown & Williamson, et al.

Trial counsel for Brown & Williamson in dozens of tobacco/smoking cases including obtaining a defense verdict in a class action in West Virginia making claims for medical monitoring.

Popcorn Flavoring / Diacetyl Litigation

Dinsmore & Shohl represents International Flavors & Fragrances in the butter flavoring litigation that arose after a NIOSH investigation found a significant lung disease, bronchiolitis obliterans, in a Missouri popcorn plant. The firm's trial team, consisting of Frank C. Woodside, III, Mary-Jo Middelhoff and J. David Brittingham, has taken 8 cases to trial since 2003 and continues to litigate numerous cases in a variety of jurisdictions.

Regional Gas & Electric Company v. Turbine Manufacturer

Our client, a turbine manufacturer, contracted with a regional gas & electric company for the sale, construction, and installation of a turbine generator and associated equipment for use at one of its power stations.  The gas & electric company filed a suit seeking in excess of $1 million, alleging that during installation, our client failed to properly install the generator and that the generator suffered substantial damage when certain parts broke. Plaintiff asserted claims for negligence and breach of contract.  We obtained summary judgment for the Defendant, arguing the contract and the economic loss rule precluded all of Plaintiff's claims. The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeal upheld summary judgment.