Experience
Successfully Defended Client in Wrongful Death Case
We and co-counsel represented our client, a subsidiary of an automobile company, in the wrongful death case brought by a mechanic’s family. The mechanic had worked in one of our client’s dealerships for one to two years in 1965-1966 and worked on our client’s brakes and clutches. The family claimed the mechanic was exposed to asbestos from these products, which caused his pleural malignant mesothelioma, and our client should have warned him that could happen. We argued and provided supporting evidence that our client didn’t know at the time that any health hazards were associated with the mechanic’s work with such friction materials, and that any asbestos emitted from those materials did not cause the mechanic’s mesothelioma. The jury returned a defense verdict that our client was not liable.
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.
Medical Device Product Liability Litigation
Defending multiple product liability cases involving joint replacement products.
Successfully Defended Manufacturer in Entrapment Case
We represented our client, Genie – a global aerial work platform manufacturer, in a lawsuit after a worker suffered fatal injuries in an entrapment accident. The plaintiffs claimed that aerial work platforms should be equipped with mandatory secondary guarding accessories, which plaintiffs claim would have prevented this death. The plaintiffs sought $69 million, including punitive damages. Post-accident evidence, including evidence of non-similar accidents, were allowed to go to the jury. Despite these challenges, we received a unanimous defense verdict from the jury after nearly two weeks of testimony. The jury rendered the defense verdict in under 90 minutes, agreeing these machines, which have been used for decades and millions of man hours, are not defective and unreasonably dangerous. This case was also significant for the industry, as it is the first entrapment case to be tried to verdict.
Represent Client on Multiple Challenges from Other Company
We represented The Procter & Gamble Company (P&G) in a lawsuit filed by Definitive Solutions Company, Inc. (DSC) in the Hamilton County, Ohio Court of Common Pleas. DSC sued its former employees and their new employer, as well as P&G, when those employees left DSC. DSC asserted claims against P&G for breach of contract, promissory estoppel, tortious interference with business relationships, misappropriation of trade secrets, and civil aiding and abetting. After extensive discovery, P&G moved for, and was granted, summary judgment on each of DSC’s claims.
A bench trial on various claims DSC asserted against the other defendants was held in 2014. The trial court ruled against the former employees and awarded DSC damages. DSC ultimately settled with its former employees, and it appealed the trial court’s decision granting P&G summary judgment on the breach of contract and tortious interference claims.
On appeal, DSC claimed that P&G breached an agreement not to “directly solicit for employment” employees who had worked on its account and also that P&G had tortiously interfered with DSC’s relationship with the employees. The First District Court of Appeals rejected both of DSC’s arguments and affirmed summary judgment for P&G. The Court of Appeals found that the agreement between DSC and P&G prohibited solicitation for employment, not solicitation of another company to perform work. The Court also found nothing in P&G’s conduct that rose to the level of tortious interference.
See Definitive Solutions Co., Inc. v. Sliper, 1st Dist. Hamilton App. No. C-150281, 2016-Ohio-533.
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
Motor Vehicle Product Liability Litigation
Since 1986, representing numerous motor vehicle manufacturers in product liability cases in Kentucky and Indiana. Defect allegations defended against include seatbelts, airbag deployment, airbag non-deployment, no airbag, rollover propensity, roof intrusion, seatback deformation, fuel system, post-collision fire, electrical systems, unintended acceleration, absence of rear camera, and various claims relating to warnings. Significant experience in MDL practice and proposed class actions.
Successfully defended motor vehicle manufacturer at trial in March 2022. High exposure case involving three fatalities and one significant injury. Defect allegation involved frontal crashworthiness and bumper welds. Unanimous defense verdict.
Pharmacy Litigation
Multi-District Product Liability Litigation
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.
Adam v. Spotswood
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.
Anonymous Plaintiff v. Cereal Manufacturer
Anonymous Plaintiff v. General Contractor
Anonymous Plaintiff v. General Contractor
Anonymous Plaintiff v. General Contractor
Anonymous Plaintiff v. General Contractor
Anonymous Plaintiff v. General Contractor
Anonymous Plaintiff v. General Contractor
Anonymous Plaintiff v. Insurance Company
Anonymous Plaintiff v. Manufacturer of Dental Equipment
Anonymous Plaintiff v. Plastics Manufacturer
Anonymous Plaintiff v. Smoke Alarm Manufacturer
Anonymous Plaintiffs v. Window Manufacturer
Anonymous Plaintiffs v. Window Manufacturer
Asbestos Litigation
Asbestos Litigation
Class Action Defense - Manufactured Housing
David Burton v. American Tobacco and R.J. Reynolds
Firearm Product Liability Litigation
Frederick Moore v. The Glidden Company
- Page 1 of 2