Our client, an international transportation company, was sued by an employee under the Federal Employers Liability Act (FELA). The employee claimed a back injury due to the vibrations coming through the seat of a locomotive. We were able show through the employee’s own medical records and testimony he had discussed this injury with this physician outside the statute of limitations, which is three years. The trial court granted us summary judgment on the statute of limitations issue. The Plaintiff appealed the judgment which was upheld on appeal by the State’s Supreme Court. Not only was the judgment upheld on appeal, but the Court enacted a new point of law as a result for FELA cases in that State.

Rick Porotsky represented a Brazilian importer and distributor in a dispute with a large U.S. manufacturer, which was arbitrated in Sao Paulo Brazil through the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC). Working with Brazilian co-counsel in a bi-lingual proceeding, Mr. Porotsky took the lead role in pre- and post-hearing briefings, opening statements at the arbitral hearing, presentation of economic experts, and cross examination of key English-speaking witnesses.

Our client, a national transportation company, was sued by an employee, a signal maintainer. The plaintiff was traveling in company vehicle, lost control of the vehicle which resulted in the truck rolling over. He alleged our client was negligent for failure to maintain the vehicle and claimed damages including years of future wage loss as a result of the Federal Employers Liability Act (FELA). Ultimately, we were able to show the plaintiff had both responsibility for maintenance of the vehicle as part of his job duties as well as access to the company’s credit card to make any necessary repairs. This case was tried in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District in West Virginia.

We were able to negotiate a reasonable settlement for our client, a land holding company, in a massive litigation case. Over 3,000 plaintiffs – primarily property owners – sued land holding companies in Southern West Virginia who helped provide natural resources in the area. The suit claimed the land use, in terms of natural resource extraction, caused peak flow of water to increase resulting in the flooding and an overall change in the terrain of the land causing increased flooding. This case went on for ten years, and was one of the largest litigated cases in West Virginia history.

The plaintiff claimed a soft tissue back injury due to a slip-and-fall on snow and ice outside of our client’s, a national convenience store chain, store. We received a defense verdict at trial on the basis there was no negligence (no breach of any duty) on our client’s part.

Our client, a locally operated nonprofit day care center, was sued by a former employee. The plaintiff claimed sexual harassment and gender discrimination. We were able to obtained summary judgment on behalf of our client on grounds of insufficient proof. Due to the nature of this case, it received local and national attention.

We brought this case on behalf of a physician group against one of its former partners and a large hospital system, claiming the partner and the hospital system caused the physician group to lose millions of dollars by breaching contracts and fiduciary duties to the group. After a two-week trial in Jefferson Circuit Court, a jury awarded our client over $4 million.

In this shareholder derivative action, we defended the chairman and president of a corporation that owned a large shopping center. A beneficiary of a trust that owned shares in the corporation brought this lawsuit on behalf of the shareholders, claiming that our clients had breached their fiduciary duties in causing the sale of the shopping center for less than its fair market value. The beneficiary sought $50 million in compensatory damages, plus punitive damages. We obtained a dismissal of the action in its entirety for our clients on multiple grounds, including that there was no evidence of misconduct by our clients. On appeal, the Court of Appeals upheld the dismissal of the case.

Successful defense of creator/manufacturer of video games in which the parents of decedents of a high school shooting claimed that the students were shot by a young man who was addicted to violence by video games and movies.

State wide defense over a 10-year period of manufacturer of ATVs and motorcycles against allegations of vehicle instability, with directive to dramatically reduce claims

When a circuit court found the arbitration provision of a student enrollment form at Daymar College to be unenforceable, the college turned to Dinsmore for the appeal. A group of students alleged that they were deceived into enrolling at Daymar through false and misleading statements regarding the transferability of credits and availability of job opportunities. All of the students had signed an enrollment form, which contained a provision that stated any dispute related to the form or their enrollment would be handled through arbitration. The provision also stated that the cost of arbitration would be split amongst both parties. After their initial complaint, the students also argued that they were unaware of the arbitration provision on the enrollment form, and that they were pressured by Daymar to sign the enrollment form quickly. The trial court ruled that the provision was procedurally unconscionable and denied the client’s motion to compel arbitration, explaining that students had a limited time to read and comprehend the enrollment form, and also that requiring students with limited income to pay for half of an arbitration proceeding was unconscionable. Upon appeal, we argued that state and federal law strongly favor the enforcement of agreements to arbitrate, and that state law does not support the proposition that the cost of arbitration can render an arbitration provision unconscionable. Furthermore, we argued that the trial court could have severed the cost-splitting provision as an independent covenant, following state policy to strike objectionable provisions to maintain the contract as a whole. The Kentucky Court of Appeals reversed the decision of the trial court and remanded the matter for additional proceedings.

We represented a man-lift manufacturer in a product liability case where plaintiff’s husband died in accident while operating an industrial bucket truck. The plaintiff alleged that the bucket truck should have been equipped with a strain gauge load cell system. The plaintiff filed claims for negligence, strict liability and breach of warrant against our client. After successfully obtaining dismissal of plaintiff’s manufacturing defect claim, we filed Daubert motions to exclude plaintiff’s experts arguing her experts were unreliable. Concurrently, we filed a motion for summary judgment. The state court judge granted both the Daubert motion and summary judgment motion in favor of our client.

We represented a retailer in a case where the plaintiff-mother was shopping with her son in our client’s store and heard two other customers using offensive language in earshot of her son. The plaintiff- mother told the customers to stop using the offensive language and a fight ensued. The plaintiff filed suit claiming the retailer should have prevented or intervened in the altercation. The trial court granted summary judgment; however, the plaintiffs appealed the trial court’s decision to the Kentucky Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of our client.

Represented national restaurant chain in commercial real estate litigation (trial and appellate court levels) and related local zoning proceedings.