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.

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.

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.

Defended firearm manufacturers against design defect allegations.

Representation of health care insurers seeking enforcement of their contractual subrogation rights in tort litigation.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Plaintiff brought class action intentional tort claims and product liability claims. Successfully negotiated dismissal of claims against client without payment by client.

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.

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.

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.

Defended premises liability cases for auto parts client and major retailer.