Member Login
Forgot Password?
Upcoming Events
Winning the Case in Defense Witness Depositions

[ Details ]


Developing Damages Through the Medicine of Lifestyle


[ Details ]



2017 Annual Convention


[ Details ]



Advocates Circle Firms

Arthur O'Neil Mertz Michel & Brown Co., LPA


Barkan Meizlish
Handelman Goodin DeRose
Wentz, LLP


Bordas & Bordas, PLLC


Caravona & Berg, LLC


Cecil & Geiser, LLP


Leizerman & Associates, LLC


Elk & Elk


The Gervelis Law Firm


Kisling Nestico & Redick


Kitrick, Lewis & Harris Co.,. LPA


Landskroner, Grieco & Merriman, LLC


Meyer Wilson Co., LPA


Murray & Murray Co., LPA


Nager Romaine &
Schneiberg Co., LPA


Nurenberg, Paris, Heller & McCarthy Co., LPA


O'Connor Acciani & Levy, LPA


Petersen & Petersen


Plevin & Gallucci Co., LPA


Rourke & Blumenthal


Slater & Zurz, LLP


Scott Elliott Smith, LPA


Spangenberg, Shibley & Liber


Robert J. Wagoner, Co., LLC


Tzangas Plakas Mannos Ltd.




Section Chair Corey Artim | Wright & Schulte, LLC

What to Expect from the Supreme Court’s Consideration of BMS
By: Jim O'Brien, Esq.

The US Supreme Court will soon decide where a corporation can be sued. The result could turn the mass torts world on its head.
Click here to continue reading article


An Ocean of Media: Digital Media and Class Action Notice 
By: Tom Sauter, Esq.
Today, counsel seeks class action treatment for a number of mass tort matters, including, for example, a segment of cases involving pharmaceuticals, medical devices, and toxic exposure.  As such, class notice plays a critical role in informing potential class members of their rights and options to participate in these matters.
Click here to continue reading article


Mass Tort Subrogation
By: Steve Behnke, Esq.

This article addresses subrogation of mass tort claims. To review, mass tort claims are often settled in large groups, yet still treated individually. In this way, mass torts are different from class actions where everyone receives the same settlement amount. Instead, different people will receive different settlements based on such factors as extent of injury, pre-existing risk factors, etc. Mass tort resolution of liens and subrogation claims have some individual and class elements when resolved in bulk, as discussed in this article.
Click here to continue reading article


Practical Considerations for the Non-Mass Tort Attorney
By: Corey Artim, Esq.

This article will provide a brief overview of key practical considerations to consider when a client is retained because of a claim subject to a MDL. This article will point out some fundamental distinctions between traditional PI cases and a mass tort case.
Click here to continue reading article


Multi-Venue Consolidation in Ohio Mass Torts Actions: A Missing Rule of Civil Procedure
By: Joseph M. Lyon, Esq. 
An Ohio Court, pursuant to Rule 42 of Ohio Rule of Civil Procedure, may consolidate cases where pending actions involve “common questions of law and fact”. Upon filing a motion, the Court may issue orders “to reduce unnecessary costs or delay. Unfortunately, under current Ohio Rules, there is no mechanism to designate a category of cases as a “mass tort” whereby all related cases from all Ohio venues could be transferred before one Judge early in the litigation to efficiently manage complex litigation with common questions of law and fact. 

Click here to continue reading

The Federal Rules, They are a-Chagin': Entering a New Paradigm of E-Discovery
By: Dustin Herman, Esq.
Judge Jeffrey Sutton of the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals is the Chair of Standing Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure. For the past five years, Judge Sutton and a large team of attorneys and judges have been working on proposed changes to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure regarding discovery practices in federal court, and specifically with respect to discovery of electronically stored information.  Unless Congress rejects the proposed changes through legislation, the new rules will go into effect on December 1, 2015. On September 4, 2015 I attended a Judicial Round Table in which Judge Sutton, District Court Judge Benita Y. Pearson, and Magistrate Judge James R. Knepp discussed the proposed changes. Below I highlight three of the major changes to the rules and provide some insight gleaned from Judges Sutton, Pearson and Knepp. Notably, Judge Sutton opened the discussion by saying the “paradigm of American litigation has to change.” He explained that the old model of discovery was “no stone left unturned,” but in the world of ESI, “looking under every stone can get really expensive.”

Click here to continue reading article


The Mass Tort tool belt
By: Mark Abramowitz, Esq.
I have presented at the past few OAJ conventions and each time I present, I discuss different items in my mass tool belt. I thought it would be nice to bring it all together in one article to help everyone out.
Tool Box Item 1: JPML
If you have never heard of the JPML, you need to learn about it immediately! JPML stands for the Joint Panel on Multidistrict litigation. The panel’s power is derived from 28 U.S.C. § 1407. It is comprised of 7 judges that travel the country listening to arguments from parties regarding the creation and location of all multi-district litigations. No MDL is formed or centralized without an order from this panel. Once the MDL is formed and centralized, it is the JPML that transfers all non-directly filed similar cases into the centralized action.

Click to continue reading article


Mass Tort Marketing & Screening:  The Work Before the Work Up.
By: Jay Kelley
As any attorney representing mass tort claimants is aware, the challenges of case selection, screening criteria, preservation of evidence and overall triage are the first - and often most critical - steps in the case from a financial perspective.  In mass torts, because of the great potential for quick escalation of expenses, the quality of the cases one accepts is more important than the quantity of cases.  However, an effective strategy for quickly determining what constitutes quality in this dynamic arena can be elusive.  Our firm routinely faces the challenge of deciding what cases to target marketing efforts toward, which to work up, or when and how much to invest in the funding or the common benefit aspects of the case.  So where are these cases and how do we choose?

Click to continue reading article


Active Mass Torts and considerations to take when selecting cases
By: Nick DiCello
OAJ recently held its annual Winter Convention in Cleveland.  For those of you who attended, thank you for coming.  For those of you not able to make it, we hope to see you next year. Among the many presentations at the OAJ Winter Convention were several discussing mass torts and mass torts-related issues and topics.  As OAJ’s mass torts chair, I was thrilled to see increased attendance at and interest in the mass torts presentations and presenters.  What became clear to me again is that our bar in Ohio, along with the federal bench in Ohio, makes Ohio an important legal community in the national mass torts landscape.

Click to continue reading article


Evaluation of Potential Mass Tort Cases
By: Peter Brodhead and William Hawal
In recent years there has been a substantial increase in the number of practitioners in the field of mass torts—particularly in cases involving pharmaceutical and medical device cases. Below is a brief checklist of relevant factors to take into consideration when evaluating a potential mass tort of this type: Understand the injury or disease for which you would be bringing suit. Is it a signature injury that is uniquely associated with the drug or device, or is it a condition that could be readily attributed to an underlying illness or other cause? Signature injury cases are relatively rare, usually quite serious, and the number of such cases are relatively small. The numbers of non-signature injury cases are relatively high.

Click to continue reading article


A Call to Action
By Nick DiCello, Cleveland,Oh
My partners at Spangenberg Shibley & Liber, LLP and I are thrilled at the opportunity I have to serve as Chair of the Mass Torts Section for OAJ over the next few years. Past chair, Rick Schulte, did an excellentjob to establish the presence of the Mass Torts Section within OAJ. I look forward to continuing with that momentum. And I look forward to meeting and working with those of you who practice in this dynamic and always-changing practice area. 
Click to continue reading article

The End of an MDL: What’s Next? 
By: Corey Artim, Esq. and Richard Schulte, Esq., Dayton, OH
On August 29, 2013, Judge Keenan entered an Order Terminating MDL Proceedings and Setting Procedure for the Remand/Transfer of the more than 1000 pending Fosamax Osteonecrosis cases pending in the Southern District of New York in MDL 1789. Judge Keenan’s Order is particularly aggressive; calling for 200 cases per month to be remanded to their appropriate home districts beginning November 1, 2013. Judge Keenan’s decision to terminate the MDL left many attorneys wondering what was next.

Click here to continue reading article


Supreme Court Ruling Preempts State Law Design Defect Claims For Generic Drugs
On June 24, 2013, the generic drug industry let out a collective sigh of relief.  That is when the United States Supreme Court issued its highly anticipated ruling in Mutual Pharmaceutical Co. v. Bartlett.  In a huge win for the giant generic drug industry, the Court, in a 5-4 decision written by Justice Alito (and joined in by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Scalia, Kennedy and Thomas) held that state law design defect claims that turn on the adequacy of a generic drug’s warnings are preempted by the FDC Act and under the Supreme Court’s 2011 decision in PLIVA, Inc. v. Mensing, 131 S.Ct.2567 (2011).
Click here to continue reading article


Our Friends of OAJ Sponsors