Our Work

CCL represents plaintiffs in a wide range of cases covering many substantive areas in courts across the nation. Click on an area below to see a list of representative cases.*

Constitutional Challenges to Laws Restricting Access to Justice: CCL crafts constitutional challenges to a variety of “tort reform” measures, including caps on damages, “certificate of merit” requirements, immunity statutes, and limitations on reasonable attorney’s fees.
134 So.3d 894 (Fla. 2014) (represented plaintiffs in a case in which the Florida Supreme Court struck down cap on non-economic damages that applied to claims for wrongful death caused by medical negligence as a violation of equal protection under the Florida Constitution)
981 N.E.2d 49 (Ind. 2013) (represented plaintiff in seeking an evidentiary hearing to challenge the constitutionality of Indiana's medical malpractice cap on non-economic damages)
Watts v. Lester E. Cox Medical Centers
376 S.W.3d 633 (Mo. 2012) (briefed and argued appeal in which the Missouri Supreme Court declared a state law limiting compensatory damages unconstitutional and overruled a 20-year-old precedent limiting the right to jury trial)
Lebron v. Gottlieb Memorial Hospital
930 N.E.2d 895 (Ill. 2010) (en banc) (represented plaintiffs at trial and on appeal in case in which Illinois Supreme Court declared state law limiting noneconomic damages in medical malpractice actions unconstitutional)
Putman v. Wenatchee Valley Medical Center
216 P. 3d 374 (Wash. 2009) (en banc) (represented plaintiffs in an appeal in which Washington Supreme Court declared “certificate of merit” requirement in medical malpractice cases unconstitutional because it violated separation of powers and unduly burdened the right of access to courts)
State ex rel. Ohio Academy of Trial Lawyers v. Sheward
715 N.E.2d 1062 (Ohio 1999) (represented plaintiffs in original action in Ohio Supreme Court that declared state omnibus tort “reform” law unconstitutional in its entirety)
Federal Preemption of State Law: CCL has extensive experience working on cases where there is a question of whether federal law preempts state law.
711 F.3d 578 (6th Cir. 2013) (lead counsel in appeal determining FDCA does not preempt suit against generic-drug manufacturer for failure to warn where generic-drug manufacturer failed to update its label after branded-drug manufacturer strengthened the warnings on its label)
133 S. Ct. 2466 (2013) (in case concerning whether federal drug safety law pre-empts state-law liability for defectively designed generic drugs, wrote amicus curiae brief for the American Association for Justice and Public Justice arguing that such claims are not preempted and wrote an amicus brief on behalf of persons injured by the prescription drug propoxyphene arguing that design-defect claims provide important protection for persons injured by unreasonably dangers products that comlements FDA regulation )
131 S. Ct. 2567 (2011) (lead counsel for plaintiffs in case concerning whether federal law pre-empted state laws imposing the duty to change a drug's label upon generic drug manufacturers)
Jinks v. Richland County
538 U.S. 456 (2003) (lead counsel for plaintiffs seeking to uphold jury verdict in which the Supreme Court held that federal tolling provision was constitutional and verdict was reinstated)
Restrictions on Class Actions: CCL develops arguments that protect the right to proceed as a class and to protect class plaintiffs' awards against attack.
Kia Motors America, Inc. v. Samuel-Bassett
133 S.Ct. 51 (2012) (mem) (represented plaintiffs in product liability action over defective automobile brake design in opposing certiorari review in Supreme Court, where defendant challenged requirement for contemporaneous objection)
Farmers Insurance Co. of Oregon v. Strawn
132 S. Ct. 1142 (2012) (mem) (represented plaintiffs who did not receive full benefit of personal injury protection insurance policy in opposing certiorari review in Supreme Court, where defendant attacked class-wide proof of injury)
Louisiana Citizens Property Insurance Corp. v. Oubre
133 S. Ct. 1142 (2012) (mem) (represented plaintiffs awarded damages mandated by state law for insurer’s delays in responding to property insurance claims after Hurricane Katrina in opposing certiorari review in Supreme Court)
Jurisdictional Issues: CCL has vast experience working on issues of personal, general, and subject matter jurisdiction, as well as equitable jurisdictional doctrines, in civil cases.
SNFA v. Russell
134 S. Ct. 295 (2013) (mem) (successfully opposed petition seeking review of the Illinois Supreme Court’s ruling that SNFA, a foreign manufacturer of aerospace ball bearings, had sufficient contacts with Illinois such that it was amenable to a products-liability suit arising out of a helicopter crash in the State allegedly caused by defective bearings)
China Terminal & Electric Corp. v. Willemsen
133 S. Ct. 984 (2013) (Mem) (successfully opposed petition seeking review of an Oregon court's denial of CTE's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction)
Trustees of the Carpenters’ Health & Welfare Trust Fund of St. Louis v. Darr
694 F.3d 803 (7th Cir. 2012) (represented lawyer-plaintiff in appeal of federal court injunction against his attempt to collect attorney fees against ERISA plan in state court on the basis of the equitable “common-fund” doctrine, where federal appellate court held injunction violated federal Anti-Injunction Act)
J. McIntyre Machinery, Ltd. v. Nicastro
131 S. Ct. 2780 (2011) (represented plaintiff in case concerning whether personal jurisdiction exists over a foreign manufacturer solely because the manufacturer targets the United States market for the sale of its product and the product is purchased by a forum state consumer; Supreme Court ruled that state court lacked jurisdiction)
Wexler v. LePore
385 F.3d 1336 (11th Cir. 2004) (represented plaintiff in appeal of dismissal of federal court action because separate state court action had been dismissed; court held that district court erroneously applied abstention doctrine and ordered case remanded for trial)
Limiting Statutory Liens to Equitable Share of Settlements: CCL argues cases limiting Medicare, Medicaid, and ERISA liens to their proportionate share of settled cases.
In re E.B.
729 S.E.2d 270 (W. Va. 2012) (represented plaintiff in case of first impression in which court held West Virginia Medicaid statute authorizing State to obtain full reimbursement of expenses paid on behalf of recipient from settlement reached with medical malpractice defendants must be limited to portion of settlement representing damages for medical expenses because of conflict with federal Medicaid statute)
Bradley v. Sebelius
621 F.3d 1330 (11th Cir. 2010) (represented plaintiffs in case in which court held federal government, like its beneficiary, is entitled to only a proportionate recovery under the Medicare Secondary Payer Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1395y(b), when the beneficiary recovers a reduced amount and that surviving children’s claims could not be compromised by federal government’s entitlement to reimbursement)
Arkansas Dept. of Health & Human Services v. Ahlborn
547 U.S. 268 (2006) (represented amicus curiae in case concerning statutory interpretation of anti-lien provision of federal Medicaid law; amicus brief cited in the majority opinion)
Punitive Damages: CCL works extensively to protect plaintiffs' punitive damage awards from constitutional attack or undue limits.
Icicle Seafoods, Inc. v. Clausen
133 S.Ct. 199 (2012) (Mem) (successfully opposed petition seeking further review of punitive damages award to plaintiff) 
Philip Morris USA. v. Williams
556 U.S. 178 (2009) (lead counsel for plaintiff in case involving validity of $79.5 million punitive damage award; after full briefing and oral argument, case was dismissed as improvidently granted, allowing the Oregon Supreme Court’s ruling for the plaintiff to stand)
Philip Morris USA v. Williams
549 U.S. 346 (2007) (lead counsel for plaintiff in case involving $79.5 million punitive damage award, where Supreme Court ruled that jury must be instructed, upon request, to exclude harm to others in calculating punitive damages)
Wyeth LLC v. Scofield
131 S. Ct. 3028 (2011) (mem) (represented women who developed breast cancer after using estrogen-progestin hormone in opposing certiorari review in Supreme Court of $57.8 million punitive damages verdict against drug manufacturer)
Fortis Insurance Co. v. Mitchell
130 S. Ct. 1896 (2010) (mem) (represented plaintiff wrongfully denied health insurance coverage after being diagnosed as HIV-positive in opposing certiorari review in Supreme Court of $10 million punitive damage award)
Advocating for Consumer Protection in Cases Involving Dangerous Products or Misrepresentations: CCL fights for consumers to be able to use the civil justice system to hold manufacturers of defective products accountable when products cause injury.
2013 WL 1110797 (2d Cir. 2013) (represented plaintiffs-appellees in maintaining the finding of liability against defendants, the award of damages for plaintiffs, and the denial of remittitur of damages)
Conte v. Wyeth, Inc.
168 Cal.App.4th 89, 85 Cal. Rptr. 3d 299 (Cal. Ct. App. 1 Dist. 2008) (represented plaintiff in landmark state appellate case in which the court held that name-brand prescription drug manufacturers’ duty to use due care when providing product warnings extends to patients whose prescriptions are filled with the generic version of the drug)
Bruesewitz v. Wyeth LLC
562 U.S. 223 (2011) (represented amicus curiae in case concerning whether the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 bars state-law design-defect claims against vaccine manufacturers)
Altria v. Good
555 U.S. 70 (2008) (amicus brief on behalf of leading professors of medicine and history of science that detailed history of cigarette industry’s advertising and marketing practices)
Mandatory Arbitration: CCL attorneys advocate for plaintiffs to be able to present their claims to a jury rather than an arbitrator.
Jones v. Halliburton
583 F.3d 228 (5th Cir. 2009) (represented plaintiff in case in which federal district court and federal appellate court both ruled that the Federal Arbitration Act does not require victim of gang rape perpetrated by co-workers to arbitrate her claims surrounding her rape as a dispute “related to the employment” of the victim)
Mendez v. Puerto Rican Int’l Cos.
553 F.3d 709 (3d Cir. 2009) (represented plaintiffs in employment discrimination case in which the court held that employees must actually agree to arbitrate one or more issues in order for a mandatory stay pending arbitration under Section 3 of the Federal Arbitration Act to apply)
Complex Civil Litigation & Appeals: CCL works on a wide variety of complex litigation issues involving precedent-setting and intricate appellate issues.
Hackwell v. United States491 F.3d 1229 (10th Cir. 2007) (lead appellate counsel in challenge to Justice Department regulations limiting attorney fees under the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act, in which the court held that Act did not authorize challenged regulations)


* Past results afford no guarantee of future results; each matter is different and must be judged on its own merits.