loader
Page is loading...
OVERVIEW

Terri L. Bruksch
Partner

Indianapolis

11 South Meridian Street
Indianapolis, IN 46204-3535

P 317-231-7246

F 317-231-7433

OVERVIEW

Terri L. Bruksch
Partner

Indianapolis

11 South Meridian Street
Indianapolis, IN 46204-3535

P 317-231-7246

F 317-231-7433

Terri Bruksch is focused on product liability defense, drug and medical device litigation, and toxic tort and mass tort claims. Dedicated to safeguarding her clients’ interests at every stage of litigation, Terri is valued for her proven ability to develop and leverage expert testimony related to medical devices and major drug and pharmaceutical products.

OVERVIEW

Terri L. Bruksch Partner

Indianapolis

11 South Meridian Street
Indianapolis, IN 46204-3535

P : 317-231-7246

Terri Bruksch is focused on product liability defense, drug and medical device litigation, and toxic tort and mass tort claims. Dedicated to safeguarding her clients’ interests at every stage of litigation, Terri is valued for her proven ability to develop and leverage expert testimony related to medical devices and major drug and pharmaceutical products.

Listed in Benchmark Litigation’s “Top 250 Women in Litigation” and in Indiana Super Lawyers, Terri has aggressively defended the rights of major businesses faced with high-stakes product liability claims. For two decades, Terri has focused on toxic tort and drug and medical device defense in state and federal trial courts, on appeal, and in arbitration before the American Arbitration Association and the Center for Public Resources Institute for Dispute Resolution.

Skilled in shielding her clients from the high-damage awards often associated with product liability litigation, Terri is appreciated for her jurisdictional and procedural defense tactics. Her honed ability to develop and manage technical, medical and other scientific expert testimony is often a key component to fending off claims completely or to significantly reducing damage demands. In addition to providing comprehensive and effective litigation defense counsel, Terri has also served on major trial teams in high-profile product liability cases in state and federal courts throughout the country.

A member of the firm’s Management Committee and director of professional excellence and achievement for the firm’s Litigation department, Terri’s responsibilities include facilitating the work of litigation attorneys and legal professionals throughout the firm. The department represents companies of all sizes in controversies in all 50 states and before most U.S. federal courts, as well as before various international and multi-jurisdictional tribunals.

Professional and Community Involvement

Board member, Indianapolis Cultural Trail

Board member, Gleaners Food Bank of Indianapolis

Honors

Benchmark Litigation, Top 250 Women in Litigation

Indiana Super Lawyers, 2011-2014

EXPERIENCE
  • Barnes & Thornburg attorneys conducted internal investigation for Fortune 500 pharmaceutical manufacturing client involving hundreds of employee interviews and represented company in grand jury investigation into marketing practices and negotiation of settlement.
  • Barnes & Thornburg attorneys defended The Valspar Corporation in a case brought by an over-the-road trucker who alleged he developed Reactive Airways Dysfunction Syndrome (RADS) when exposed to fumes from our client’s paint product, which leaked from 55-gallon drums plaintiff was hauling. The defendant proved that the steel drums had been reconditioned by a third-party, which had marked the drum according to its specification under the Department of Transportation’s (DOT) Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR) implementing the federal Hazardous Materials Transportation Act (HMTA). Granting Valspar’s motion for summary judgment, the Court found, that the defendant was “entitled to rely on the reconditioner’s mark when it accepted the drum in question and is not ultimately liable for any potential defects attributable to the reconditioner.” The Court held that the HMTA preempted all of Plaintiff’s claims. This case could set a precedent for future cases as it addressed and affirmed the preemptive effect of a shipper’s federal right to rely on the DOT specification markings on an allegedly defective container supplied by a third party. Plaintiff has appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. The decision is reported at Noffsinger v. The Valspar Corp., 2014 WL 3705176 (N.D. Ill. July 24, 2014).
  • Barnes & Thornburg attorneys have obtained dismissals and other favorable resolutions for The Valspar Corporation in multiple lawsuits alleging injuries as a result of alleged exposure to Valspar’s products. The alleged injuries in these cases have included acute myelogenous leukemia, myelodysplastic syndrome, non-Hodgkins lymphoma, kidney failure, aplastic anemia, and multiple myeloma, as a result of exposure to defendants’ products. By using a combination of aggressive strategies involving case management, dispositive motion practice and expert discovery, Valspar has secured both voluntary and involuntary dismissals as well as de minimus settlements.
  • Barnes & Thornburg attorneys have represented several multi-unit residential home builders in connection with residential water intrusion claims, subcontractor disputes, warranty issues and construction defect claims.
  • Barnes & Thornburg attorneys represented GasAmerica Services in a case where plaintiff, Tammy M. Goods, individually and on behalf of a class, alleged that our client printed credit card receipts in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1681c(g), exposing Goods and other members of the class to identity theft and credit card and debit card fraud. After initial discovery showing plaintiff’s inability to 1) define a class, or 2) prove damages, Plaintiff dismissed all claims, including the alleged claims of the class, with prejudice. Goods v. GasAmerica Services, Inc., No. 2:07-cv-00181 (N.D. Ind. 2008).
  • Barnes & Thornburg attorneys served as coordinating counsel for Johnson & Johnson's DePuy Orthopedics Inc. in an eight-week bellwether trial before a federal jury in Dallas. DePuy prevailed and was cleared of the allegations that it manufactured a dangerous and defective metal-on-metal hip implant. This was the first trial in the litigation in which more than 7,000 cases are consolidated in a multi-district litigation (MDL) pending in Dallas. Barnes & Thornburg is coordinating counsel for the MDL.
  • Client pharmaceutical manufacturer obtained summary judgment in case alleging that a vial of insulin plaintiff purchased was super-potent, causing him to experience severe hypoglycemia and suffer permanent cognitive impairment.
  • In DePuy Orthopaedics, et al. v. Travis Brown, et al., Case No. 49A02-1304-CT-00332 (Ind. Ct. App. May 30, 2014), the Indiana Court of Appeals reversed a decision from the Marion County Superior Court denying a forum non conveniens motion in a products liability action brought in Indiana by nineteen non-Indiana plaintiffs. The plaintiffs, who were residents of Virginia and Mississippi, were implanted with a hip prosthesis in surgeries that took place in either Mississippi or Virginia. The prosthesis was designed and manufactured in Leeds, England. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss under Indiana Trial Rule 4.4(C), arguing that Marion County, Indiana is not a convenient forum in which to litigate these claims. The trial court denied the motion, but granted Defendants’ motion for interlocutory appeal. On May 30, 2014, the Indiana Court of Appeals reversed the trial court, noting that the inconvenience of securing out-of-state non-party witnesses and other discovery, the conflict in products liability law among Indiana, Virginia and Mississippi, and the availability of a more convenient forum all warranted dismissal of plaintiffs’ claims. Plaintiffs have petitioned the Indiana Supreme Court for review.
  • On Sept. 4, 2008, the Maryland Court of Appeals affirmed the entry of summary judgment for firm client, Eli Lilly and Company, in a pharmaceutical failure-to-warn case. The plaintiffs were the surviving spouse and children of a driver who was killed in a collision on the Capitol Beltway in Washington, D.C. The collision was caused by a long-term diabetes patient who experienced a severe hypoglycemic episode and lost consciousness while driving. The Court of Appeals unanimously affirmed the trial court's entry of summary judgment on the grounds that Lilly did not owe a duty to warn persons who did not use its drugs, rejecting the plaintiffs' "bystander liability" theory. Barnes & Thornburg LLP attorneys argued the summary judgment motion and presented the appellate arguments in the Maryland Court of Special Appeals and the Maryland Court of Appeals. Gourdine v. Crews, No. 134 (Md. 2008).
INSIGHTS & EVENTS
Trending Connect
We use cookies on this site to enhance your user experience. By clicking any link on this page you are giving your consent for us to use cookies.