HarrisMartin's Consumer Products Litigation Conference Speaker Profiles

Karen Sullivan has focused her practice for over 15 years on both product liability litigation ranging from consumer to industrial product and environmental litigation involving petroleum, diesel, benzene, diacetyl, asbestos, mold and other chemicals.

She also routinely handles aviation and commercial litigation. Throughout her career, she has successfully represented companies and businesses by way of obtaining favorable rulings on dispositive and discovery motions and securing numerous dismissals. Karen has extensive experience with law and motion practice and the handling of all phases of discovery (including expert intensive cases) in both complex and single party actions. She has also been involved in trial, appeals and mediations.

Karen was a member of the trial team featured on the Daily Journal’s 2013 Top 20 Defense Verdicts for its win in Gutierres v. Balch Petroleum, et al.

Michelle L. Corrigan has nearly 20 years of experience in the areas of products liability, personal injury and business litigation. She has successfully represented manufacturers and distributors of a wide range of products, as well as premises owners, in litigation involving claims of personal injuries and property damages. Michelle has consulted with manufacturers of products about their warning programs and preventative risk management strategies. She is also experienced in the industries of construction litigation and mass tort litigation involving benzene, asbestos and diacetyl exposure.

Michelle has a particular interest in issues facing manufacturers of juvenile and children's products. She has comprehensive knowledge and understanding of the laws and regulations promulgated by the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), particularly the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act (CPSIA) and other federal regulations, and various standards affecting children's products.

An advocate for people harmed by toxic exposure, chemical-related cancers and other occupational diseases and smoking-related illnesses, Scott Hall has spent more than 15 years working to hold accountable corporations that put profits before people.

Today, he continues to represent people suffering from work-related illnesses such as lung diseases in cases against the companies that allegedly harmed them.

Scott advocates for workers and consumers harmed by inhaling flavoring chemicals such as diacetyl and acetyl propionyl, which have been associated with severe lung diseases often collectively referred to as “Popcorn Workers’ Lung,” even though many workers, not just those in microwave popcorn manufacturing, have been affected.

In the early 2000s, Scott successfully represented workers who had developed serious lung diseases after exposure to airborne flavoring chemicals in some of the first cases of their kind. Since then, he has tried more than a dozen lawsuits against the flavoring industry that resulted in plaintiffs’ verdicts. Additionally, Scott participated in the resolution of more than 100 cases for people who alleged wrongful death or injuries as a result of exposure to dangerous chemical flavorings.

His early work in toxic exposure included taking cases to trial as well as settling tobacco cases. His work led to multi-million dollar verdicts in tobacco-related personal injury and wrongful death cases. He was also contracted by the Canadian government to represent the Provinces of Newfoundland and Labrador in a cost-recovery action against the tobacco industry. Scott has also taken cases to trial and settled environmental contamination cases, including cases involving air pollution and groundwater pollution by industrial chemicals.

In 1997, Scott wrote one of the first peer-reviewed articles on the regulation of genetically modified organisms (GMO) and their impact on the environment. The article, titled “The Genie in the Bottle: The International Regulation of Genetically Modified Organisms,” was published in the Journal of International Wildlife Law & Policy.

Prior results do not guarantee future results. Every case is different and must be judged on its own merits. The choice of a lawyer is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements.