Holly M. Olarczuk-Smith

Holly M. Olarczuk-Smith

Burns White Member, Holly M. Olarczuk-Smith, is certified as an Appellate Specialist by the Ohio State Bar Association, and has argued before state and federal appellate courts on legal issues involving Professional Liability, Mass Tort, and Transportation. She also defends manufacturers and suppliers in asbestos litigation, and represents railroad companies in cases involving personal and occupational injury, and wrongful death.

A graduate of Cleveland-Marshall College of Law, is a Certified Appellate Law Specialist, and is licensed to practice law in Ohio and before the Supreme Court of the United States, the United States Court of Appeals Sixth Circuit, the United States District Court for the Norther District of Ohio, and the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan.

Download PDF Bio

Areas of Law

  • Appellate
  • Mass Tort and Toxic Tort
  • Railroad Law

Education

  • Cleveland-Marshall College (J.D., magna cum laude, 2000, research editor of The Journal of Law and Health)
  • The Pennsylvania State University, The Behrend College (B.A., magna cum laude, Phi Beta Kappa, 1996)

Bar and Court Admissions

  • Ohio
  • United States Supreme Court
  • United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
  • United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
  • United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio
  • United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan

Memberships

  • Ohio State Bar Association
  • The Defense Research Institute
  • Ohio Association of Civil Trial Attorneys

Honors/Awards

  • Certified Appellate Law Specialist, Ohio State Bar Association
  • Recognized as a 2015 – 2016 Ohio Super Lawyers®

Presentations

  • Supreme Court Update: Recent Decisions, Pending Cases, and Future Challenges, Gallagher Sharp Annual Spring Seminar,  May 30, 2014
  • Appellate Practice Essentials, CLE Webcast, Ohio State Bar Association, May 7, 2014
  • Update of Significant Federal and State Appellate Decisions, Gallagher Sharp Annual Spring Seminar, June 2010
  • The Impact of Federal Preemption on Tort Reform Legislation: Litigating Federal Claims in State Court, Are You Alone in the Dessert?, Cutting Edge Toxic Tort Conference, Scottsdale, Arizona, December 2006
  • Co-Presenter, Federal Preemption and State Imposed Medical Criteria in Asbestos and Silica Personal Injury Cases: Are the Odds Against You?, Annual National Silica Litigation Conference, Las Vegas, Nevada, September 2006
  • Obtained a summary judgment motion for two major railroad carriers in a respiratory disease case filed in the Lucas County Court of Common Pleas, Ohio. Plaintiff brought his action under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act (“FELA”) alleging that the railroads negligently exposed him to diesel exhaust over the course of his career and that this exposure had caused his asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. In the summary judgment motion, the railroads argued that plaintiff’s claim was time-barred because plaintiff had been repeatedly told by his treating physician, more than three years prior to filing the action, that his respiratory illnesses were caused by his alleged exposure to diesel exhaust on the railroad. In addition, the railroads argued that the action was barred by the doctrine of judicial estoppel due to plaintiff’s failure to disclose the potential FELA claim as an asset in his bankruptcy proceeding.
  • Obtained a summary judgment motion for two major railroad carriers in an oropharynx cancer case filed in Lucas County Court of Common Pleas. Plaintiff brought his action under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act (FELA) alleging that the railroads negligently exposed him to diesel exhaust and asbestos over the course of his career and that this exposure had caused his cancer. In the summary judgment motion, the railroads argued that plaintiff’s claim was time-barred because plaintiff had knowledge of all the essential facts he needed at the time of his diagnosis to conduct a reasonable inquiry as to whether his cancer was potentially related to his railroad employment. At the time of the cancer diagnosis, plaintiff knew that his alleged exposure to asbestos and diesel posed a hazard. Plaintiff performed an internet search about the type of cancer he had but claimed that he did not learn much from his search. Plaintiff initiated his lawsuit only after seeing a legal advertisement on Facebook addressing railroad workers that had contracted cancer. To demonstrate plaintiff’s failure to make a reasonably diligent effort to discover the potential cause of his injury, the railroads presented evidence of internet advertisements, articles, and videos that would have resulted from a reasonably diligent internet search at the time plaintiff was diagnosed with cancer, which was undisputed by plaintiff.
  • Obtained dismissal of maritime personal injury case against shipowner due to lack of appellate jurisdiction in the Third Circuit Court of Appeals and the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals
  • In favor of business partner on grounds that recipe book was not original work entitled to federal copyright protection in the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals
  • In favor of industrial machinery manufacturer-defendant on failure to warn and defective design claims involving carpet-forming machine the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals
  • Obtained summary judgement of manufacturer-defendant’s affirmed on grounds that manufacturer cannot be held responsible for asbestos-containing material that was incorporated into its product post-manufacture n the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals
  • Obtained dismissal in the Supreme Court of Ohio of appeal from a trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of defendants-employers in an asbestos-related action where there was no rule authorizing the filing of a notice of appeal
  • In the Supreme Court of Ohio, holding that Ohio’s asbestos reform legislation was procedural in nature and applied to claims filed under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act (FELA) and the Locomotive Inspection Act (LIA) without violating the Supremacy Clause
  • In the Supreme Court of Ohio, holding that in a Federal Employers’ Liability Act (FELA) claim, a non-settling railroad defendant is entitled to a set-off of a jury award on a pro-tanto basis by the amount of a third party settlement in accordance with federal law
  • In Ohio, affirming jury verdict finding one of the defendants to have no liability and finding no cause to grant a new trial
  • In the Ohio Courts of Appeal, affirming the grant of summary judgment in favor of law firm involving claims alleged under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) and the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act (OCSPA), and claims for fraud, abuse of process, defamation and civil conspiracy under Ohio law
  • In the Ohio Courts of Appeal, upholding summary judgment in favor of homeowner and finding that a homeowner did not have a duty to have his furnace inspected annually for carbon monoxide and to maintain an operable carbon monoxide detector in his home
  • In the Ohio Courts of Appeal, holding that the trial court did not err in granting the motion to dismiss the property owner’s Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act (OCSPA) claim against the defendant-attorney because the attorney was not involved in a consumer transaction with them
  • In the Ohio Courts of Appeal, summary judgement for an ambulance network was affirmed as ambulance network had statutory immunity since patient did not show wanton and willful misconduct
  • In the Ohio Courts of Appeal, affirming summary judgment in favor of oil and gas company on a property owner’s nuisance action
  • In the Ohio Courts of Appeal, upholding favorable jury verdict for defendant in a motor vehicle accident case and upholding denial of plaintiff’s motion for new trial
  • In the Ohio Courts of Appeal, finding plaintiff’s request for attorney fees was properly denied
  • In the Ohio Courts of Appeal, affirming summary judgment for workers’ compensation claimant and a casualty insurer on state agency’s claim for subrogation
  • In the Ohio Courts of Appeal, reversing jury verdict against real estate brokerage and its agents and finding they were entitled to judgment as a matter of law on claims against them for negligence and breach of fiduciary duty because collateral estoppel barred the sellers, who had been found liable to buyers for fraudulently concealing flooding problems, from claiming that they did not know about the flooding
  • In the Ohio Courts of Appeal, affirming summary judgment in favor of insurer concerning subrogation rights and bad faith claim
  • In the Ohio Courts of Appeal, reversing jury verdict in favor of plaintiff in legal malpractice action where there was no evidence that the attorney’s alleged negligence proximately caused any damage to the clients
  • In the Ohio Courts of Appeal, upholding summary judgment in legal malpractice action due to lack of expert testimony, inability to prove any actual loss or damage, and no evidence that any actions of the attorneys were the proximate cause of any alleged loss or damage
  • In the Ohio Courts of Appeal, affirming the grant of summary judgment in favor of employer in intentional tort case based on lack of proximate causation where plaintiff’s experts was excluded through Daubert evidentiary challenge
  • In the Ohio Courts of Appeal, affirming the grant of summary judgment in favor of the railroad on plaintiff’s negligence and attractive nuisance claims
  • In the Ohio Courts of Appeal, affirming the grant of summary judgment in favor of the railroad on trespasser’s negligence claim and involved the application of the open and obvious doctrine
  • In the Ohio Courts of Appeal, affirming the grant of summary judgment in favor of defendant-restaurant on motorist’s claims of negligence and violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and involved the application of the open and obvious doctrine
  • In the Ohio Courts of Appeal, trial court properly granted summary judgment to a store that sold a lighter because the plaintiff never produced the lighter, the sales receipt, or an expert report to support her claim for product liability and duty to warn
  • In the Ohio Courts of Appeal, upholding denial of a Civ.R. 60(B) motion in favor of insurer
  • In the Michigan Court of Appeals, holding that under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act (FELA), the railroad-employee may not sue to recover for cancer when the employee previously released the railroad-employer from liability for cancer, a condition he knew he was at risk to develop in the future
  • In an Erie County New York Supreme Court Case, New York trial court granting summary judgment in favor of railroad on the basis that the action was time-barred
  • In Wayne County Circuit Court, Michigan state trial court granting defendant’s motion for summary disposition because plaintiff lacked authority, standing or capacity to pursue action
  • In Saginaw County Circuit Court, Michigan state trial court granting summary judgment in favor of railroad on the basis that the personal injury action was time-barred
  • In Cuyahoga County, Ohio state trial court granting partial summary judgment in favor of railroad and finding that the Locomotive Inspection Act (LIA) was not applicable as the locomotive on which plaintiff was working when his alleged injuries occurred was not “in use”
  • In Michigan district court granting summary judgment in favor of the railroad on the basis that the action was time-barred

216-760-1828
hmolarczuk-smith@burnswhite.com

LinkedIn Profile

US Bank Centre
1350 Euclid Avenue
Cleveland OH 44115

 

vCard