We are happy to announce that we're celebrating 30 years! →

Published on:

baby-821625_640-e1737154952650Two preterm formula cases have been tried against manufacturers. The president of the American Academy of Pediatrics has emphasized that preterm infant formula is both routine and necessary in the care of preterm infants. However, last year, there was a major victory in Gill v. Abbott Laboratories, a preterm infant formula case, and hundreds of cases continue. If your baby was injured or died as a result of NEC that you believe was caused by preterm infant formula, call the seasoned Chicago-based lawyers of Moll Law Group. Billions have been recovered in cases around the country with which we’ve been involved.

Call Moll Law Group About Your Preterm Infant Formula Claim

In Gill v. Abbott Laboratories, the plaintiff sued Abbott Laboratories on behalf of her preterm infant, claiming that the company’s cow’s milk-based preterm infant formula caused the infant’s necrotizing enterocolitis (“NEC”), an intestinal disease that often affects preterm infants. The science can be a little difficult to understand since the studies say that preterm infants exclusively fed the cow’s milk-based formula are at a higher risk of developing NEC than those fed only human milk, but studies have not firmly concluded that there is a direct causal link between NEC and cow’s milk-based formula.

During Gill v. Abbott Laboratories’ pre-trial motions and pleadings, the manufacturer defended itself under the learned intermediary doctrine, an affirmative defense. This is a doctrine that applies in some states to remove responsibility from manufacturers of prescription drugs and medical devices of the duty to provide direct warnings to patients or consumers of the risks associated with those drugs and medical devices, so long as the manufacturer gives appropriate information to the physician prescribing the medication or device. The physician then bears the responsibility of letting patients know what the pros and cons are, and what would be the most prudent course of treatment. In Gill, the plaintiff moved for summary judgment and asked the court to determine that the manufacturer wasn’t entitled to use the learned intermediary doctrine and other similar affirmative defenses.

Continue reading →

Published on:

agriculture-8275498_640-e1734908560378Roundup litigation continues. One of the more recent federal lawsuits in the Roundup lawsuits involves a widow suing Monsanto Co. on the grounds that Roundup, the herbicide/weed killer is “defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable” and should not be marketed or sold. Her lawsuit alleges that use of Roundup contributed to her late husband’s death due to Non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. If your loved one died due to Monsanto’s Roundup, you should call the seasoned lawyers of Moll Law Group.

Call Moll Law Group About Your Claim

The lawsuit alleges that Monsanto knew or should have known that glyphosate, which is the active ingredient in the weedkiller was linked with an increased risk of developing Non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma and other types of cancer. According to the complaint, the manufacturer knew of the association all the way back to the early to mi-80s, and that since then multiple studies have revealed that glyphosate is carcinogenic. Accordingly, it’s argued in the lawsuit, the harm caused by Roundup was avoidable. The International Agency for Research on Cancer classified glyphosate as probably carcinogenic as far back as 2015.

The plaintiff claims that the company downplayed the risks, too. The marketing language that she takes exception to compares Roundup to table salt in comments about its safety, and the complaint states that there is tremendous evidence to the contrary. Theories of recovery she asserts include strict products liability, negligence, and breach of implied warranties

Continue reading →

Published on:

fire-pit-6639144_640-e1734907259336Firepits that function by burning liquid fuels like pooled alcohol can be extremely dangerous. The United States Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) has asked consumers not to buy or use these fire pits, which are sold as fire pots, tabletop fire pits, miniature fireplaces and portable fires that can be used indoors. The CPSC has also asked sellers to stop selling them. They released a flame jetting safety video. Since 2019, these pits have been connected to two deaths and a minimum of 60 injuries. If you were injured or a loved one was killed as a result of burns from a firepit, you should call the seasoned Chicago-based product liability attorneys of Moll Law Group. Billions have been recovered in cases with which we’ve been involved.

Consult an Experienced Chicago-Based Product Liability Attorney

The CPSC previously alerted consumers that they should not use FLIKRFIRE Tabletop Fireplaces and recalled Colsen-branded tabletop fire pits. With this latest warning, they’re focused on fire pits that necessitate the pouring of rubbing alcohol or another liquid fuel into an open container and the igniting of that pooled liquid. The warning specifies that this method violates the voluntary safety standard ASTM F3363-19. This standard is intended to stop pool fires where flames burn on the surface of a flammable liquid and flame jetting, which happens when flames arise in containers of liquid fuel. Rubbing alcohol, ethanol, bioethanol and similar liquids have temperatures that exceed 1600 degrees Fahrenheit. They can result in 3rd degree burns in under a second.

When of a pool of alcohol is ignited in an open container of a fire pit, the fire can quickly get out of control. Large hot flames, greater than those expected, may go beyond the bounds of the fire pit. With flame jetting, a person who refills the alcohol or other liquid while the flame is present, can be at risk of serious burns, as well, from an explosion that propels the flames and burning hot liquid to those in the vicinity.

Continue reading →

Published on:

treatment-4099432_6402-e1734460206805Recently, a medication for sickle cell disease, Oxbryta, was voluntarily recalled because it can cause complications and death. Litigation has begun against Pfizer Inc. and its subsidiary Global Therapeutics. One plaintiff, a patient who underwent treatment, has alleged that the companies should have known that administration of the sickle cell treatment could result in a patient’s death. According to that plaintiff, he suffered a higher rate of vaso-occlusive crisis after he used the medication. Pfizer denies that it acted irresponsibly. If you were harmed by Oxbryta, give the seasoned Chicago-based dangerous drug lawyers of Moll Law Group a call.

Call Moll Law Group About Your Oxbryta Claim

Oxbryta is a drug that was meant to alleviate sick cell disease symptoms. It was formulated to prevent hemoglobin polymerization; this, in turn, stops the sickling of red blood cells and improving the ability for hemoglobin to be oxygenated. In 2019, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) accelerated its approval for those patients who are at least 12-years-old. In 2021, the FDA approved the drug for children with the minimum age for use being age 4. Unfortunately, once the drug was used in the real world, certain side effects were dire. One of the complications that arose in connection with the drug were vaso-occlusive crises, painful incidents where the sickled blood cells obstruct the flow of blood through a patient’s body. Some patients died as a result of these complications.

Pfizer recalled the drug across the world in September 2024, due to this real-world data that indicated Oxbryta’s risks are greater than its potential benefits. Patients and family members brought many lawsuits against Pfizer, and many of these claimed that Pfizer and its subsidiary had failed to provide adequate warnings as to these risks and complications. In plain terms, they are arguing that the company didn’t let them know about the risk of suffering vaso-occlusive crises and death and this prevented doctors and patients from making informed decisions about whether or not to take the drug.

Continue reading →

Published on:

bed-5985434_640-e1732641943482Recently, manufacturer Home4U, which does business as Medical King and the United States Product Safety Commission (CPSC) recalled around 222,000 adult portable bedrails because the product carries the threat of serious entrapment and asphyxia. People using the bedrails can get trapped between the bed and the rail or may find themselves between the mattress and the rail. One man has died in connection with the affected bedrails. If you were injured or a loved one suffered entrapment or were asphyxiated as a result of one of the Medical King bedrails, call the experienced Chicago-based attorneys of Moll Law Group. Billions have been recovered in lawsuits around the country with which we’ve been involved. We represent clients nationwide.

Consult Moll Law Group About Your Bed Rail Claim

Between January 2020-March 2024, around 222,000 bed rails made by Medical King were sold for $40 at medicalkingusa.com, Amazon.com, Target Plus, Walmart.com, eBay, and Kohls.com were recalled. Made in China, the bedrails that have been recalled are the Medical King Bed Assist Rail Without Legs (model number 7037) and Medical King’s Bed Assist Rail with Adjustable Heights (model numbers 7007 and 7057). The one with no legs has a silver metal tube construction, a black fabric pouch, and a black foam rubber grip handle. The one with adjustable heights is composed of white or black metal tubing and has a black foam rubber grip handle, plus fabric pouch.

As a result of a recalled Medical King bed rail (the Bed Assist Rail with Adjustable Heights, model number 7007), a 66-year-old was entrapped by the bed rail against a mattress and died.   If you or a loved one is using a recalled bed rail, it is imperative to stop using it. You can get a free repair kit or replacement bed rail by contacting the manufacturer.

Continue reading →

Published on:

carrot-2309814_640-e1732640911160The Centers for Disease Control has announced  a multistate outbreak of E. coli O121 infections linked to supplier Grimmway Farms bagged recalled, organic carrots and baby carrots, which were sold under several brand names. One person has died and at least 38 people have become ill after the outbreak. The actual numbers may be much higher. The Food and Drug Administration has publicly stated that the carrots may have been contaminated with the Shiga toxin-producing kind of E. coli, which most affects children age 5 years or under and adults who are 65 years or older If you suffered E.coli due to contaminated carrots, you should call the seasoned Chicago-based lawyers of Moll Law Group to learn your legal options. We represent clients around the country and have experience pursuing damages on behalf of those injured by contaminated foods or defective products.

Consult Moll Law Group About Your Food Safety Claim

On November 16, 2024, Grimmway Farms recalled multiples sizes and brands of bagged organic baby and whole carrots due to risk of E.coli contamination. The known cases of E.coli happened in 18 states and from September 6, 2024-October 28, 2024. It’s most likely, officials says, that the carrots being sold in the grocery store now are not affected, but carrots you have in your home might be, even if you’re not in one of those 18 states but are anywhere in the country. It’s important to throw those bagged, organic carrots away and not consume them or return them to the place you bought them.

These products are likely no longer in stores for sale but may still be in your home. The CDC advises throwing away any recalled organic carrots that are in your freezer or refrigerator. You should also wash and sanitize anything that touched them in the dishwasher or by using soap and hot or boiling water. Be on the lookout for serious symptoms. If you have signs of dehydration such as dizziness; diarrhea for more than 3 days that doesn’t improve; vomiting that is so significant you can’t even keep down liquids; or a fever that exceeds 102 degrees, Fahrenheit, you should call your doctor, as these are considered serious E. coli symptoms.

Continue reading →

Published on:

hand-washing-4818792_640Recently, a second study of dozens of acne creams and cleansers, including Clearasil and Proactiv, made with benzoyl peroxide, found that they contain high levels of the carcinogen benzene. An earlier study with the same finding had been criticized for its methodology; however the second study confirming those findings sounds an alarm that federal agencies should pay attention to. Senator Richard Blumenthal has called on the FDA to investigate the carcinogen levels in acne treatments. If you were harmed or believe that you developed cancer due to an acne cream, facewash, or cleanser you should call the seasoned Chicago-based dangerous drug attorneys of Moll Law Group. We represent clients nationwide, and billions have been recovered in lawsuits with which we’ve been involved.

Consult Moll Law Group About Your Acne Cream or Cleanser Lawsuit

A first study of the acne creams and facewashes by Valisure found that high levels of benzene could form in benzoyl peroxide products, but the study had been criticized for testing products that were maintained at the high temperature of 122 degrees Fahrenheit. In March, Valisure had petitioned the FDA to recall those acne creams and cleansers that had large quantities of benzene. The FDA had said it wanted to verify the lab’s claims, and in the summer, a spokesperson stated that the agency was still researching the issue.

In the second study, more than 100 benzoyl peroxide acne creams, face washes and other products were tested. The tested products were those that are available at major stores in six states: California, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, New York, and Texas. Unlike with the earlier study, these products were kept at room temperature. Around one-third of these products contained large quantities of benzene, which is linked to developing cancer. For instance, researchers found that Proactiv included 18 times the amount of benzene that’s allowed in U.S. drugs. And researchers found that a face wash made by CVS had 13 times the levels of the carcinogen that the FDA believes is safe.

Continue reading →

Published on:

hamburger-2201748_640-e1731427742435Due to an E.coli outbreak that’s made 50 people in 10 states ill and killed one person, McDonald’s has taken its quarter pounder hamburger off the menu at around 1/5th of its restaurants in the country. Federal health officials are investigating the outbreak. Within the relevant time frame the fast food restaurant had sold around 1 million quarter pounders. The restaurant believes that more people would have gotten sick had the problem been the patties; it suggested that the onions included in the hamburger might be what’s contaminated. If you were made sick by a McDonald’s quarter pounder, you should call the seasoned Chicago-based product liability lawyers of Moll Law Group. We represent clients nationwide and billions of dollars have been recovered in cases with which we’ve been involved.

Consult Moll Law Group About Your Quarter Pounder Lawsuit

The United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has linked the McDonald’s quarter pounder hamburgers to an E. coli outbreak. According to the fast food chain’s North American chief supply officer, the company’s initial look into the problem has yielded the discovery that the onions used in the burger, rather than the meat, may be what’s contaminated with E. coli. The chain restaurant pointed out that its burgers are cooked at 175 degrees. E. coli is killed when food is cooked at 160 degrees, but the slivered onions, which came from one supplier, were not cooked.

To address the finding, McDonald’s has removed slivered onions and quarter pound beef patties from its restaurants in various Western states. The onion supplier, Taylor Farms, told the media that it tests both raw and finished products and didn’t find E. coli. Even so, they removed yellow onions from what was produced at their Colorado facility.

Continue reading →

Published on:

motorcycle-4334549_640-e1730780039330Harley-Davidson Motor Company and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration recently recalled specific 2024 FLHX, FLHXSE, FLTRX, FLTRXSE, and FLTRXSTSE motorcycles that it manufactures. The reason for the recall is the discovery that the voltage regulator output wire may rub against the front of the crankcase, which houses the motorcycle engine, revealing the wire. As time passes, this condition can produce an electrical short circuit. When this happens while a motorcycle is moving, it increases the risk of a crash. If you were injured on a Harley-Davidson and suspect that it was because of an electrical short circuit, you should call the experienced Chicago-based product liability lawyers of Moll Law Group. Billions have been recovered in cases around the country with which we’ve been involved.

Consult Moll Law Group About Your Claim

You may not be sure that your Harley-Davidson motorcycle is affected. You should check the model number to determine whether it is, and you shouldn’t drive the motorcycle if it is any of these: HARLEY-DAVIDSON FLTRXSTSE 2024, HARLEY-DAVIDSON FLTRX 2024, HARLEY-DAVIDSON FLHX 2024, HARLEY-DAVIDSON FLHXSE 2024, and HARLEY-DAVIDSON FLTRXSE 2024. The potential number of Harley-Davidsons affected by this recall is 41,637. If your motorcycle has an electrical short, the result may be loss of electrical and drive power while you’re in motion, and you may find yourself in an accident.

The remedy that’s been offered if your car is affected is to have dealers inspect and repair the voltage regulator output wire harness, as well as install a secondary retention strap. There’s no charge for this fix. Notifications were mailed to owners on September 23, 2024, but you can also called the company’s customer service at 1-800-258-2464 and reference recall number 0186, and you can also notify the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Vehicle Safety Hotline online or at 1-888-327-4236 (TTY 1-800-424-9153).

Continue reading →

Published on:

grass-7697505_640-e1730068694488Recently, a jury awarded $78 million to a plaintiff who had sued Monsanto arguing that the company’s weed killer, Roundup, was a reason he suffered blood cancer. This was one of a series of verdicts in Roundup litigation. The plaintiff who’d been diagnosed was a 51-year old man who’d used Roundup for around 30 years starting in 1992. In 2020, he’d been diagnosed with non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma and his lawsuit claimed was due to chemical exposures, and he and his wife sued both Monsanto and parent company Bayer. In the course of the trial, his attorney argued that the company had concealed the potential dangers of Roundup and manipulated evidence for 50 years. The defense attorney argued that treatment for the plaintiff was brief and his cancer was in remission. If you developed cancer and believe it’s due to exposure to Roundup, you should call the seasoned Chicago-based product liability lawyers of Moll Law Group. We represent plaintiffs around the country.

Consult Moll Law Group About Your Claims

There are thousands of lawsuits unfolding across the country that are brought by plaintiffs who argue Monsanto’s negligence in failing to provide adequate warnings about Roundup caused their cancer. However juries have reached different verdicts depending on the facts of specific cases. In the past, two juries awarded $175 million and $3.5 million to plaintiffs in this litigation.

Both compensatory and punitive damages have been sought in multiple cases. The latter are damages awarded to punish a defendant and deter future misconduct. Generally, it’s expected to be proportionate to the defendant’s ability to pay, and the plaintiff’s attorney in the recent case that went to verdict requested that jurors return a verdict in “Monsanto dollars.” While $3 million were awarded in compensatory damages, the jury recognized that the punitive and deterrent effects of punitive damages would not be accomplished unless the damages award were matched to Monsanto’s size and awarded $75 million in punitives.

Continue reading →

Contact Information