Illinois Injury and Mass Tort Lawyer Blog

Published on: February 6, 2018

Recent Study Suggests E-Cigarettes May Not Be a Safe Alternative to Smoking

Photo Credit: Have a nice day Photo / Shutterstock.com

Over the past decade, manufacturers of electronic cigarettes, or e-cigarettes, have marketed their product as a safe alternative to smoking. Indeed, their efforts have been largely successful, with an estimated 2 million adults and teens reporting they have used an e-cigarette within the past three days.

That being said, the federal Food and Drug Administration has not approved the use of e-cigarettes as a stop-smoking aid. The U.S. Preventative Services Task Force agrees, noting that there is insufficient evidence supporting the use of e-cigarettes for those who want to quit smoking. Part of the reason why e-cigarette use has not been approved is the lack of longitudinal studies following the health of those who use them on a routine basis.

In recent news, according to a study released by researchers out of New York University and published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, e-cigarettes may still pose a potential risk of lung cancer, bladder cancer and heart disease. Depending on the results of further research, users of e-cigarettes who develop lung cancer, bladder cancer or heart disease may be eligible for compensation through a product liability lawsuit against the manufacturers of these products.

Continue reading →

Published on: June 2, 2017

Supreme Court Reverses Decision Rejecting Arbitration Agreement Between Nursing Home and Residents

By Moll Law Group

Photo Credit: designer491 / Shutterstock.com

Earlier this month, the United States Supreme Court decided a case that may have a major effect on nursing home claims throughout the United States. In Kindred Nursing Centers, L.P. v. Clark, the court held that state courts cannot adopt rules that single out arbitration agreements for negative treatment.

Facts of the Case

In the case, two individuals each held a power of attorney respectively for their relatives, who were nursing home residents. When the relatives moved into the nursing home, the family members signed arbitration agreements on behalf of the residents at the same nursing home. After both of the residents died, their estates sued the nursing home, alleging that the home had been negligent in caring for them. The nursing home tried to force the plaintiffs into arbitration, claiming they had agreed to settle their claims through arbitration, according to the agreements.

Kentucky’s Supreme Court found that the family members could not enter into the agreements on behalf of the residents because the residents had not expressly given permission for the plaintiffs to do so. The Kentucky Supreme Court did not give effect to the arbitration agreements because it decided that in the case of arbitration agreements, an individual must specifically waive his constitutional right to a jury trial.

Continue reading →

Published on: May 31, 2017

Firefighter’s Case Dismissed After Being Run Over by Truck at Base Camp

By Moll Law Group

Photo Credit: Cienpies Design / Shutterstock.com

In a recent decision, a state appellate court dismissed a firefighter’s lawsuit after she was run over by a truck while sleeping at base camp. After a fire broke out in a national forest, firefighters were deployed to fight the fire. A base camp was set up for firefighters so that they could stay near the forest. The fire protection districts, who were managing the fire, were required to set up a quiet, shaded sleeping area for firefighters at the camp.

When the plaintiff returned to camp, the designated sleeping area was full. Some of the firefighters went to sleep by the horse barns, but she did not want to sleep there due to the conditions, and she asked her supervisor if she could sleep in the infield. Her supervisor agreed. Some others slept there as well. On the next night, after fighting the fire all day, she returned to base camp at around 9 p.m. She again asked to sleep in the infield, and her supervisor agreed. At around 10 p.m., another employee drove a water truck across the infield and ran over the woman. The truck crushed the woman’s chest, ribs, lungs, and left shoulder, and fractured her back. It also permanently damaged her heart, lungs, and eyes.

The woman sued the fire protection districts, among others, claiming she was injured because the district created a dangerous condition on public property. The defendants claimed they were immune from suit because the firefighter’s rule prevented the woman from recovering compensation. The state’s court of appeals agreed with the defendants and dismissed the lawsuit, finding the case was barred under the firefighter’s rule.

Continue reading →

Published on: May 26, 2017

Federal Appellate Court Upholds Judgment in Favor of Boston Scientific in Pelvic Mesh Lawsuit

By Moll Law Group

Photo Credit: vchal / Shutterstock.com

Earlier this week, a federal appellate court upheld a jury verdict in favor of Boston Scientific in a lawsuit regarding its Uphold brand pelvic mesh product. In the lawsuit, the plaintiff alleged that she suffered injuries after a surgical procedure involving Uphold mesh that took place in 2010. The plaintiff alleged that Boston Scientific’s product was designed in an unreasonably dangerous manner and that it failed to provide warnings regarding the potential risks and dangers associated with the product.

In October 2016, the Federal District Court for the Western District of North Carolina concluded that the plaintiff failed to offer sufficient evidence showing that the product was designed in an unreasonably dangerous manner and granted a motion for partial summary judgment in favor of Boston Scientific. Additionally, the court concluded that the plaintiff did not support her claim that the company breached the implied warranty of merchantability regarding Uphold mesh. For a product to be “merchantable,” it must meet the reasonable expectations of buyers.

Also, the District Court concluded that the plaintiff did not provide sufficient evidence showing that her physician reviewed or relied on the allegedly insufficient warnings. After the court issued its ruling against the plaintiff, the plaintiff sought a reconsideration. At this time, she also offered evidence indicating that the doctor had read the materials, but the court concluded that the plaintiff would still have difficulty showing that the alleged harm and allegedly inadequate warnings were the cause of the injuries she sustained.

Continue reading →

Published on: May 24, 2017

JPML to Hear Argument on Forming MDL for J&J Physiomesh Product

By Moll Law Group

Photo Credit: aerogondo2 / Shutterstock.com

This month, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) will hear arguments regarding whether to consolidate the numerous pending cases against Ethicon, a subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson, regarding its physiomesh products. The JPML is the body responsible for overseeing multi-district litigation (MDL), which is a legal process that is somewhat similar to class actions. When dangerous products harm numerous victims, the cases often involve similar factual allegations and legal claims. To streamline the process and promote efficiency, the cases can be organized in an MDL proceeding before one judge. Unlike a class action, each plaintiff maintains his or her individual case and must prove that he or she is entitled to damages.

Physiomesh is a product targeted toward hernia repair surgeries. It is a synthetic mesh material that is marketed to be used in laparoscopic herniorrhaphy procedures. The product’s unique design features five separate layers. Two types of material make up the first four layers, while the final layer is polypropylene mesh. This design has not been used in other mesh products. According to Ethicon, the multi-layer feature is designed to reduce adhesions and inflammation and to help fixate and incorporate the mesh into the abdominal area.

The concern regarding Ethicon’s physiomesh arose in May 2016 when the company issued a recall after discovering that the product leads to higher revision rates when used in a specific type of hernia repair. Revision surgeries can be extremely painful and expensive for patients, especially when they anticipated having their medical issue resolved during the first procedure.

Continue reading →

Published on: May 19, 2017

Defective Design Lawsuit Claims Keurig Coffee Machine Caused House Fire

By Moll Law Group

When someone suffers injuries as a result of a defective or dangerous product, the potential defendants that may be held liable range from the company that designed the product to the manufacturer and even the retailer. Product liability cases involving product defects can arise from defects in manufacturing or defects in the product’s design. Manufacturing defect cases involve a defect in a product caused when the product was not manufactured according to its intended design. In contrast, design defect cases involve a defect in a product caused when the product’s design was unreasonably dangerous. There can also be marketing defects in cases in which there was an insufficient warning of the product’s dangers.

In an Illinois defective design case, a plaintiff must prove that the product had an unreasonably dangerous condition, the condition existed when the product left the defendant’s control, and the condition caused the plaintiff’s injuries. There are different tests courts use to determine whether a product is “unreasonably dangerous.” Under the consumer-expectation test, the question is whether a product failed to perform as safely as an ordinary consumer would expect. In contrast, under the risk-utility test, the question is whether a product’s risks outweighed its benefits. The risk-utility test considers a number of different factors, including the feasibility of alternate designs, whether the design conformed to industry standards, the utility of the product, the likelihood of injury, and the manufacturer’s ability to eliminate the unsafe condition.

Continue reading →

Published on: May 17, 2017

Determining Liability in Illinois Multi-Vehicle Car Accidents

By Moll Law Group

Personal injury claims arising out of car accidents usually involve acts of negligence, and they often involve multiple parties. For example, there may be allegations that a driver failed to obey traffic laws, failed to drive safely considering the conditions, or failed to properly maintain the vehicle’s brakes. There also may be allegations that a driver was negligent in responding to another driver’s actions or violated a traffic rule or law.

Depending on the circumstances surrounding an accident, if a driver violated a statute, ordinance, or traffic regulation, it may be considered negligence per se. If so, the driver’s conduct may give rise to a rebuttable presumption of negligence, or it may be considered evidence of negligence. In cases involving multiple parties, each party’s actions may come under scrutiny, potentially reducing the plaintiff’s compensation.

Comparative Negligence

Traditionally, under a different doctrine called contributory negligence, if a plaintiff was found to be partially at fault, the plaintiff could not recover any compensation from the defendant. However, today Illinois follows the doctrine of modified comparative negligence. Under the doctrine of comparative fault, or comparative negligence, a plaintiff’s recovery may be reduced by their own percentage of fault.

Continue reading →

Published on: May 15, 2017

Missouri Jury Returns Verdict in Favor of Plaintiff in Johnson & Johnson Talcum Powder Cancer Lawsuit

By Moll Law Group

Earlier this month, a Missouri jury returned a verdict assessing $110 million in damages against household product maker Johnson & Johnson in a lawsuit regarding its talcum powder products. This litigation marked the fifth trial that the company has faced regarding whether or not these products lead to the development of ovarian cancer. The plaintiff in this lawsuit, a woman from Virginia, alleged that she used the company’s talc-based products for over four decades and developed ovarian cancer as a result. The plaintiff was required to undergo chemotherapy after she was diagnosed with cancer, which later spread to her liver. In her complaint, the plaintiff specifically identified Johnson & Johnson’s Shower Powder and Baby Powder products.

The talcum powder that Johnson & Johnson uses for its talc-based products is sourced from a company called Imerys Talc America. This company is owned by another company based in Paris.

Currently, there are over 2,000 lawsuits containing similar allegations pending against Johnson & Johnson. One of the primary causes of action asserted in the complaints is that Johnson & Johnson failed to provide adequate warnings regarding the potential risk of developing certain cancers from the use of its talc-based products, despite evidence available at the time the product was marketed suggesting a linkage. These lawsuits are mostly still pending in St. Louis, Missouri.

Continue reading →

Published on: May 12, 2017

Smartphones Behind the Wheel: Help or Hindrance?

By Moll Law Group

Advancements in technology have made vast improvements in travel and transportation. Some of the biggest technological changes to how we get around are smartphones and other digital computer platforms. Nowadays, it is not uncommon for vehicles to be equipped with their own computer systems in the dashboard, which offer motorists a variety of assistance and luxury features. Now, developers are finding ways to put these technological advancements to use for driver safety.

A recent study from the National Highway Traffic Safety Agency (NHTSA) has identified some important questions regarding how smartphones and vehicles could interface in the future. The report could spur some smartphone makers to include vehicle safety technologies in their infotainment system applications. This feature would then lock out or prevent the driver from accessing certain features while he or she is operating the vehicle.

The NHTSA released another study in 2016 that discussed a safety proposal for smartphone manufacturers. It suggests that the smartphone operating systems be equipped with a Driver Mode that will prevent the driver from accessing certain features on the phone while in transit. Some of the features that would be off-limits during travel would be social media, video, web surfing, and manual text entry. The proposal also considered taking Driver Mode one step further and having it automatically activate if the driver has not engaged it prior to operating the vehicle or if the driver has not paired it with his or her vehicle.

Continue reading →

Published on: May 12, 2017

Jury Returns $20 Million Verdict Against Johnson & Johnson in Ethicon Pelvic Mesh Bellwether Case

By Moll Law Group

A Pennsylvania jury recently returned a $20 million verdict against major household product and medical device maker Johnson & Johnson in a lawsuit regarding its pelvic mesh products. The lawsuit is part of the ongoing pelvic mesh multi-district litigation (MDL), and it constituted the third bellwether trial to proceed. According to some reports, there are over 54,000 additional lawsuits pending against the company, which is the largest health care product manufacturer in the world.

MDLs are similar to class actions in that they involve grouping claims that assert similar factual allegations and legal claims. They are different from class actions, however, in that each plaintiff must still prove his or her damages. In a class action, the entire class is awarded a collective settlement that is then distributed according to amounts and procedures approved by the court. To gauge the legal soundness of the plaintiffs’ claims, bellwether trials are conducted to gauge the likely level of liability and to assess the likely damages award against the defendant. These trials are crucial indicators of how the remaining cases pending in the MDL may play out.

In the most recent case, the plaintiff alleged that she received a TVT-Secur mesh product during a surgical procedure to address her stress urinary incontinence and that the product began to erode after two months. The plaintiff stated in her complaint that she underwent three surgeries to remove the mesh product and that Johnson & Johnson marketed the product despite its risks and without providing warnings about these risks.

Continue reading →