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

REQUEST FREE CONSULTATION
Published on:

By

In some circumstances, going to trial is the best way for plaintiffs to obtain the compensation they deserve. But in other cases, plaintiffs may want to avoid trial and can obtain the results they want without having to wait until the end of a trial. In Illinois, a plaintiff can dismiss a claim against a defendant and resolve the case through an agreed-upon settlement. In some cases with multiple defendants, a plaintiff may be able to obtain a settlement against one defendant and proceed to trial against the others. Some settlements require court approval, while others require only the agreement of the parties involved.

If a plaintiff agrees to a settlement, the circuit court retains jurisdiction for at least 30 days over any motion seeking relief from the judgment. For example, a party can return during that time to enforce a settlement or to try to void the settlement, due to fraud or duress. After this time, the court has more limited jurisdiction over the case, but it may be able to decide certain issues related to the judgment.

Woman Injured by Discus at School Track Meet Obtains $350,000 Settlement

An 83-year-old woman and her husband were attending a high school track meet when the woman was hit by a student’s discus. According to one news source, the woman filed a lawsuit against the school and against the athletic association, alleging they failed to keep spectators safe.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration recently published a warning letter that it sent to St. Jude Medical, stating that the company likely downplayed the risks associated with its defibrillator batteries last fall. A defibrillator is a device that provides an electric shock to the heart in the event it begins to beat irregularly or cease beating entirely. The device is implanted in the patient’s chest and is battery powered.

The letter also indicates that St. Jude may have failed to notify management officials within the company, in addition to its medical advisory board, that these battery-related issues resulted in the death of a patient.

The letter also indicates that the agency has determined that St. Jude Medical has not taken sufficient or adequate measures to resolve the issue with the batteries. The company has 15 days to provide the FDA with a revised reporting plan.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

Major retailer Target has announced a recall of over half a million toy eggs designed to absorb water after concerns that the toys could create a blockage in a child’s stomach if they are ingested. The toys were designed and packaged for Easter.

Since the toys are designed to absorb water, if a child accidentally ingests a toy, it will swell inside the body and create an intestinal obstruction. The reports also suggested that the toy may not show up on an x-ray, making a life-threatening condition even harder to identify and treat. This could lead to serious health consequences, including severe pain, discomfort, dehydration, nausea, vomiting, and even death.

Although there appear to be no reports of injuries associated with the toy at this time, the Consumer Product Safety Commission initiated a Fast Track Recall covering some 560,000 toys. They also alerted members of the medical community and instructed parents to take adequate precautions, including not giving the toy to children and returning the product immediately.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

There have been several food contamination and food safety-related items in the news lately, including the shocking story of two Florida individuals who found a dead bat in their pre-washed salad mix package. The company that produced the product, Fresh Express, initiated a recall of packaged salads that may also be affected and began conducting tests on the package to determine if the salad mix was contaminated. According to one report, the bat was so decomposed that testing officials were unable to verify whether the bat carried rabies. This places consumers at serious risk for contracting harmful and dangerous diseases, including food-borne pathogens like salmonella and listeria. Both of these pathogens can lead to serious health consequences that often require hospitalization.

Next, Conagra Brands announced a recall of its Chili Kits after determining that the kits may contain salmonella, another harmful pathogen. For individuals with weakened immune systems like the elderly, pregnant women, and children, salmonella can have devastating consequences and even lead to death in some situations. To date, there have been no reports of salmonella-related illnesses associated with consumption of the chili kits, but the company is urging purchasers to refrain from consuming affected units.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

E-cigarettes have emerged as a popular alternative to traditional cigarettes. Created by a pharmacist in China, they offer a less toxic method for ingesting nicotine, compared to traditional cigarettes. A liquid solution containing propylene glycol, water, flavoring, and nicotine is heated, producing the vapor.

Although the companies that manufacture e-cigarettes and the many available accessories claim that they are a safe alternative to smoking, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has yet to back that claim. In fact, the federal agency has proposed banning the sale of e-cigarettes to minors and is in the process of requiring companies that make these products to place warning labels on them. Additionally, the Centers for Disease Control have stated that there should be more regulations limiting the sale and advertising of these products to minors.

Beyond the health implications, there are concerns regarding whether the devices are safe. A recent article described one incident in which an individual was using an e-cigarette when the battery inside it exploded, causing him to suffer third-degree burns. Although the incident occurred over one year ago, the individual is still experiencing damaging effects and requires daily treatments and care.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

Beach umbrellas can be a great way to avoid getting a sunburn at the beach. But on a windy day, they can also pose a significant danger. A strong wind can turn an umbrella into a dangerous object, with the potential to cause serious injuries. In addition to beach umbrellas possibly being lifted out of the sand, umbrellas can also come out of outdoor dining tables or even outdoor store displays.

Lawsuits against individuals or business owners based on an umbrella injury generally allege that the defendant was negligent in properly securing the umbrella. Even the government is a potential defendant in beach umbrella cases. If the incident occurs on a public beach, for example, the government may be responsible, particularly if the lifeguard was aware of the potential hazard caused by the wind but failed to minimize the danger.

In order to prove negligence, a plaintiff must show that the defendant owed a duty to the plaintiff to protect them against an unreasonable risk of harm, the defendant breached that duty, and an injury occurred that was proximately caused by the breach. The plaintiff has the burden to prove all four elements in a negligence claim. This means that the plaintiff has to present evidence that would allow a rational juror to reasonably conclude each of the elements of the claim is met.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

Although lawsuits against nursing homes may be brought for a variety of reasons, these lawsuits often require experts. Experts can help explain the standard of care the home was required to follow or the cause of a resident’s injuries. As in any negligence claim, in a claim alleging the negligence of a nursing home facility, a plaintiff must establish that the defendant owed a duty to the plaintiff, the defendant breached that duty, the breach caused the plaintiff an injury, and the plaintiff sustained damages.

In nursing home lawsuits, once the plaintiff establishes that the nursing home owed a duty to the resident, the next question is whether the defendant’s conduct fell below the standard of care required under the circumstances. For example, a nursing home is normally expected to keep residents properly bathed and fed and to provide them with their medications. To prove that the staff was negligent, the staff’s conduct must have fallen below the relevant standard of care. Many nursing home residents are sick and elderly, and many residents die in nursing homes—thus, the fact that a resident died in the home’s care is insufficient. In order to succeed in a nursing home lawsuit, a plaintiff must show that the nursing home failed to properly care for the resident in order for the home to be held responsible. Accordingly, generally, expert testimony is required to establish the standard of care and to show that the nursing home’s conduct fell below the expected standard.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

In a recent case, a state supreme court had to decide whether an arbitration agreement, governed by the Federal Arbitration Act and entered into by a nursing home patient and her power of attorney, was enforceable against her husband after he brought a wrongful death action. The man brought a lawsuit against a nursing home after his wife died at the home, alleging that the home was negligent in the care of his wife and that this negligent treatment caused her death. The nursing home responded by arguing that the case had to be resolved through arbitration, and the trial court agreed. The plaintiff appealed, claiming that he could not be bound to his wife’s arbitration agreement as a wrongful death beneficiary.

At the time the wife was admitted to the nursing home, she had executed a power of attorney in favor of her husband. Her husband then signed an arbitration agreement, stating that claims subject to arbitration included any claims arising out of her stay at the home. The agreement also stated that it applied to the patient and the nursing home, as well as the parties’ successors, assigns, and intended and incidental beneficiaries. It also stated that it applied to “any parent, spouse, child, executor, administrator, heir, or survivor entitled to bring a wrongful death claim.”

Considering the language in the contract and other similar cases, the court found the arbitration agreement did bind the woman’s beneficiary. Thus, the agreement required him to resolve the claim through arbitration, and he could not bring the claim in court.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

When it comes to medical device and pharmaceutical lawsuits, the class action lawsuit is very common. In a class action lawsuit, one plaintiff or a group of plaintiffs files a lawsuit on behalf of a class of people who have similar legal and factual allegations. In general, there are four requirements that the plaintiffs must satisfy before a court will certify the matter as a class action. First, the class must be so numerous that it is not practical to join all of the prospective plaintiffs in one lawsuit. Next, there must be common questions of fact and law among the class members. Third, the claims or defenses that the representative plaintiffs intend to assert must be typical of the class members. And finally, the representative plaintiffs must advance the class interests fairly and with adequate protection.

There have been many laws and court opinions that define the basic rules and requirements for class action lawsuits. One of them is the federal Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA), which expanded subject matter jurisdiction for federal class action cases. A federal court may assert jurisdiction over a class action lawsuit when the amount in controversy exceeds $5,000,000 and when the class consists of at least 100 members, among other requirements.

In 2015, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decided an important case that had broad implications for class action lawsuits. In that case, the plaintiff was an employee who brought a lawsuit in state court, asserting a number of workplace violations and wage requirement violations. Overall, the plaintiff asserted 10 causes of action, but only nine of them included class claims.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

In a recent case, a mother sued her daughter’s doctor after her daughter overdosed on a combination of prescription and non-prescription pills. The daughter died on May 18, 2013 after she took a lethal combination of pills. On May 15, 2015, the mother filed the claim against her daughter’s doctor, alleging that the doctor negligently prescribed her daughter a combination of opiates and sedatives, causing her death. The claim was filed three days before the claim’s two-year statute of limitations expired.

The doctor argued that the complaint should be dismissed because the woman failed to file a certificate of merit along with the complaint. State law requires plaintiffs in medical malpractice claims to file a certificate of merit at the time the complaint is filed. The certificate of merit has to state that the attorney or the plaintiff certifies that the person has consulted with a qualified health care provider, and the health care provider described the standard of care required, indicated that it was reasonably likely that the plaintiff would be able to show the defendant failed to meet that standard, and indicated that it was reasonably likely that the plaintiff would be able to show that the defendant’s failure to meet the standard caused the plaintiff’s injury. Since the mother did not file the certificate of merit at the time she filed the complaint, the mother subsequently filed a motion to amend the complaint to add a certificate of merit. However, the trial court rejected her motion and dismissed the case.

Continue reading →

Contact Information
180 N Stetson Ave 35th Floor
Chicago, IL 60601
T 312.462.1700F 312.756.0045E info@molllawgroup.com
We represent people nationwide including, but not limited to, those in the following localities: Atlanta, Baltimore, Boston, Chicago, Dallas–Fort Worth, Denver, Detroit, Houston, Los Angeles, Miami, New York City, Philadelphia, Phoenix, San Bernardino-Riverside, San Diego, San Francisco, Seattle, St. Louis, Tampa–St. Petersburg, and Washington, D.C.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Please do not include any confidential or sensitive information in a contact form, text message, or voicemail. The contact form sends information by non-encrypted email, which is not secure. Submitting a contact form, sending a text message, making a phone call, or leaving a voicemail does not create an attorney-client relationship.

Copyright © 2025, Moll Law Group
JUSTIA Law Firm Blog Design