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

REQUEST FREE CONSULTATION
Published on:

By

A senator from Virginia has introduced a proposed piece of legislation that would have dramatic implications for class action litigation if passed. The senator proposed the legislation with the intent of making class action lawsuits more fair and more efficient for all parties involved, including the court system. The bill would increase the recoveries for victims deemed deserving and filter out claims considered unmeritorious. These meritless claims are viewed as an unnecessary burden on judicial resources, according to proponents of the bill.

There are a number of ways that the legislation would change class action litigation in federal courts throughout the United States. Here are some examples. First, the legislation would require the plaintiff to demonstrate to an affirmative degree that there is “a reliable and administratively feasible mechanism” that the court can use to determine which potential class members are encompassed within the class. That mechanism would also need to provide a feasible and reliable way to distribute funds to those class members.

Next, attorneys would be prohibited from receiving class counsel fees until an accounting of the overall amount of fees that the defendant had dispersed is conducted. One of the things that the accounting would need to identify is the overall amount of compensation given to the class, the estimated or actual number of members in the class, the average compensation amount disbursed, and the highest sum provided to any single class member. It would also have to list any amounts paid to other individuals, including plaintiff’s counsel, and the reason for the payment.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

When you are suffering from a bad cold or illness, finding a cure to alleviate your symptoms becomes a priority. There are a wide variety of over-the-counter methods available, but one of the most popular products on the market today is a Neti Pot. The Neti Pot is a device that flushes out congested nasal passages and helps people breathe more easily. The device is usually filled with water and a saline solution. The end of the device with a nozzle is inserted into the nostril, and the user then applies pressure to the device to force the water into the nostril and through the nasal passage.

According to a recent report from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, however, Neti Pots may actually increase users’ risks of contracting an infection. In a statement warning consumers about Neti Pots, the FDA said that some tap water used in conjunction with the device can contain harmful bacteria and protozoa, including amoebas. If these bacteria are swallowed, the stomach is capable of killing them. If the organisms enter the nasal passage, however, they can survive and cause a potentially life-threatening infection. The FDA is advising consumers to use sterile or distilled water in Neti Pots in lieu of tap water. They also suggest boiling tap water and allowing it to cool before using it in the Neti Pot. Filtered water or bottled water may also be a viable option. It is also advisable to sanitize the device between uses to prevent cross-contamination or recontamination.

If you experience an infection linked to a Neti Pot, you can report the incident to the FDA’s MedWatch Safety Information and Adverse Event Reporting Program. Although Neti Pot is one of the most popular brands of nasal rinsing products, there are many similar devices sold under other brand names that pose an identical threat of nasal passage infection.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

There are countless chemicals with which we come into contact in our daily lives. While some of these are open and obvious, like hand soap, others are more difficult to identify. California’s Proposition 65, the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986, prevents businesses from exposing consumers to chemicals that are “known to the state to cause cancer or reproductive toxicity” through drinking water. They are also prohibited from exposing consumers to these chemicals without providing warnings on the product that meet a “clear and reasonable” standard.

Recently, the agency tasked with enforcing Prop 65, California’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA), announced that it intended to list glyphosate as a chemical subject to Prop 65’s warnings. Glyphosate is sold under the brand name Roundup for household use and used as a common pesticide in agriculture.

The agency based its decision on a report produced by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) in March 2015. The report concluded that glyphosate is “probably carcinogenic to humans.” IARC uses this designation for chemicals when there is inadequate or limited research demonstrating that the product causes cancer in humans, but there is enough evidence to show that the chemical causes cancer in animals.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

In a recent case, an Illinois appellate court recently decided that a nursing home was required to turn over certain documents in a medical negligence lawsuit after a resident fell at the nursing home. The resident in the case was an 88-year-old woman who was allegedly injured in a fall while she was a resident of the home. The plaintiff, who was the patient’s guardian, filed a claim on behalf on the patient’s behalf and was trying to get a copy of an internal report from May 2012 after the patient’s fall at the home.

The nursing home argued that the internal documents concerning the patient’s fall were protected under the Illinois Medical Studies Act and under the Long-Term Care Peer Review Act and Quality Assessment and Assurance Protection Act.

The Quality Assurance Act and the Medical Studies Act

The Quality Assurance Act protects proceedings and communications involving a peer review or a quality-assessment-and-assurance committee at long-term care facilities. The Medical Studies Act is a similar act that also protects peer-review proceedings and communications but applies to medical facilities. The laws protect certain information in order to encourage internal studies to improve care for patients.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

Nursing home abuse often goes unreported due to the patient’s mental health and vulnerability. It can be difficult to detect abuse or neglect because family members are not present 24 hours a day. It also can be difficult to prove allegations of abuse because the nursing home resident may be unable to testify due to mental health issues such as dementia, or because the resident is no longer alive. That being said, there are laws that protect the rights of residents in order to protect them from cases of abuse or neglect, and anyone suspecting a loved one is being abused in an Illinois nursing home should consult with a dedicated personal injury attorney.

Protections for Nursing Home Residents

There are different statutes and regulations that protect the rights of senior citizens and nursing home residents. A central statute in Illinois is the Nursing Home Care Act (NHCA). The Act establishes a resident’s “bill of rights” and creates a system to resolve claims under the Act. Under the NHCA, nursing homes are liable to residents for any intentional or negligent act or omission that causes an injury to a resident. Neglect is defined as a facility’s failure to provide adequate medical care, mental health treatment, psychiatric rehabilitation, personal care, or assistance with activities of daily living necessary to avoid physical harm, mental anguish, or mental illness for a resident.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

On February 22 of this year, the United States Supreme Court will hear arguments in a case that may greatly affect nursing home care in this country. According to one news source, the case considers the legality of arbitration agreements signed by representatives of nursing home residents.

In that case, two nursing home residents died in nursing homes. Their families filed lawsuits against the nursing homes after their deaths, but the nursing homes tried to force the families into arbitration under signed arbitration agreements. The Kentucky Supreme Court previously ruled that nursing home residents had not explicitly allowed their representatives to enter into arbitration agreements, and these agreements were not binding as a result.

The nursing homes in the case argue that states cannot place more of a burden on the creation of arbitration agreements than they would on creating any other contract. Long-term care providers contend the decision “poses a substantial threat to the long-term care industry at a time when demographic trends dictate that provision of long-term care could become increasingly important.” They say the Federal Arbitration Act and federal policy that favors arbitration preempt state laws like Kentucky’s. They argue the FAA was intended to make arbitration agreements equally as enforceable as any other contract, unless there are grounds that invalidate them just as in any other contract.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

Intuitive Surgical, the company who developed and markets the da Vinci surgical robot, is facing another lawsuit challenging the sufficiency of the warnings that the manufacturer provided with the device. Recently, the Washington Supreme Court ruled that a plaintiff could proceed with a product liability lawsuit on behalf of her deceased husband against Intuitive Surgical. In his complaint, the plaintiff alleged that he suffered serious physical injuries during a prostatectomy using the da Vinci surgical device. According to the plaintiff’s allegations, the physician who performed the surgery noticed during the procedure that the plaintiff’s rectal wall had suffered lacerations. As a result of this complication, the physician had to perform immediate open surgery to repair the lacerations.

Following the surgery, the husband reported experiencing a serious reduction in his quality of life. During ventilation, the husband experienced respiratory failure requiring ventilation, renal failure, and an infection. The husband’s complaint also alleged that he was required to wear a colostomy bag and that he also experienced incontinence. The complaint also alleged neuromuscular damage and that the husband was unable to work correctly without assistance. Roughly four years after the procedure, the husband died. According to a physician who testified on behalf of the plaintiff, the da Vinci robot’s malfunction was a contributing factor in the husband’s death.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

Johnson & Johnson was named as a defendant in a recently filed product liability lawsuit involving its silicone breast implant product. The action, which was filed in state court in California, alleges that the plaintiff suffered severe injuries as a result of receiving the company’s silicone breast implants. The plaintiff’s alleged injuries include severe muscle pain, nausea, and more.

In 1992, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration banned the use of silicone in breast implants. The agency prohibited their use based on research suggesting that they cause health problems like rheumatoid arthritis. The primary manufacturer of silicone implants faced so many lawsuits at the time that it eventually filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy. The FDA ultimately required the company to pay a total of $3.2 billion in damages to implant recipients. In 2006, the agency lifted this ban, and Johnson & Johnson became the first company to offer a silicone-based implant product in the years that followed.

The lawsuit is seeking damages based on Johnson & Johnson’s alleged failure to provide sufficient warnings to the plaintiff about the potential side effects and safety of the implants. The plaintiff contended that the silicone implants are prone to leaking, which can cause a host of physical injuries and ailments.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

In a recent case, a federal appeals court found in favor of an Illinois man who alleged his ladder was defectively designed. The man fell off his ladder while he was replacing the screws on his gutter and suffered a traumatic brain injury as a result of the accident. He later suffered from seizures, dementia, and quadriplegia.

After the accident, he brought a lawsuit against the ladder’s manufacturer, claiming that the ladder was defectively designed and that the defective design had caused the ladder to collapse. He argued the company did not design the ladder to accommodate the weight of people at or near 200 pounds. He weighed 224 pounds shortly before the accident.

The case went to trial, and the jury found in the man’s favor. The jury awarded him over $11 million in damages. Afterwards, the manufacturer argued it was entitled to a new trial. It contended that the man did not present sufficient evidence that the manufacturer had defectively designed the ladder.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

In a personal injury claim, a plaintiff has to prove not just liability but the extent of the damages. This means the plaintiff may need to establish the nature of the injuries, the expected duration of the injuries, how the injuries may have aggravated a pre-existing condition, disfigurement, disability, pain and suffering, emotional distress, necessary medical expenses, lost wages, care-taking expenses, and any shortened life expectancy.

Jury Awards $15 Million in Damages to Student After Crash

A tragic car accident in 2015 resulted in the death of five Georgia nursing students. A jury recently awarded the lone survivor $15 million. According to the a news report, a truck driver had been driving 70 miles per hour down a highway and failed to slow down or stop for traffic, causing him to crash into several cars. The truck driver’s truck drove over the top of a Toyota Corolla and crashed into a Ford Escape that was carrying the students. The students had been on their way to their last day of clinical rotations at a nearby hospital. The survivor brought a lawsuit against the truck driver’s trucking company.

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