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

REQUEST FREE CONSULTATION
Published on:

By

Medical device manufacturers make products that are sold all around the world. Although most of the lawsuits we read about regarding medical devices involve American plaintiffs, there are some instances in which foreign individuals sue U.S. manufacturers abroad for damages they sustained as a result of the defendant’s products. Recently, two French women filed a lawsuit against Bayer, alleging that they sustained damages as a result of using the company’s Essure contraceptive implant device.

The Essure device is comprised of a small metal coil that a doctor inserts in the fallopian tubes by using a catheter. According to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), during the 13 years since the Essure device was approved, the FDA has received over 5,000 complaints regarding the device. These complaints describe a wide variety of side effects, including breakages of the device, severe pain, and menstrual irregularities. Other complications include intra-abdominal or pelvic migration of the device, irregular bleeding, and complications requiring the women to undergo surgical procedures to have the device removed. There were also some reports indicating that the patient experienced an unintended pregnancy, depression, uterine perforation, and dizziness. Sources indicate that some 120,000 women in France obtained the device during the last 14 years.

In their complaint, the plaintiffs are requesting an expert to determine the relationship between the damages that they are experiencing and the device. In response to the women’s lawsuit, the French Health ministry stated that the problems that the women experienced may have been a result of the methods that the physicians used to insert the device rather than an issue with the device itself. Still, this could result from the manufacturer’s failure to provide appropriate instructions on how to implant the device, or it could be the result of malpractice on the physicians’ part.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is planning a ban on a chemical that is commonly used in dry cleaning services, due to its serious impact on liver health and neurological function. The chemical, trichloroethylene (TCE), has been associated with serious risks to consumers and workers. A 2014 assessment concluded that the chemical can lead to a wide array of health effects, including cancer, the development of neurotoxicological effects, and liver toxicity.

TCE is a chemical that is mostly used as a solvent. It has a pleasant, sweet smell, although it can be inhaled without any odor associated with it. The vapors can also be absorbed through skin contact. In most cases, TCE is used in commercial or manufacturing facilities. It is sold through industrial supply channels as a degreaser or refrigerant chemical.

The EPA is proposing to prohibit the manufacture of the chemical, as well as its use in processing plants and distribution centers that use TCE in aerosol degreasing applications or spot use cleaning applications in dry cleaning facilities. The federal agency is also proposing a requirement that would force manufacturers, processors, and distribution centers to provide notice to retailers and other businesses and individuals in their supply chains of the agency’s new prohibitions. Because of its highly hazardous nature, the EPA plans to evaluate the potential health consequences associated with TCE in its other uses and applications.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By
  • Earlier this month, a federal jury in Dallas returned a verdict against DePuy Orthopedics, the manufacturer of the Pinnacle hip replacement device, awarding the six plaintiffs in the lawsuit more than $1 billion in damages. The Pinnacle hip implant device is a metal-on-metal device that has been linked to serious injuries in patients who received the implant. Among the many injuries reported following implantation, metallosis or metal fragments in the blood stream are among the most common. Other injuries reported include severe pain, instability, and complications requiring revision surgeries.

According to the jury in the Dallas case, DePuy’s metal-on-metal device was designed in a defective manner, and the company failed to provide appropriate warnings to patients regarding the risks that the device poses. One of the lawyers for the plaintiffs informed news sources that the verdict was decided with $32 million for compensatory damages and the remainder reflecting punitive damages. Compensatory damages are damages reflecting direct costs and monetary expenses that the plaintiffs incurred as a result of the defendant’s conduct, including medical bills. Punitive damages are an entirely separate category of damages that are purely intended to punish a defendant’s willful, reckless, and wanton conduct while discouraging similarly situated parties from acting in a similar manner.

The plaintiffs were comprised of six individuals from California who were implanted with the Pinnacle device. They reported a number of serious injuries associated with their devices, including bone erosion and tissue death. According to their complaint. the plaintiffs were informed that the metal-on-metal device was a longer-lasting solution than traditional ceramic hip implants or plastic devices. Sources have also revealed that prior to the trial, DePuy rejected a $1.8 million settlement offer by the plaintiffs.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

Following the court rules may seem like a basic concept, but failing to follow them can have a devastating impact in a case. A recent case demonstrates how an attorney’s oversight almost resulted in the permanent dismissal of a case.

A woman sued the Greyhound bus company after she was injured on a Greyhound bus. The woman claimed the driver was driving too fast, and as a result, the driver hit two other cars and crashed into a tree. Greyhound made a motion to move the case to another county because the accident occurred in that county, and most of the defendants were domiciled there. The court granted the motion and agreed to have the case moved. The court also ordered the woman to pay the transfer fees for moving the case.

Greyhound sent a notice to the woman, asking to have the transfer fees paid, but the woman did not respond. The court required the transfer fees to be paid within 30 days, or the case could be dismissed. After the woman failed to pay the transfer fees within 30 days, Greyhound moved to dismiss the case. The court granted the motion, based on the woman’s failure to pay the fees.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

In a recent case, a passenger sued after she was injured in a car accident. A man had bought his fiancée a van for her birthday. On her birthday, the couple was drinking with some friends, and the man gathered the friends in the van. He then drove the van and crashed it, causing one of the passengers serious injuries. The passenger received compensation for her injuries from the man’s insurance, but she said the amount she received did not cover her injuries and made an additional claim for underinsured motorist benefits. Since the man’s coverage did not cover her expenses, she claimed he was “underinsured,” so she should receive underinsured motorist benefits from her insurance policy and from the driver’s fiancée’s policy.

The insurance company denied the claim at first. The passenger then sued the insurance company, claiming the company unreasonably denied her claim or delayed in paying her. The insurance company eventually paid her additional compensation. However, the passenger still claimed the insurance company unreasonably denied or delayed payment—essentially stating that the company acted in bad faith in doing so.

A federal trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the insurance company, finding it did not unreasonably deny or delay payment. But the passenger appealed, and a federal appeals court reversed the decision, deciding a reasonable jury could find the insurance company failed to reasonably investigate her claim.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

Many household appliances are designed to improve our comfort and health around the home. There are countless appliances that may be in your home today. What many consumers often forget, however, is that these appliances also pose serious dangers if they are not designed in a safe manner. Recently, the Consumer Product Safety Commission announced that the manufacturer Gree initiated a recall of 2.5 million dehumidifier devices because they are prone to causing fires. The recall happened after Gree received some 450 reports of fires associated with the machines. This has resulted in at least $19 million in property damage.

Gree sells its dehumidifiers under several different brand names, including Kenmore, GE, and Frigidaire. This is not the first time that the devices have been recalled. In September 2013, Gree instituted a recall and then updated it again in October of that same year. The recall was also expanded in January 2014.

Recalled devices include various pint sizes:  20, 25, 30, 40, 45, 50, 65, and 70. The brand names subject to the recall include Premiere, Kenmore, Norpole, Gree, GE, Frigidaire, Seabreeze, SoleusAir, Fellini, SuperClima, De’Longhi, Fedders, and Danby. These devices were sold a at a number of recall locations, including Kmart, Home Depot, HH Gregg, Lowe’s, AAFES, Sam’s Club, Walmart, Sears, Mills Fleet Farm, and Menards. Some of the devices were sold through online retailers like Amazon and eBay as well. Devices subject to the recall were sold between January 2005 and August 2013. They cost anywhere from $110 to $400.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

This fall, an appellate court in Mississippi issued a written opinion affirming the dismissal of a case against a truck driver and his employer on the ground that the injuries sustained by the plaintiff were not a foreseeable consequence of the defendants’ allegedly negligent actions. In the case, Ready v. RWI Transportation, the court held the defendant truck driver and his employer could not be held liable because the plaintiff’s injuries were too far removed in time and physical proximity from the defendants’ alleged act of negligence.

The Facts of the Case

The defendants were a truck driver and his employer. On the day in question, the defendant truck driver caused an accident on the highway when he made an improper lane change. As a result of the collision, the defendant’s truck as well as another vehicle blocked traffic, causing a traffic jam to form.

Approximately one hour later, while traffic was still slowed from the original accident, the plaintiff approached the traffic jam and crashed into the rear of another vehicle that had come to a complete stop. This accident occurred approximately three-quarters of a mile away from the original accident. The plaintiff filed a personal injury lawsuit against the truck driver and the driver’s employer.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

In a recent case, a boy and his parents brought a lawsuit against school officials after he was hit by a car at his school’s driveway on his way to school. The school was located near a highway, and the school’s entrance was busy around the opening and dismissal times during school days. There was no traffic light or person directing traffic at the intersection of the driveway. The boy alleged the superintendent, principals, assistant principals, and others negligently supervised school staff and students during school hours. The defendants claimed they were shielded from liability through governmental immunity.

The state’s supreme court found certain defendants were shielded by immunity. However, the court found the assistant principals could be held liable because they may have breached their duty to assign school staff to supervise students during school hours. One of the assistant principals had been responsible for assigning school staff members to supervise student duties throughout the school. However, the school could not produce the names of people who were assigned to “bus duty” on the day of the accident or during the two weeks before the accident.

The court explained that municipal employees are immune from liability for “discretionary” acts but not “ministerial” acts (those performed in a prescribed manner without the exercise of judgment or discretion). Considering this, the court found it was not clear the assistant principals had satisfied their ministerial duties because the assistant principals’ duties included not only preparing the bus duty assignments but also distributing the assignments to staff. Here, it was not clear they created and distributed the bus duty assignments. As a result, there was a “genuine issue of material fact” as to whether they breached their duties.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

Last month, Zimmer Biomet, a company that manufactures medical devices, won a lawsuit against a plaintiff who alleged that he suffered serious injuries as a result of being implanted with Zimmer Biomet’s NexGen Flex knee replacement device. The federal judge presiding over the Illinois lawsuit declared that the plaintiff had failed to establish that the product suffered from a design defect.

In 2007, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, which is responsible for regulating medical devices, among other things, approved the NexGen Flex device. It is designed to offer greater flexibility than other devices designed for knee replacement.

Since then, thousands of lawsuits have been filed against the manufacturer, alleging that the device is unreasonably dangerous because it cannot withstand the force of extra flexion. The company, which is based in Warsaw, Indiana, denied that the device is unable to withstand this extra flexion in marketing materials associated with the device. Other plaintiffs have alleged that the device is susceptible to premature weakening because of a design flaw, leading to multiple revision surgeries to correct the errors.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

In a recent case, a man sued the maker of his utility terrain vehicle (UTV) after the UTV overturned, and the roof failed, causing his injuries. The man designated four expert witnesses to testify in his case at trial. For one of the experts he designated, the man said the expert would testify as to the UTV’s performance, the forces involved in the accident, and factors affecting the UTV’s performance. The man did not explain the expert’s analysis or his conclusions on the issues in the case. Shortly afterward, the man told the defendant and the court that he was no longer going to use the expert as one of his witnesses. However, the defendant then requested to have the expert’s deposition taken, seemingly to find out what his conclusions were.

The plaintiff objected, arguing that the expert’s opinions and conclusions were protected by the “work product doctrine”—a doctrine that protects materials prepared for or by an attorney in anticipation of litigation. The defendant argued the plaintiff had waived any protection under the work product protection because, as an expert, the conclusions would have been disclosed.

The trial court agreed with the defendant, finding that the plaintiff had waived the protections of the work product doctrine by designating the expert as a witness. However, the state’s supreme court reversed. The court concluded that a party designating an expert witness by itself is not a waiver of the work product doctrine. It also concluded that in this case, the man’s actions did not waive the work product privilege. As a result, the expert’s conclusions were protected under the work product doctrine, and the plaintiff did not have disclose them to the defendants.

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 © 2024, Moll Law Group
JUSTIA Law Firm Blog Design