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

REQUEST FREE CONSULTATION
Published on:

By

Thousands of women have filed lawsuits against Bayer, alleging that they have suffered injuries as a result of receiving the company’s birth control implant device, called Mirena. The T-shaped device is made of polymer and implanted in the uterus. It releases synthetic progestin hormones that alter the uterine wall and decrease the rate at which sperm can survive in the uterus. It also prevents ovulation.

In March 2014, one of these lawsuits went to trial in the Northern District of Georgia. The plaintiff in this case stated that the contraception device resulted in the development of a pseudotumor cerebri. The symptoms associated with this condition led to vision and hearing issues, neck and head pain, vertigo, and severe migraine headaches. The plaintiff’s complaint included claims for concealment, failure to warn, breach of express and implied warranties, negligence, fraud, and strict liability. The defendant moved for summary judgment, and the district court granted the motion. The plaintiff appealed, stating that the lower court abused its discretion when it denied her motions to extend the time to conduct factual discovery and expert witness disclosures.

On review, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the lower court’s motion for summary judgment. The appellate court concluded that it was proper to deny the plaintiff’s motion to extend the discovery deadlines, particularly since the lower court had already granted the plaintiff one prior extension to conduct discovery. Additionally, the appellate court ruled that the lower court was not acting beyond its discretion when it denied the plaintiff’s request to amend the complaint to name two additional defendants that were foreign companies.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

A man filed a negligence case against a land surveyor after he tripped and fell on a stake while on his own land. The stake had been placed there by a surveyor while he was performing a survey of the land. When the surveyor had surveyed the land, he marked the boundary of the property with wooden stakes tied with ribbons, which were driven into the ground. They were surrounded by grass but still visible. Shortly after the completion of the survey, the landowner was unloading some equipment into a storage building when he tripped on one of the survey stakes. He seriously injured his hip and then sued the land surveyor for negligence. An appellate court recently issued an opinion in the case.

The plaintiff did not present an expert witness to support his case. The surveyor argued that the plaintiff was required to show that his conduct fell below the standard of care in his placement and removal of the stakes. The plaintiff argued that placing stakes in a way in which they were not clearly visible was ordinary negligence, rather than professional negligence. He also argued that it was within the common knowledge of laypersons and that an expert was not required under the “common knowledge” exception. Under the common knowledge exception, a party can make out a case of professional negligence without expert testimony in cases in which the evidence and alleged negligent conduct is within the understanding of laypersons.

First, the court had to decide whether or not land surveyors are “professionals” in order to decide whether expert testimony was required. The court found that based on the specialized knowledge, high standards, and continuing education of surveyors, registered surveyors are technically professionals. Since the defendant was a professional, a plaintiff is normally required to present expert testimony to establish the standard of care.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

Major breakfast food retailer Kellogg’s has issued a voluntary recall that covers 10,000 cases of its famous Eggo waffle products over concerns that they are contaminated with listeria. The contaminated cases reached an estimated 25 states in the U.S. Listeria is a very dangerous foodborne illness pathogen that can lead to severe health problems and even death, especially if the victim is a child, elderly individual, or person with a compromised immune system. Pregnant women may also experience a miscarriage or stillbirth if they contract listeria while pregnant. In otherwise healthy persons, listeria can lead to severe, flu-like symptoms, including headaches, nausea, stomach pain, vomiting, high fever, stiffness, and diarrhea.

Although the company has not received any reports indicating that an individual has become ill as a result of consuming a contaminated waffle, the risk is still very serious. Kellogg is asking consumers who may have purchased an affected package to return it immediately and to refrain from consuming its contents.

There have been a number of multi-state food-borne illness outbreaks involving listeria this year, including frozen vegetables, raw milk, packaged salads, and citrus. For the Centers for Diseases Control to formally recognize an outbreak, there must be two or more individuals who manifest disease-specific symptoms as a result of consuming the same drink or food item that has been contaminated. The CDC will then investigate the outbreak to determine its source and underlying cause.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

Over 360,000 toddlers suffered injuries as a result of falling or tipping over during the years between 1990 and 2010. A Poland-based manufacturer called Lenny Lamb has recently come under fire for problems and risks associated with its Lenny Lamb brand child carriers. The company recently issued a recall for its buckle onbu infant carrier, even though it has not received any reports of specific injuries. The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission has not received any reports or information regarding injuries either.

According to media reports, nearly 1,000 of the onbu carriers were missing a key component. The carriers feature a strap used to secure the device, in which the infant is placed, to the wearer’s body. The affected products are missing internal stitching that ensures the child stays inside the sling device. The device is intended to be worn with the infant carried on the wearer’s back. This means that if the device fails, and the infant falls, the wearer will have a difficult time reacting quickly enough to save the child from harm.

The carrier also features a hood, interior adjustable panel, and shoulder pads. It retails for roughly $90. Affected units were sold online at Bibetts, Lenny Lamb, 5 Minute Recess, Cozy Cuties, and a variety of other outlets between May 2016 and June 2016. To learn more about which units may be affected by the product defect, visit the Consumer Product Safety Commission website.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

In the recent case of Hosford v. BRK Brands, Inc., the Supreme Court of the State of Alabama considered whether a smoke detector manufacturer could be held liable for the death of the plaintiffs’ daughter, resulting from a fire in the family’s mobile home. The defendant in the lawsuit manufactured two smoke alarms that had been installed in the family’s mobile home prior to when the fire took place. In their complaint, the plaintiffs alleged that the manufacturer designed the smoke alarms in a defective manner and failed to provide sufficient warnings about the dangers associated with the fire alarms.

During the litigation, the plaintiffs conceded that one of the smoke detectors made an alerting sound at the time the fire began. However, they contended that the alarm did not sound soon enough to ensure that the occupants could exit the mobile home safely, which would have required rescuing their daughter before exiting.

The plaintiffs’ complaint included numerous causes of action against the defendant, including a breach of warranty claim, a failure to warn claim, and a negligence claim. They also asserted a product liability claim, which imposes a strict liability standard on the defendant. At the close of trial, the trial court judge concluded that the plaintiffs had only provided enough evidence to support their product liability claim. The jury deliberated and returned a verdict in the defendants’ favor. The plaintiffs appealed.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

In a recent case in front of a state appellate court, a woman filed a medical malpractice lawsuit after she was treated for a condition known as thoracic outlet syndrome. The illness caused her extreme pain around her shoulder and in her arm and also caused her numbness, swelling, and weakness. As a result, she was treated by a doctor who performed a surgery to try to ease the pain by removing one of her ribs. However, the woman suffered severe symptoms after the surgery, including pain whenever she moved her arm and difficulty swallowing food. The woman then sued the doctor for malpractice.

The defendant presented an expert who said that the doctor performed the surgery correctly and provided proper post-operative care. The expert also said that the woman’s symptoms after the surgery were a result of her original illness. To rebut this, the woman presented her own expert, who was a doctor in Mexico. The doctor had examined her about one year before she sought treatment from the defendant. Her expert stated that the defendant had destabilized the woman’s right sternoclavicular joint during the surgery or had disrupted the ligaments that hold it in place.

The defendant objected to the plaintiff’s expert witness, arguing that he was not familiar with the “standard of care” in the United States. The trial court agreed and dismissed the case. However, a court of appeals found that her expert witness, who was licensed to practice medicine in Mexico, was qualified to give an opinion in this case. Importantly, the defendant doctor did not suggest that the standard of care in Mexico was different from the standard of care in the United States. In addition, the Mexican doctor had performed over 500 orthopedic surgeries and around 10 to 12 thoracic outlet syndrome surgeries. He also personally examined the woman before and after her surgery. Thus, the court found that he was qualified to give his opinion, and the jurors were free to give it as much weight as they determined was appropriate.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

In the first pelvic mesh trial to go forward against Boston Scientific, the plaintiff obtained a victory from a Massachusetts court, which overturned a prior verdict rendered in 2014 that had dismissed the case. The plaintiff will now be able to proceed with a new trial. Boston Scientific’s pelvic mesh product has been the subject of thousands of lawsuits, resulting in the compilation of a Multi-District Litigation proceeding in West Virginia.

The plaintiff in the case, Diane Albright, contended that the company’s Pinnacle mesh product was designed in a defective manner and resulted in her experiencing serious injuries. The woman received the device to treat her pelvic organ prolapse condition. In July 2014, the jury hearing her case concluded that Boston Scientific designed the device properly and that it provided sufficient warnings about the risks associated with the product. The plaintiff appealed this verdict, stating that the lower court judge erred when it precluded the jury from hearing evidence regarding a material safety data sheet for the polypropylene that the company included in the mesh. The plaintiff argued that this MSDS document showed that the chemical was not appropriate for implantation in the human body.

The plaintiff also contended on appeal that the judge committed reversible error in preventing two letters from the FDA that were sent to Boston Scientific from being included in the evidence. The letters included directions from the federal agency ordering Boston Scientific to perform post-market surveillance studies for its mesh product. The letter also showed that the FDA agreed to suspend this order to perform studies after Boston Scientific said that it was no longer intending to sell the mesh product.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

In a recent case decided by a state appellate court, a husband and wife were injured in a car accident with another motorist. After the accident, they filed suit against the motorist for their physical injuries, mental suffering, lost wages, and lost employment. However, the motorist failed to defend or respond to the lawsuit. As a result, after four months had passed, the couple filed an application for an entry of default against the motorist, and the clerk of the court entered a default judgment against him. Seven months after the complaint was filed, the motorist responded by filing a motion to set aside the default judgment. The court denied his motion to set aside the entry of default and entered a default judgment in favor of the couple for over $3 million.

The motorist appealed. He argued that the court abused its discretion by refusing to set aside the default judgment. That state’s supreme court found that since default judgments are considered under a liberal standard, the court did abuse its discretion by refusing to set aside the entry of default. It noted that the motorist had seemingly valid defenses to the claim. In addition, the couple would suffer limited prejudice by reopening the case because they filed the claim three years after the actual accident and were still litigating the case with two insurance companies. For these reasons, the default judgment was set aside, and the case was reopened.

Default Judgments and Illinois Rules

A default judgment is a ruling that results from one party’s failure to comply with the requirements of the court. A default judgment is binding on a party even if the person has never appeared in the case. That means that even if a defendant never appeared in court in a case against them, the other party can collect compensation. However, even if a default judgment has been entered against a party, they can file a motion to set aside the judgment and reopen the case.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

In a tragic case of medical malpractice recently decided by one state appellate court, a woman underwent a liposuction procedure at a medical spa and tragically died just a few days later from septic shock. The woman’s husband filed a medical malpractice claim against the company, alleging that the bacteria causing the shock came from the medical spa during his wife’s procedure. He claimed that certain equipment had not been properly disinfected and sterilized.

The case went to trial once, but it resulted in a mistrial based on the improper questioning of a witness in front of the jury. The case was retried, and the jury found in favor of the woman’s husband. The jury awarded him over $3 million in damages. The spa appealed the decision. It argued that there was not sufficient evidence for the jury to find in favor of the husband.

The court explained that it would not set aside the jury’s verdict as long as it was supported by substantial and competent evidence. It also would not second guess determinations of credibility and the weight of the evidence made by the jury. In this case, there was a medical expert who explained how the spa’s procedures for sterilizing and disinfecting the reusable medical equipment used in the procedure breached the standard of care for cosmetic surgeons. There also was evidence that the spa’s breach caused the woman’s death because septic shock occurs after an infection causes the body to go into shock, and she had bacteria present near where she was injected. Even though there was some evidence presented by the defense suggesting that the bacteria could have come from her post-procedure care, the jury’s decision was still reasonable and would not be second guessed. Accordingly, there was substantial evidence supporting the jury’s verdict, and the decision was affirmed.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

Many people are quick to blame parents for children’s injuries. Yet often, the parents are not to blame. Defective products such as toys, cribs, and baby carriers can cause children serious injuries.

If a defective product is to blame, a parent can sue the manufacturer or anyone else in the chain of distribution, seeking compensation for their child’s injuries. If a product is defective, it generally is defective by its design or has a defect in how it was made when it was manufactured. For example, a defective design might exist when a product has an unreasonably dangerous design, such as a stroller that too easily tips over. A manufacturing design might exist when a piece was left out when it was built, thereby creating a danger. A product could also be defective because the safety warnings are inadequate to warn the consumer of a potential danger associated with the product.

New Study Shows Injury Risk Posed by Strollers and Baby Carriers

A new study shows that over 17,000 children are treated in emergency rooms every year for stroller and baby carrier-related injuries. According to one news source, the study, conducted by the Center for Injury Research and Policy at the Nationwide Children’s Hospital, looked at emergency room visits from 1990 to 2010. It found that over these years, almost 361,000 children had been treated for such injuries. This equates to about two children an hour, or around 50 children per day.

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