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

REQUEST FREE CONSULTATION
Published on:

By

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration recently issued a new warning increasing the cautions associated with fluoroquinolone-based medications, concluding that this class of antibiotics may be too strong to address bronchitis, sinus infections, and urinary tract infections. The FDA has received a number of complaints regarding the drugs and has concluded that dangerous side effects include disabling and potentially irreversible tendon, muscle, joint, nerve, and central nervous system pain. The warning label for these drug products has been updated to reflect these new risks.

The agency also stated in its warning that fluoroquinolones should only be prescribed to patients who have no other medical recourse for acute bacterial exacerbation of chronic bronchitis, uncomplicated urinary tract infections, or acute bacterial sinusitis. More specifically, health care professionals should immediately stop prescribing these medications for patients who have any of these conditions and support any serious adverse reactions as soon as possible. The current Boxed Warning for fluoroquinolone medicines applies to a number of conditions like tendon rupture, myasthenia gravis, and tendinitis, as well as peripheral neuropathy and a variety of other conditions.

Patients who have been injured as a result of taking dangerous pharmaceuticals can file a product liability or negligence claim against the drug manufacturer. The FDA requires drug manufacturers to comply with extensive regulations regarding the development, testing, approval, and marketing of new drugs. In many instances, companies that manufacture and sell dangerous pharmaceuticals have failed to comply with some of the testing requirements or even hidden information from the FDA about adverse side effects associated with the drugs when seeking approval.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

A 23-month-old boy tragically drowned in a pond after he climbed out of his crib and walked outside in the middle of the night. After the accident, the boy’s parents filed a product liability case against the company that manufactured the doorknob cover they had installed on their front door. The doorknob cover was a safety measure to prevent children from opening doors. The boy’s parents used the doorknob cover on the front door of their home to stop him from opening the door. However, the company argued that the doorknob cover was not defective or unreasonably dangerous if it were used properly.

At trial, evidence showed that after the boy began climbing out of his crib, to help ensure their son’s safety, the couple began using a chain lock on the front door in addition to the doorknob cover. On the night of the accident, the boy’s mother locked the tab lock on the doorknob but forgot to latch the chain lock. The boy was discovered the next morning, and the doorknob cover was on the floor in two pieces. Investigation notes with social services stated that the parents knew the boy was able to defeat the doorknob cover, which was why they installed the chain lock. However, the father denied making that statement.

The parents argued that evidence of their knowledge of the boy’s ability to defeat the doorknob cover should be excluded because it was irrelevant, and at most it was only a contributing cause but not the sole cause of the accident. They also argued that it was overly prejudicial. Despite their objections, the evidence was allowed at trial.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

In a recent case in front of a state appellate court, a woman died while in the care of a nursing home, and the woman’s daughter filed a wrongful death claim against the nursing home, alleging medical malpractice. In response, the nursing home filed a motion for summary judgment to have the case dismissed because the woman failed to designate an expert witness.

The woman then designated two expert witnesses. Subsequently, the court granted summary judgment because although the woman designated the experts, she failed to produce sworn expert testimony. The woman then filed sworn expert testimony by filing affidavits from the expert witnesses and requested a reconsideration of the judgment. The court denied the reconsideration motion. Under that state’s rules, sworn expert testimony is required in medical malpractice cases, and it is necessary to survive summary judgment.

The woman appealed and argued that the dismissal of the case was too harsh a sanction for a “discovery violation.” However, the court stated that the court did not impose sanctions because of her failure to follow discovery rules. Instead, the court dismissed the case because of a motion for summary judgment filed by the defendant, and she had failed to provide sufficient evidence to survive a motion for summary judgment. Accordingly, the state’s supreme court agreed with the decision and affirmed the dismissal.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By
  1. In a recent case before a state appellate court, a 29-year-old man dove into a pond at a park and broke his neck. Sadly, the man was paralyzed from the neck down as a result. His wife and he filed a claim against the state, alleging negligence and premises liability. At trial, a witness testified that there were “no swimming” signs posted at the recently filled pond, and the state planned to staff the swim area. On the day that the man dove in, there were other people swimming in the pond. The man testified that he thought the water looked deep enough, and he did a shallow dive into the water, but he did not check the depth of the water.

The case went to trial, and the state was not found liable. On appeal, the state’s supreme court agreed with the decision, finding that the state owed no duty to the man. The court found that the state was not responsible for the man’s injuries. First, it found that diving was an open and obvious danger of which he should have been aware. In addition, the court found that the state was protected under the recreational use statute. The state’s recreational use statute limited the liability of landowners when people use the land for recreational purposes without charge. The park would only have been liable if it had willfully or maliciously failed to guard or warn against a dangerous condition or activity—which did not occur in this case. Thus, the man and his family were unable to recover compensation.

Premises Liability in Illinois

Premises liability is based on the idea that owners and occupiers of land have a duty to maintain their premises to some degree in order to help prevent injuries to those who come onto the land. Generally, this duty depends on the type of person who comes onto the land. For example, an owner may have a higher duty to a business guest than to a social guest. In Illinois, however, the Premises Liability Act sets forth many of the laws related to premises liability.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

The safety risks of certain products are not always immediately apparent. After many U.S. consumers purchased hoverboards for the holidays this past year, many months went by before the Consumer Safety Commission warned of serious risks in most hoverboards. Product liability claims arise from situations in which defective products injure individuals or cause property damage.

Product Liability Claims

Product liability claims appear when the sale of a product causes injury, death, or other harm to consumers. There are a number of different ways in which individuals can hold sellers or manufacturers liable. For example, in Illinois, consumers may assert liability for negligence, strict liability, violation of express warranty, or violation of implied warranty.

Express warranty actions arise if the seller of a product claims that the product has a particular quality or will perform in a certain way. Implied warranty claims generally arise when a product is not of average quality or is not able to be used for its ordinary purpose. Negligence requires that the defendant have acted negligently, or without the required care. In contrast, strict liability claims do not require any showing of negligence but focus on the defective product itself. A seller can also be liable if it fails to adequately warn consumers of the dangers associated with the product.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

Hot dogs are a hallmark of summertime and an essential at seasonal barbecues. When we purchase hot dogs and other products at the market, the last thing we expect is for them to make us ill. Recently, the Oklahoma-based food manufacturer Bar-S Foods, Co. recalled over 372,000 pounds of pork and chicken hot dogs and corn dog products over fears that the products have been contaminated with listeria monocytogenes.

Affected groups and lot numbers or products were manufactured on July 10th through 13th. Consumers can also determine whether they’ve purchased a potentially affected batch of hot dogs or corn dogs by looking for the establishment number EST. P-81A on the packaging USDA mark of inspection. The manufacturer first informed the Food Safety Inspection Service, the branch of the U.S. Department of Agriculture that is responsible for food safety in most meat products, of the potential contamination on July 19, 2016. So far, there have not been any reports of illnesses associated with the consumption of contaminated hot dogs or corn dog products from the company.

Listerosis is a serious infection that can cause a whole host of painful, debilitating, inconvenient, and even deadly symptoms. Common examples of the symptoms that infected individuals experience include stiff neck, muscle aches, fever, headache, loss of balance, gastrointestinal symptoms, and vertigo. In cases that affect the elderly, children, or individuals with compromised immune systems, the infection can be deadly if it is not treated promptly and effectively. Pregnant women are particularly susceptible to infections from listeria, and they can suffer serious consequences like stillbirths, premature delivery, and infections. If you have purchased a package of Bar S hot dogs or corn dogs, do not consume them, and check the manufacturer’s website to find more information on returning the potentially dangerous goods back to the producer.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

In a recent case, a medical malpractice plaintiff had his case dismissed based on a procedural error. A boy was born prematurely by an emergency C-section surgery, and then he was transferred to the neonatal intensive care unit. He stayed in the unit for two months and was then discharged in stable condition. A year and a half later, a notice of claim was brought against the hospital for failing to properly treat and care for his mother prenatally and for failing to obtain informed consent regarding the boy’s care. The claim alleged that the boy suffered brain damage, development, speech, and psychomotor delays, cognitive defects, and respiratory distress and seizure disorder as a result.

The plaintiff filed the claim in court another year and a half later, and four months later he sought permission to serve a late notice of claim on the defendants. The court dismissed the case for failing to provide timely notice to the hospital.

The state’s laws required that a notice of claim be served on a public corporation within 90 days of the claim arising. In medical malpractice cases, the relevant time is when a negligent act or omission occurred. Here, the plaintiff failed to serve notice within the required 90 days after the hospital provided negligent care. The court could have extended the time to serve notice and allow late notice in certain circumstances—for example, if the public corporation had knowledge of the essential facts constituting the claim. However, in this case, the plaintiff’s attorney stated that he waited to make the motion to request serving notice because he needed to receive the medical records from the hospital.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

Earlier this month, a federal district court judge entered an order reducing a jury’s verdict awarding a plaintiff $500 million in damages in a product liability lawsuit involving DePuy Orthopedics, a subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson, to $151 million. The jury’s verdict was returned in March 2016 and reflected compensation for five different plaintiffs who claimed they suffered injuries as a result of receiving a Pinnacle metal-on-metal hip implant device.

The trial lasted for two months and concluded with the jury determining that the metal-on-metal devices were designed in an unreasonably dangerous manner and that the manufacturer failed to provide appropriate warnings about the risks of the products. The jury’s verdict included $130 million in compensatory damages for the plaintiffs and $360 million in punitive damages. Punitive damages are intended to punish defendants who engage in willful, reckless, or malicious conduct and to deter other companies from engaging in similar conduct. The judge who reduced the verdict stated that according to Texas state law, punitive damages must be calculated according to a specific formula.

In related news, the same judge denied DePuy’s motion asking the court to stay the third bellwether trial in the Pinnacle MDL proceeding from going forward until the company could appeal the $500 million verdict, stating that it would create potentially adverse results and result in a waste of judicial resources to allow the third trial to proceed while the company appealed the results of the second bellwether trial. In October 2014, DePuy won the first bellwether trial.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

The Centers for Disease Control estimates that about one in six people get sick from food-borne illnesses each year in the United States. Of these, around 3,000 people die as a result. In recent years, E. Coli outbreaks have become familiar to Americans as they continue to come up in the news, at times causing serious effects for victims.

E. Coli is a bacterium that can be transmitted by consuming contaminated food, including unwashed raw produce, undercooked beef, unpasteurized juice, and raw milk. The consumption of contaminated food can result in symptoms, the most common of which is diarrhea. However, in more serious cases, it can cause anemia or kidney failure, which can lead to death.

E. Coli generally lives in cattle, but it can also be found in other livestock. If meat containing E. Coli bacteria is not cooked to 160 degrees, E. Coli bacteria can survive and infect those who consume it. In addition, the meat can affect other food that comes into contact with the infected raw meat. Raw meat is the most likely cause for infection, but it can be transmitted through raw fruits and vegetables, or through raw milk or other dairy products.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

Toxic chemicals can leak into the ground, water, and air, causing devastating injuries and illnesses to our communities. In a recent case, the jury awarded a man $5 million for his injuries and $500,000 in punitive damages against the company for its bad behavior after it dumped a toxic chemical into the river.

Damages: Compensatory vs. Punitive

Compensatory damages are awarded to the plaintiff to compensate the plaintiff for the injuries suffered. These damages often include compensation for medical expenses and lost wages, and they can also include intangible damages, such as emotional distress. Punitive damages may be awarded in addition to actual damages in some cases. Punitive damages are meant to punish the defendant for harmful behavior and to deter wrongdoing in the future.

Punitive Damages in Illinois

Illinois views punitive damages as punishment in order to serve three purposes:  (1) for retribution; (2) to deter similar conduct by the defendant in the future; and (3) to deter others from similar conduct. In Illinois, in state law claims, punitive damages are limited to three times the economic damages. Illinois allows punitive damages only when the defendant’s conduct was “with an evil motive or with a reckless indifference to the rights of others.” In the DuPont case, the jury was required to find “malice” in order to award punitive damages.

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