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

REQUEST FREE CONSULTATION
Published on:

By

Moll Law Group has filed its first lawsuit against Johnson & Johnson, seeking damages on behalf of a 39-year-old woman who was diagnosed with ovarian cancer following her use of the company’s talcum powder-based products. In the lawsuit, which is captioned Barbara Ross v. Johnson & Johnson, et al., the plaintiff was diagnosed in 2014. She used Johnson & Johnson’s products for feminine hygiene purposes as part of her daily shower routine for 23 years, including Baby Powder and Shower to Shower.

In the complaint, the plaintiff alleges that her continuous use of these products directly resulted in her developing ovarian cancer and suffering other devastating and potentially fatal injuries in addition to infertility and serious mental and emotional suffering. Some sources suggest that the major international pharmaceutical and household product maker knew about the potential risks associated with talcum-based products for several years but failed to provide adequate warnings to consumers.

Talcum powder is derived from a mineral substance that has known similarities to asbestos, which is a known carcinogen. According to a group of researchers at Harvard University who conducted a study, women who used talcum powder-based hygiene products had a 36 percent higher risk of developing ovarian cancer compared to women who did not use talcum-based products.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

Parties often believe that a case is over when the trial ends. However, there are a number of avenues for relief for parties who are not satisfied with the result of their trial. Those avenues may result in granting a new trial altogether or even reversing the jury’s decision.

In a recent case, a man was in a car accident and filed a complaint against the defendant, alleging that he suffered injuries to his neck, back, and knee as a result, for which he sought compensation. The defendant admitted that he was at fault for the accident but argued that the accident was not the cause of the man’s knee injuries nor did it require him to undergo knee surgery. The defendant argued that the man had preexisting conditions that were the actual cause of his knee injuries.

The case proceeded to trial, and the jury found in favor of the plaintiff and awarded him $9,620 in past medical expenses for neck and back injuries. However, the plaintiff moved for a new trial because he argued that his knee injuries were also caused by the accident, and a reasonable jury could not have found otherwise based on the evidence presented. The judge granted the plaintiff his request for a new trial, but that state’s supreme court reversed the decision. It held that the jury’s verdict was supported by evidence that his knee injuries were preexisting and that the court should not have granted a new trial. Accordingly, the jury’s verdict was reinstated.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

Following the court’s rules and orders can be as important as the case itself. In a recent case, a claim was dismissed after the man and his attorney failed to attend a scheduled hearing. The man filed a complaint against a defendant after he sustained injuries during a fight at the defendant’s nightclub. However, in the complaint, the man stated the wrong date of the incident, and the incorrect date signified that the three-year statute of limitations had expired. Thus, the defendant moved to dismiss the claim based on the statute of limitations. A motion hearing was scheduled, but the plaintiff failed to appear at the hearing, despite having been properly informed of the hearing according to court rules. As a result, the case was dismissed.

Soon afterward, the plaintiff argued that the dismissal should be vacated because his attorney did not receive notice of the hearing. The court denied the motion to vacate the dismissal, and the plaintiff appealed. That state’s supreme court held that there were no extenuating circumstances that excused the plaintiff’s failure to attend the hearing, and the dismissal was upheld.

Illinois Court Rules and Consequences

When litigating a medical malpractice or personal injury case in Illinois, all parties and attorneys are required to comply with the Illinois Court Rules. Illinois Supreme Court Rule 219 details the consequences for refusing to comply with the rules or a judge’s order.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

Based in Chicago and representing clients across the United States, Moll Law Group is preparing to file lawsuits on behalf of women who have been diagnosed with ovarian cancer as the result of using Johnson & Johnson talcum powder products, including Baby Powder and Shower to Shower. The international pharmaceutical giant has already faced a number of lawsuits involving similar claims about the negative and devastating consequences of the long-term use of its talcum powder products.

Talcum powder is a mineral that has many similarities to asbestos, which is a carcinogenic agent. Prior to the 1970s, products that contained talcum powder frequently also contained asbestos. According to medical researchers, when talcum powder enters the vagina, it can travel to the ovaries, where it can lead to inflammation and an increased risk of developing ovarian cancer. Harvard researchers even concluded in a study comparing the rates of ovarian cancer in women who used talcum powder products to women who did not that there is a 36 percent increased risk of developing the deadly condition in women who do use the products.

In 2014, two class action lawsuits were filed just one year after a plaintiff in South Dakota prevailed against Johnson & Johnson. The woman in that lawsuit alleged that the company was negligent for failing to warn her about the risk of developing ovarian cancer as the result of using talcum powder products. The plaintiff was diagnosed with ovarian cancer in 2006. In May 2016, a jury in St. Louis, Missouri, returned a verdict awarding a plaintiff in a similar lawsuit $55 million in damages. The plaintiff in that case had used Johnson & Johnson’s Baby Powder product for four decades. Three months prior to that, another St. Louis jury awarded $72 million in compensatory damages to the family of a woman who lost her life as the result of ovarian cancer, which physicians linked to her use of the company’s talcum powder-based products.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

The U.S. Food & Drug Administration has recently issued a new warning instructing consumers to avoid eating raw cookie dough or any other batter, even if it does not contain eggs. The agency first expressed its concern about consumers’ tendency to chew on raw dough before cooking it in 2009, when an E. coli outbreak affected raw dough products. The investigation following the outbreak revealed that a number of consumers were not aware of the dangers that can result from consuming uncooked dough products.

Now, the main event prompting the FDA’s new warning involves the recent recall of 10 million pounds of flour produced by major international food product manufacturer General Mills. Sold under the brand names of Signature Kitchens, Gold Medal, and Gold Medal Wondra, these flours may contain the Shiga toxin-producing E. coli (STEC) O121 virus. At least 42 individuals have become ill across 21 different states as a result of consuming the contaminated flour products. There have been at least 11 hospitalizations, but there have not been any reports of individuals developing hemolytic uremic syndrome, which is a common kidney-related condition that results from E. coli infections.

The FDA first discovered the presence of the potentially deadly bacterium in the flour products in late June 2016, when it collected samples from homes of ill patients located in Oklahoma and Arizona. Although E. coli O121 can be neutralized and killed through heat treatments like sauteing, boiling, frying, or baking, it can still contaminate individuals if it is transferred to countertops, utensils, or other cooking implements. Early signs of contamination include fever, headaches, nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea. Although the infection can be treated in most cases, it is particularly life-threatening in vulnerable populations like children, the elderly, and individuals who have a weakened immune system.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

In a recent case, a man filed a medical malpractice claim for an allegedly negligent surgery after the procedure left him with a fractured ankle. The man broke his ankle while repairing his truck and had to undergo surgery as a result. Soon afterward, the man underwent an additional surgery, allegedly because the initial surgery failed to properly attach the fractured pieces. The patient filed a claim against the initial surgeon, alleging that the surgeon negligently performed the surgery and the post-surgical care.

Under that state’s law, expert witnesses are required to be board-certified to provide testimony in a medical malpractice claim. The plaintiff sought to present an expert witness who was board-certified at the time of the alleged malpractice. However, the expert witness’ certification had since expired, and the defendant argued that an expert witness must be board-certified at the time he testifies to be qualified. That state’s supreme court found that a witness’ board certification is based on the board certification status at the time of the alleged malpractice rather than at the time of testimony. Therefore, the testimony was permissible.

Expert Testimony in Medical Malpractice Cases

Medical malpractice claims arise when a patient receives negligent medical care. In general, the plaintiff has to show that the provider failed to conform to an established standard of care by providing expert testimony. The use of expert testimony is required because jurors normally are not skilled in the practice of medicine, and it usually is not clear to a layperson whether or not the professional breached the standard of care. Notwithstanding this requirement, expert testimony may not be required if the negligent conduct or treatment is so obvious that even a layperson can recognize it.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

Patients who suffer serious and potentially life-threatening conditions after undergoing surgical procedures involving a duodenoscope may be entitled to compensation. Roughly 85 percent of these devices are manufactured, marketed, and sold by Olympus. Recently over 100 patients suffered infections from an antibiotic-resistant “superbug,” commonly referred to as carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae (CRE). There have been three deaths linked to the defective devices. Olympus has finally initiated a recall of the surgical scopes, but this is too late for many affected patients.

Duodenoscopes are flexible tube-based cameras that surgeons can use during procedures to see inside the human body without having to make large openings in the body. They are equipped with a light and are commonly used to help surgeons diagnose conditions in the pancreas and bile ducts. After the outbreak of superbug infections, however, it was discovered that the scopes have a design defect that makes them virtually impossible to effectively sanitize between uses. This means that bacteria from one patient was easily transferred to subsequent patients, despite the surgical staff’s attempts to sanitize the scopes. According to some reports, Olympus was aware that the devices were incapable of being sanitized effectively in 2012, but it failed to inform the medical community about the potential dangers. More specifically, a Congressional report concluded that the medical device maker did not meet the FDA’s basic requirements of transparency and openness in dealing with the superbug outbreaks related to its devices.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

Anyone who has a loved one in a nursing home dreads a phone call from the nursing home. Residents are usually elderly and often sick, and injuries and deaths are common among nursing home residents. However, one risk may be an unexpected one: the safety risk of bed rails.

Bed rails are used in nursing homes to prevent residents from falling out of bed, to help them get in and out of bed more easily, and to help them reposition themselves more easily. Yet many people are unaware of the risks. The risks include scrapes and bruising from hitting the hard rails, more serious injuries from falls if a resident tries to climb over the rails, and strangling or suffocation if a resident becomes caught between the rails and the mattress.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration reports that from 1985 to 2009, there were 803 incidents reported of patients caught, trapped, strangled, or entangled in beds with rails. About 480 of those patients died as a result. The Food and Drug Administration recommends only using bed rails when necessary and engaging in ongoing evaluation and monitoring to optimize safety.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

A Philadelphia jury recently returned a verdict awarding a 16-year-old teenager who suffered injuries after taking Risperdal $70 million in compensation. The manufacturer of the drug is Johnson & Johnson, a major international pharmaceutical and health care products company. According to the teenager’s complaint, Johnson & Johnson failed to provide appropriate warnings with the drug that it could cause him to grow breasts, referred to in the medical community as gynecomastia. According to his complaint, the plaintiff started taking Risperdal when he was five years old to address a psychiatric disorder.

The plaintiff also alleged that Johnson & Johnson intentionally prevented doctors and health care professionals from seeing the adverse results of a study about Risperdal that showed it could cause abnormal breast growth in boys.

Risperdal is an antipsychotic medication used to treat a number of mental disorders like bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, and irritability in autism patients. Signs of gynecomastia include puffy nipples, enlarged nipples, painful breasts, nipple discharge, and breast growth. The results of gynecomastia in boys can be devastating, resulting in serious emotional and mental pain while also frequently requiring a mastectomy to remove the breast growth.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

Everyone has seen someone slip on an icy sidewalk, and the injuries can be serious. But whose duty is it to maintain the sidewalk, and what does that duty require? In a recent case, a court held that a case had to be retried when a plaintiff failed to explain what the defendant’s duty was in training its employees and how they failed to meet that duty.

In a recent case, a woman slipped and fell on an icy sidewalk at a Marriott hotel while she was staying at the hotel for business. She broke her ankle and sued the hotel for negligently maintaining its sidewalks and failing to properly train the employees who were responsible for deicing the sidewalks. The case proceeded to trial, and the jury found the hotel 98 percent at fault. The hotel appealed the decision, and the state’s supreme court reversed and ordered a new trial. The court held that the trial court should not have allowed a “negligent training theory” without having testimony on the standard of care for training employees on how to deice the sidewalk, or how that had been breached.

The court explained that the jury could not have found that the hotel was negligent in training its employees because the required standard was never explained to the jury. In other words, the plaintiff did not provide any evidence that the hotel had a duty to instruct employees about the time that deicing would remain effective. The court stated that some evidence or testimony to support the position had to be admitted before a jury could return a verdict on that specific claim. The jury could not find that the hotel breached its duty to properly train employees because the standard of care required was never explained. As a result, the court reversed the decision, and the case had to be retried.

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