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

REQUEST FREE CONSULTATION
Published on:

By

A woman was undergoing a cardiac catheterization procedure when her artery was dissected, and the woman died as a result. Her family then sued the treating physician for wrongful death. The case went to trial, and the jury found in favor of the family in the amount of almost $2 million for economic damages and $9 million for noneconomic damages. However, a Missouri state law limited the amount of noneconomic damages, reducing the noneconomic damages award to $350,000. The state’s supreme court held that the state law was permissible and left the reduction in place.

The law in question stated that in medical malpractice claims arising from a failure to render health care services, plaintiffs cannot recover more than $350,000 for noneconomic damages. The plaintiffs argued that the law violated the state constitution because it violated the right to trial by jury. However, the court rejected this argument, finding that the statute simply placed a limit on the amount of noneconomic damages that could be awarded. Thus, the court found the law constitutional, and the award limit remained in place.

Noneconomic Damages Limits in Illinois

Illinois does not have a limit on noneconomic damages. In 2006, the Illinois legislature placed caps on noneconomic damages in medical malpractice cases. However, the Illinois Supreme Court subsequently found that those caps were unconstitutional. Accordingly, any medical malpractice claim filed after the decision is not subject to a limit on damages, and the award amount is unlimited. The Illinois Supreme Court reasoned that judges and juries should be able to decide how much a plaintiff is owed based on the individual case. Illinois plaintiffs can receive any amount of damages that a judge or jury believes should be awarded, without being limited by an artificial damages cap.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

A new study released last month concluded that the class of medications referred to as proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) can lead to cognitive decline disorders like dementia. The study involved patients who took PPIs like Prilosec, Nexium, and Prevacid between 2004 and 2011. The full range of pharmaceuticals covered in the study includes raberprazole, esomeprazole, pantoprazole, omeprazole, and lansoprazole.

Roughly 73,600 patients were involved in the study. The patients were over the age of 75 years and did not show signs or a history of dementia at the time the study commenced. At the conclusion of the study, the researchers determined that patients who regularly took PPI medications “had a significantly increased risk of incident dementia compared with patients not receiving PPI medication.”

Until recently, lawsuits filed against AstraZeneca, the maker of Prilosec, Nexium, and Prevacid, have involved allegations that the patients who took the prescription drugs suffered from kidney diseases and heart attacks. This new research provides another potential basis for obtaining recovery from AstraZeneca. If you or a loved one took one of the prescription drugs covered in the study and developed dementia, you may be entitled to compensation.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

Civil trials are often thought of as determinations about whether a defendant is liable. However, the issue of liability is only one of the issues decided in a trial. Trials also determine the amount of compensation awarded to the injured party. In a recent case against city and county governments, the defendants admitted liability but proceeded to trial only on the issue of damages.

A woman sued the city and county after being injured in a car accident. The woman was riding on a county bus when the bus was hit by a city fire department van. She was thrown from the bus and landed on the street. She then sued the city and county. The city and county admitted that they were liable, but they continued to trial on the issue of damages. The defendants argued that a spinal fusion surgery the woman had after the accident was an unnecessary procedure. The case was decided in favor of the woman for $575,203, including her costs for the spinal fusion surgery, and an appeals court affirmed the decision.

Governmental Immunity

Tort immunity afforded to the federal, state, and local governments generally makes them immune to lawsuits. It comes from the idea that a government that makes the laws cannot break the laws. It was also thought that lawsuits against the government could be so numerous that the government would never be able to pay them all. However, governmental immunity has been modified in recent years to permit tort actions against certain entities for specific reasons.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

Everyone knows that you should wear a seat belt. But can a victim be held liable for failing to wear a seat belt? In a recent case, a state supreme court allowed a defendant to argue that a plaintiff was partially at fault for her own injuries for failing to use a seat belt.

In that case, the woman was in a car accident when she was sitting in the backseat of someone’s car. The driver of the car ran into a parked excavator, and the woman sued the driver and his employer. The defendants argued that the woman was at fault, since she was not wearing a seat belt at the time of the accident. At the time the case was argued, Arkansas law generally did not allow evidence of a failure to wear a seat belt to be used in civil cases. However, the court found that this law actually regulated a court procedure, which could only be regulated by the courts. Therefore, the law was unconstitutional and could not be enforced, and the seat belt defense could be raised.

Seat Belt Defenses in Illinois

In Illinois, a defendant normally cannot raise the issue of a party’s failure to wear a seat belt as a defense. In 1985, the Illinois Supreme Court held that evidence of damages caused by a party’s failure to use a seat belt was not admissible with respect to either the question of liability or the question of damages. At that time, there was no law requiring people to wear seat belts, so the plaintiff did not have a duty to wear one.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

Los medicamentos han permitido a muchos que sufren de enfermedades y condiciones crónicas a sentirse mejor y seguir sus vida cotidianas. En la mayoría de los casos, estos medicamentos tienen poco o ningún efecto secundario. En otros casos, sin embargo, los efectos secundarios resultan ser muy peligroso e incluso mortal. Recientemente, varios informes han indicado que Prilosec, Nexium, Prevacid y otros fármacos de la misma clase, pueden plantear graves riesgos de lesiones a los pacientes que los toman. Estos medicamentos se clasifican como inhibidores de la bomba de protones (IBP) y se utilizan con frecuencia para tratar la acidez estomacal crónica, trastornos de reflujo ácido, enfermedad de úlcera péptica (PUD), o enfermedad de reflujo gastroesofágico (ERGE). Aproximadamente el 20 por ciento de los estadounidenses sufren de ERGE según los informes.

Un número de demandas han sido presentadas en contra de AstraZeneca, el fabricante de estos medicamentos. Los pacientes que tomaron los medicamentos durante un período mínimo de tiempo han experimentado una serie de condiciones dolorosas y debilitantes como la daños al riñón, nefritis intersticial, insuficiencia renal, demencia, ataques al corazón y más. En muchos casos, estas condiciones causaron lesiones permanentes que alteraron para siempre la calidad de vida. Continue reading →

Published on:

By

A recent study has provided further evidence demonstrating a link between the diabetes drug Actos and bladder cancer. The findings were published in The BMJ and involve a study of roughly 146,000 patients treated for diabetes and bladder cancer between 2000 and 2013. According to the Canadian researchers who performed the study, consuming Actos increases the risk of developing bladder cancer by 63 percent.

The study also reported that the risk of developing bladder cancer increases if the patient takes Actos for two years or more, or if the patient consumes a minimum of 28,000 milligrams throughout their life. The researchers have also found a link between patients who have taken Avandia (rosiglitazone), another prescription drug used to treat diabetes that is within the same class of medicines as Actos.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

Medications have enabled many of us who suffer from illnesses and chronic conditions to feel better and go about our daily lives. In most instances, these medications have little to no side effects. In other cases, however, the side effects turn out to be incredibly dangerous and even fatal. Recently, a number of reports have indicated that Prilosec, Nexium, Prevacid and other drugs of the same class, may pose serious risks of injury to patients who take them. These medications are classified as Proton Pump Inhibitors (PPIs) and are frequently used to treat chronic heartburn, acid reflux disorders, peptic ulcer disease (PUD), or gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). Roughly 20 percent of Americans reportedly suffer from GERD.

A number of lawsuits have been filed against AstraZeneca, the manufacturer of these medications. Patients who took the drugs for a minimum period of time have experienced a number of painful and debilitating conditions like renal failure, interstitial nephritis, kidney failure, dementia, heart attacks and more. In many cases, these conditions caused permanent injuries that forever altered their quality of life.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

Some activities are inherently risky, and often patrons are required to sign a waiver of liability before participating. However, the scope of the waiver may be limited by law, and specific portions could be found invalid by a court if they are challenged. In a recent case, a woman sued a hot air ballooning company after being injured by a balloon. She was waiting in line to ride in the hot air balloon when the balloon’s basket struck and injured her. The woman sued the ballooning company for negligence. Originally, the court found that her claims were barred because she signed a waiver of liability before riding in the hot air balloon. However, on appeal, the state’s supreme court held that the waiver of liability violated public policy and was unenforceable.

The court stated that generally a waiver will be invalid if it contains misrepresentations, if it is too broad, or if it is ambiguous. In this case, the woman signed a waiver to ride the hot air balloon while she was waiting in line. The court found that the waiver the woman signed to go in the balloon was unenforceable because it was overly broad and all-inclusive.

The waiver exempted the company from liability for “all risks of any and every kind” arising from participation in hot air balloon activities with the company. The court noted that it was not clear whether or not the woman would have expected that risks resulting from standing in line would be covered by the waiver, particularly since she did not have to return the waiver prior to getting in line. She also did not have an opportunity to bargain over or negotiate the terms contained in the waiver. For these reasons, the court found that the waiver was unenforceable.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

This month, a federal judge in West Virginia dismissed 149 product liability actions brought against C.R. Bard involving its transvaginal mesh device products after the parties entered into a settlement. The exact terms of the settlement agreement have not been revealed.

The company’s pelvic products are intended to treat women who suffer from pelvic organ prolapse and stress urinary incontinence. Thousands of women reported experiencing severe complications after the device was implanted, however, including cramping, abdominal pain, bleeding, painful intercourse, and more. In many cases, women required additional surgeries to remove the devices, which often migrated out of their original locations, and to repair the resulting internal damage. Although some injuries were addressed through the follow-up procedures, many women are facing long-term or permanent injuries associated with the products.

Thousands of lawsuits have been brought against Bard alleging that the Avaulta product was defective, resulting in the formation of a Multi-District Litigation proceeding, known as MDL No. 2187. An MDL is similar to a class action in that a number of plaintiffs with common injuries and causes of action are grouped together. It differs from a class action, however, in that each plaintiff must still plead and prove his or her individual claim.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

Drivers for companies such as Uber and Lyft do not have to be professional drivers. They can be any person with a car and a smartphone. And while drivers may have their own personal insurance, it often does not cover business activities.

In general, drivers’ personal car insurance policies do not provide coverage when drivers are using their cars as transportation for companies like Uber and Lyft. And the companies’ insurance often does not cover them in all of their business-related activities—leaving them and other drivers at risk if they are involved in an accident.

For example, if a driver gets in an accident on the way to pick up a passenger, the company’s insurance may not cover the accident because no passenger was in the car at the time. This means that once the driver submits the claim to his or her insurance company, the insurance company could deny the claim because the driver was conducting business activity. The ride-share company may also deny coverage because no passengers were in the car at the time of the accident. This could mean that the driver is responsible for paying for his or her own damages and injuries, as well as those of the other driver. If the driver is unable to pay, injured parties may have no recourse.

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