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

REQUEST FREE CONSULTATION
Published on:

By

CHICAGO, 18 de Abril, 2016: Un bufete de abogados de Chicago hoy afirmó que está investigando la interposición de demandas en todo el país en contra de AstraZeneca, los fabricantes de Prilosec y Nexium. Moll Law Group ha sido contactado y actualmente está investigando reclamos de enfermedad renal crónica, lesión renal aguda, nefritis intersticial aguda, insuficiencia renal, y ataque al corazón. Nexium y Prilosec son inhibidores de tipo bomba de protones (conocidos como PPI, por sus siglas en inglés) que se utilizan para disminuir la cantidad de ácido producido en el estómago.

Los inhibidores PPI se utilizan comúnmente para tratar la enfermedad por reflujo gastroesofágico (GERD, por sus siglas en inglés) y la enfermedad de la úlcera péptica (PUD). Prilosec, originalmente aprobado como Losec en 1988, fue el primer medicamento categorizado como PPI. Por su parte, Nexium es un PPI de segunda generación que se dice es una mejora en relación a Prilosec. Ambos son fabricados por AstraZeneca.

La edición de febrero de 2016 del Diario de la Asociación Americana de Medicina (conocido como JAMA, por sus siglas en inglés), publicó los resultados de un nuevo estudio que mostró un mayor riesgo de enfermedad renal crónica en pacientes que usan inhibidores de tipo bomba de protones tales como Nexium (esomeprazol), Prilosec (omeprazol) y medicamentos—recetados o de venta libre—similares. Los resultados mostraron que el riesgo de enfermedad renal crónica era mayor con el uso prolongado.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

CHICAGO, April 18, 2016: A Chicago law firm stated today that it is investigating the filing of lawsuits nationwide against AstraZeneca, the makers of Prilosec and Nexium. Moll Law Group has been contacted and is currently investigating claims of chronic kidney disease, acute kidney injury, acute interstitial nephritis, renal failure, kidney failure, and heart attack. Nexium and Prilosec are Proton Pump Inhibitors (PPIs) that are used to decrease the amount of acid produced in the stomach.

Proton Pump Inhibitors are commonly used to treat gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) and peptic ulcer disease (PUD). Prilosec, originally approved as Losec in 1988, was the first member of the Proton Pump Inhibitor class of medications. Nexium is a second generation Proton Pump Inhibitor said to be an improvement on Prilosec. Both are manufactured by AstraZeneca.

A February, 2016 issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), published the results of a new study which showed a higher risk of chronic kidney disease in patients using Proton Pump Inhibitors like Nexium (esomeprazole), Prilosec (omeprazole), and similar prescription and over-the-counter medications. The results showed the risk of chronic kidney disease was higher with prolonged use. Continue reading →

Published on:

By

In a recent case, a commercial truck driver alleged that another driver engaged in road rage, causing him to crash. However, after the jury found in favor of the defendant, the decision was vacated due to the defendant’s concealment of past traffic tickets.

The truck driver argued that the defendant cut him off and slammed on his brakes. The truck driver then had to swerve to avoid him, and he crashed his truck and was injured as a result. The truck driver testified that the other driver “gave him the finger” before the accident. The other driver fled the scene but was tracked by a witness. He was cited for making an improper lane change and pleaded no contest to the citation. But at trial, the defendant argued that he did not cause the accident and that he was falsely accused.

The jury found that the plaintiff had failed to prove that the defendant negligently caused the accident. After trial, the plaintiff filed a motion to set aside the judgment because the defendant hid prior traffic citations during pre-trial discovery. The plaintiff argued that the defendant engaged in fraud, misrepresentations, or misconduct to get a favorable verdict. He said that the defendant hid evidence specifically requested in discovery and then presented evidence at trial contrary to the concealed evidence.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

The United States Supreme Court recently issued a key ruling involving class action litigation. In Tyson Foods, Inc. v. Bouaphakeo, the high court was asked to consider whether the plaintiffs could use the “representative evidence” method of proving predominance according to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3).

The plaintiffs were employees in Tyson’s Iowa-based pork slaughtering, cutting, and retrimming departments. Due to the nature of the work performed, the workers were required to don specific protective gear prior to beginning their work day. The type of equipment they needed to wear varied based on the department in which they were assigned to work on any given day. Based on an injunction issued by a federal court in prior years, Tyson was required to compensate each employee an additional four minutes of pay each day to reflect the amount of time required to don and doff the protective gear, which were referred to by the company as “K-code time.” Sometime in 2007, Tyson ceased making these payments to some of its employees while continuing to compensate others.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

Toxic substances can cause serious sicknesses with long-lasting effects. Toxic tort cases are a specific type of personal injury lawsuit in which the plaintiff claims that being exposed to chemicals caused the plaintiff injury. The cases usually require specialized, technical testimony from expert witnesses. Sometimes cases are brought against private companies, or against federal and state agencies that have failed to protect citizens. Individuals who have been exposed to toxic chemicals often need to recover damages to pay for expensive medical bills, as well as damages for pain and suffering.

Toxic tort cases can be caused by exposure to hazardous chemicals, wastes, hydrocarbons, or other harmful substances. Some common examples are exposure to asbestos, formaldehyde, and lead. These cases can arise in a number of different situations. They can arise from exposure in the workplace if workers are exposed to toxic chemicals. Many toxic chemicals are used in the workplace, and workers can be exposed regularly over many years, often to higher levels than the general population.

These cases can also be brought against pharmaceutical companies, drug manufacturers, distributors, or prescribing doctors if toxic substances are included in drugs. Cases can be brought resulting from exposure to consumer products, such as exposure to mold, formaldehyde, and pesticides in the home. They can also result from exposure to toxins in the air or in drinking water.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

Nestle Corporation is one of the biggest food manufacturers in the world, with many people associating the brand with the chocolates and other sweets it makes. It also produces a wide variety of frozen foods under a variety of labels, including Stouffer’s, Lean Cuisine, and DiGiorno pizza. The manufacturing process for frozen foods can be quite complex and typically involves many different steps, including everything from preparing the food and packaging it to freezing it.

Recent reports indicate that Nestle has recalled roughly three million units of its frozen food products that contain spinach over fears that the spinach contains glass. A wide variety of products are affected, including pizzas, pasta dishes, lasagnas, and other popular Nestle dishes. The company has released a list of production codes that customers can use to identify whether a particular unit is part of the recall. The production code is printed on the side of the DiGiorno, Lean Cuisine, and Stouffer’s packages.

To recover compensation after suffering injuries from a dangerous product, the plaintiff must show that the product was designed in an unreasonably dangerous manner or that the particular unit the plaintiff received suffered from a defect during the manufacturing process that rendered the unit unreasonably dangerous. A food item that contains a dangerous foreign object not originally designed to be part of the food item satisfies the latter prong of this test.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

Even when individuals have a valid claim, a lawyer’s missteps can have serious consequences for their clients. In a recent case, a judgment in favor of the defendant could not be revisited because the issue raised on appeal was not raised by the plaintiffs’ lawyer during the trial.

The Facts of the Case

A husband and wife filed a lawsuit against makers and distributors of microwave popcorn and butter flavoring. The husband ate microwave popcorn every day for 20 years. They alleged that the products caused him to develop the lung disease bronchiolitis obliterans.

At trial, the experts disagreed about what caused the husband’s sickness. Both the plaintiffs and the defendants had a number of expert witnesses who testified about his sickness and its likely cause. One of the defendant’s experts was a doctor who testified about articles that were not provided to the plaintiffs for review. The plaintiff’s lawyer objected, arguing that the witness could not testify about facts about which the plaintiffs did not have information. He argued that the plaintiffs could not adequately prepare for such testimony, and the testimony was unfair. The judge agreed, and the expert’s testimony was stricken. Accordingly, the judge instructed the jury to ignore the testimony they had heard from the expert. The trial continued, and the jury found in favor of the defendant.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

An appellate court in New Jersey has issued an opinion upholding a jury’s award of $11.1 million against medical device manufacturer Johnson & Johnson in a pelvic mesh product liability lawsuit. The verdict came at the close of a two-month trial in which plaintiffs Linda and Jeffrey Gross alleged that Johnson & Johnson’s pelvic mesh product caused Linda to suffer severe, painful, and permanent injuries. Pelvic mesh products are designed to treat conditions like pelvic organ prolapse and stress urinary incontinence.

Shortly after implantation, however, a number of women reported experiencing serious complications like severe abdominal pain, cramping, pain during sex, and bleeding. The mesh products often migrate or shift after implantation and are susceptible to erosion. Many cases required the removal of the devices, which led to additional pain and suffering, recovery time, and permanent complications. There have been thousands of lawsuits filed against Johnson & Johnson regarding its transvaginal mesh products, alleging that the products are unreasonably dangerous and that the company failed to warn patients about these risks and complications.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

As a personal injury law firm serving the Chicago area for the past several decades, we have represented clients in thousands of cases involving tragic accidents that have had lasting effects on both the accident victims as well as their families. Throughout our service of the Chicago area, we have come to understand that one of the best ways to avoid a serious injury is through preventative measures. That is why we formed the Moll Law Group Scholarship: to encourage college students to think about ways in which we can all enjoy a safer society through injury prevention.

Students were asked to write an essay on the topic of safety or injury prevention. Essayists were asked to limit their submissions to 1,500 words, and they were given approximately one month to compose their essays.

After careful review, the selection board has come up with a list of five finalists who exemplify the quality writing and thoughtful approach to injury prevention that we stand for here at Moll Law Group. To assist in the final selection of the top essay, we have set up a special webpage dedicated to the Moll Law Group Scholarship, where readers can view each of the students’ essays and vote for their favorite. We will consider the votes received through the webpage as well as add the number of “likes,” “shares,” and “comments” each essay receives on social media to determine the winner of the Moll Law Group Scholarship.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

Sometimes cases are appealed because a party disagrees with the court’s decision on the issue of liability. However, sometimes the liability issue is not disputed, and the issue on appeal is only the amount of damages awarded. In a recent case, a plaintiff argued that his damages award was incorrect because it did not allow him to choose his own medical provider in the future. The man sued the government after his surgery at a VA hospital rendered him quadriplegic. The government was found liable for his injuries, and the man was awarded damages of over $4 million.

At trial, the man testified that after his surgery he must use a wheelchair for the rest of his life, must use a catheter, and suffers from pain daily. The court awarded the plaintiff $500,000 for past pain and suffering, $1.5 million for future pain and suffering, and $2,469,859 in economic damages. The damages included an award for future medical care and benefits. However, the trial court offset the economic damages award for the plaintiff’s future medical care by subtracting the medical care and supplies that would be provided by the VA for free, as a veteran.

The appeals court found that the plaintiff’s future medical care award should not have been reduced as a result of free services provided by the VA. The court held that federal law did not require an offset of a veteran’s damages that could be provided at a VA. In addition, the plaintiff was not required to take advantage of free services provided by the VA. Doing so would deprive the veteran of the ability to choose where to receive his medical care. The court said that he should not be forced because of financial reasons to continue to receive medical care from the provider that was actually responsible for causing his injuries.

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