Illinois Injury and Mass Tort Lawyer Blog

Published on: March 19, 2016

Taxotere Cancer Drug Linked to Permanent Baldness

Cancer is one of the worst medical conditions that a person can suffer. No matter what kind of cancer you have or the stage at which you are diagnosed, the treatment can be painful, lengthy, and difficult for the patient and his or her family. Modern medicine has developed a considerable number of drugs, therapies, and treatments designed to combat cancer and to help soften the blow of symptoms associated with intensive therapies like chemotherapy.

Recently, a well-known cancer drug called Taxotere, primarily used to treat breast cancer, has been linked to permanent hair loss in patients who take the drug as a cancer treatment. A number of lawsuits have already been filed against the drug’s manufacturer, Sanofi-Aventis, alleging that the company failed to provide an adequate warning about the potential for suffering permanent hair loss as a result of taking Taxotere.

When it was first released into the market, Taxotere’s label stated that patients’ “hair generally grows back” following completion of the treatment cycle. According to the manufacturer’s own studies, however, roughly three percent of all patients reported experiencing recurring or permanent hair loss. Since it was first approved, the drug has been approved for use in other types of cancer treatment, including gastric cancer, head and neck cancer, non-small cell lung cancer, and prostate cancer.

Continue reading →

Published on: March 17, 2016

Products Liability Cases in Illinois

By Moll Law Group

There are a number of theories of recovery for individuals injured by defective products, and many lawsuits reference more than just one theory of recovery. In Illinois, claims arising from defective products often allege, among other potential avenues, a violation of an express warranty, a violation of an implied warranty, negligence, and strict liability.

Strict liability claims in Illinois do not require that the plaintiff prove that a defendant acted negligently. They focus on the condition of the product instead. Generally, under a strict liability theory under Illinois law, a plaintiff is required to establish that (1) the product contained a defective condition; (2) the condition made the product unreasonably dangerous; (3) the condition existed when the product left the control of the defendant; (4) the plaintiff suffered an injury; and (5) the injury was proximately caused by the product’s condition.

The decision of which claim or claims to bring depends on the facts of each case. These considerations may include the warnings the sellers provided, the relationship between the injured party and the manufacturer or retailer, the location of the defendants, and the statute of limitations. There is also a question of which companies to sue. It may make sense to sue the manufacturer directly or to sue a retailer. There are a number of factors to consider. For example, many products are made in China by a number of different manufacturers. Suing manufacturers in other countries can be complicated, and understanding whom to sue and how to do so is essential to a successful case.

Continue reading →

Published on: March 16, 2016

Jury Awards Ohio Plaintiffs $72 Million in Talcum Powder Product Liability Lawsuit

By Moll Law Group

Johnson & Johnson, a global manufacturer of household products, was recently ordered to pay a $72 million judgment to the family of a woman who died from ovarian cancer. The decedent’s illness was linked to her use of Johnson & Johnson’s Shower to Shower and Baby Powder products over a number of decades.

The jury’s verdict included $10 million in compensatory damages and a whopping $62 million in punitive damages, which is a special type of damages designed to punish a defendant for reckless, wanton, or willful conduct while also serving as a deterrent to other companies and actors.

The lawsuit alleged that the company failed to provide warnings about the potential risk of developing cancer associated with its talcum powder products in order to increase product sales and profits. According to evidence offered at trial, Johnson & Johnson knew that its talcum powder products posed the risk of cancer as early as the 1980s, but it failed to disclose this information to the general public or regulatory officials.

Continue reading →

Published on: March 15, 2016

Class Action Lawsuit Filed Against Royal Caribbean After Stormy Cruise

By Moll Law Group

A class action is a type of lawsuit in which an individual or individuals sue on behalf of a larger group of persons. This larger group is referred to as “the class.” In order to bring a class action lawsuit, the issues in dispute must be shared by all of the individuals in the class, and the number of individuals affected has to make it impractical to litigate each case individually. Some examples of class action lawsuits are those brought by consumers for defective products, by patients prescribed a drug with side effects that were not disclosed, and by individuals whose communications were recorded without their knowledge.

Class action lawsuits are intended to allow individuals to receive compensation for acts committed by large, powerful companies, since the individuals may not have the means to bring a claim on their own. The lawsuits also allow the defendant to defend one lawsuit rather than defending a number of smaller, separate lawsuits.

Class Action Lawsuit Against Royal Caribbean

A recent class action lawsuit was filed against Royal Caribbean after passengers’ dreams of an idyllic cruise turned into a nightmare. According to a news source, passengers on the cruise expected to go on a seven-day cruise from New Jersey to the Bahamas and back. However, after three days, the ship came back after enduring severe weather with 125-mile-per-hour winds and 30-foot-high waves. For about 12 hours, passengers were required to stay in their rooms. Some said they had to hold onto their beds or other items to keep from falling. According to some passengers, furniture was knocked over, there was broken glass across the ship, and water rushed through areas of the ship. At least 4,000 passengers were on the cruise. Passengers were given a refund and a certificate for half off a future cruise. The company said the storm was much worse than expected.

Continue reading →

Published on: March 14, 2016

FDA Launches Investigation into Xarelto Clinical Trials After Reports that Blood-Detecting Device Malfunctioned During Tests

By Moll Law Group

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has launched an investigation into whether the agency was correct in approving the prescription blood thinner Xarelto. Since hitting the market in 2011, Xarelto has been prescribed to millions of patients. Major household product and drug manufacturer Johnson & Johnson created Xarelto and submitted the product for clinical testing prior to seeking approval from the FDA.

The drug was developed as a replacement for warfarin, an older prescription intended to prevent strokes from occurring in patients that suffer from atrial fibrillations, which is a heart-rhythm disorder. Administering warfarin requires close supervision to prevent complications from arising. Too little warfarin can lead to strokes, while too much can lead to other dangerous complications.

Continue reading →

Published on: March 12, 2016

FDA Warns Women of Potential Risks of Essure

By Moll Law Group

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recently announced that it would take actions to provide women with information about the risks of using Essure, a form of permanent birth control. This form of birth control involves inserting flexible coils through the cervix and vagina into the fallopian tubes. After about three months, scar tissue forms around the coils and makes a barrier in order to prevent conception.

The FDA recognized that there are potential complications related to these types of implantable forms of sterilization and that it should take actions in order to address these risks. These actions include requiring a clinical study to assess the risks and requiring warnings on the product labels. The FDA stated that the actions recognize that “more rigorous research is needed to better understand if certain women are at heightened risk of complications.”

The FDA, an agency within the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, protects public health by ensuring that food and drugs are safe for people to use. The FDA’s position is that while Essure is safe for most women, some women may be at risk for complications. Those complications may include pain, tears, bleeding, and allergic reactions.

Continue reading →

Published on: March 11, 2016

Dole Salad Mix and Starbucks Sandwiches Tied to Listeria Outbreaks

By Moll Law Group

Listeria is one of the most common pathogens that pose a threat to consumers in our food production system. Recently, two major food retailers have made headlines after listeria and other potential issues were identified in their food products. Dole Fresh Vegetables has been named in a lawsuit claiming that a package of the company’s salad contaminated with listeria caused an Ohio woman who consumed it to go into a coma.

Also, international coffee chain Starbucks has recalled two of its breakfast sandwich items after concerns arose that the items may be contaminated with listeria or other allergens that pose a threat to consumers. According to the complaint, at least 18 people in the United States and 11 residents in Canada suffered illnesses and four people died as a result of consuming the contaminated salad products.

Food producers, processors, and retailers have a duty to ensure that the food they offer is prepared and stored in a reasonably safe manner and free from any pathogens that could contaminate the item.

Continue reading →

Published on: March 10, 2016

Expert Witnesses Precluded in BMW Birth Defect Case

By Moll Law Group

In a recent case, a child plaintiff sued BMW, claiming that his disabilities were caused by exposure to unleaded gasoline vapor from a defective fuel hose in his mother’s BMW when his mother was pregnant with him.

The Facts of the Case

In 1989, the plaintiff’s father bought his mother a new BMW 525i. The plaintiff’s mother was the only person who drove the car. In the spring of 1991, she noticed a smell of gasoline in the car at times. It caused her headaches, dizziness, and throat irritation. That summer, she became pregnant with the plaintiff. In November, a mechanic finally discovered a fuel leakage caused by a split fuel hose. The plaintiff was born in May 1992 with severe mental and physical disabilities. In 1994, BMW recalled all of their 525i vehicles made between 1989 and 1991, due to defects in the fuel hoses.

The plaintiff sued BMW in 2008, claiming that his disabilities were caused by exposure to unleaded gasoline vapor from a defective fuel hose in his mother’s BMW while he was in his mother’s womb. The plaintiff sued BMW in a personal injury action, claiming that the car’s defective fuel hose caused his injuries.

Continue reading →

Published on: March 9, 2016

West Virginia Adopts Learned Intermediary Doctrine

By Moll Law Group

The West Virginia legislature has passed a bill that adopts the learned intermediary rule for the state. This doctrine has major implications for liability in cases involving dangerous prescription drugs and defective medical devices. According to the learned intermediary doctrine, when a drug or device manufacturer provides a warning to the physician about the product, its intended uses, and its potential complications, and the doctor then interacts with the patient in regard to the drug or the device, the manufacturer cannot be held liable for damages arising from the consumer’s use of the drug or device.

Since its inception in 1995, the learned intermediary doctrine has been controversial. Opponents of the doctrine argue that it prevents consumers who have suffered severe harm due to a defective device or drug from recovering compensation from the manufacturer or distributor.

Proponents of the doctrine state that a physician who interacts with the patient after receiving instructions from the manufacturer or distributor is in the best position to inform the consumer. They also argue that manufacturers typically do not have direct routes to marketing their devices and pharmaceuticals to patients and consumers directly and that imposing a duty on the manufacturer would put an undue burden on the physician-patient relationship.

Continue reading →

Published on: March 8, 2016

Court Considers Causation Issues in Defective Gun Case

By Moll Law Group

If someone is killed by a gunshot when no one else was around, a lot of questions are left unanswered. It can be unclear whether it was an accident or whether the victim intended to take his own life. Even if it was an accident, it may be unclear what caused the gun to go off. Was it the victim’s own mistake, or was the gun defective? If a plaintiff wants to sue a gun manufacturer due to a defect, it can be a difficult case to prove. Plaintiffs often have to rely on experts to explain the defect and the cause of the accident.

In a recent case, a plaintiff struggled with these issues when she filed suit against Remington Arms Company, a gun manufacturer, after her husband died from a gunshot wound while hunting by himself. The plaintiff alleged that her husband died due to a defect in his gun, a Remington Model 700 bolt action rifle. After he failed to respond to text messages from his family, a family member went to look for him where he had been hunting. He was found dead in a tree stand with a single gunshot wound to his chest. His rifle was found on the ground 15 feet below where he was. The rifle’s safety mechanism was off, there was a spent cartridge casing in the chamber of the rifle, and there was a rope attached to the rifle.

The plaintiff’s expert had filed a report stating that the rifle fired due to a defect in its trigger system. The Remington Model 700 rifle includes a “Walker” fire control system. This particular fire control system was unique because it included a specially designed trigger mechanism. According to the expert, rifles with “Walker triggers” had fired unexpectedly before. He stated that because of the unique design, dirt, moisture, or other residue could cause the connector within the rifle to fail to return to its proper position—which then caused the rifle to fire. He stated that there was residue in the plaintiff’s husband’s rifle and that it could have hit a tree, the ground, or the rope, causing it to fire.

Continue reading →