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

REQUEST FREE CONSULTATION
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 →

Published on:

By

Salmonella is one of the most dangerous pathogens haunting our food system today. The bacteria finds its way into our food through a variety of routes, including unsafe food harvesting, storage, and transportation methodologies in addition to unsafe cooking or failing to discard spoiled food. It seems like there have been more and more reports in the news lately detailing a new outbreak involving the dangerous strain, affecting everything from produce to fast food.

Recently, an outbreak of Salmonella Virchow has been linked to Garden of Life’s RAW Meal Organic Shake & Meal Products. As of March 24, 2016, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have identified 20 different states affected by the outbreak. The specific source of the outbreak was identified as Organic Moringa Leaf powder, an ingredient that Garden of Life uses in a number of its products. Since the outbreak has been identified, Garden of Life has initiated a recall of affected products. Retailers with affected lot numbers have been asked to forgo selling the product and return it to the company.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

Medical malpractice damages caps limit the amount of money a plaintiff can receive from a medical malpractice claim. Often, the damages caps limit only non-economic damages, such as pain and suffering, mental distress, and loss of companionship. Yet, some states cap both non-economic and economic damages, which include medical bills and lost wages. Medical malpractice caps vary greatly by state and can have an enormous impact on the amount of money an individual plaintiff can receive.

The reasoning behind malpractice compensation caps is to limit the financial burden on the state and to minimize drains on the economy. In addition, some say that caps promote cost stability in the health care system and protect doctors from high insurance rates, helping to ensure that doctors are willing to practice in the state. However, those opposed to medical malpractice caps argue that legislatures should not be able to limit what courts determine that plaintiffs deserve.

Indiana Votes to Increase Medical Malpractice Cap

According to one news source, the Indiana legislature recently approved an increase to the state’s cap on medical malpractice damages for the first time in almost two decades. The state’s cap is currently limited to $1.25 million. The new law would raise the cap to $1.65 million in 2017 and to $1.8 million in 2019. Indiana’s current and proposed law encompasses both economic and non-economic damages.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

Bayer is one of the largest pharmaceutical and medical device manufacturers in the world today. Recently, a group of over 30 women filed a lawsuit against the company alleging that its Essure permanent birth control device resulted in serious and painful health problems. Common symptoms that the plaintiffs reported suffering from included menstrual bleeding, migraines, abdominal cramping, and abnormal bleeding. The complaint was filed on March 17 in St. Louis, Missouri.

The Essure birth control device consists of a metal coil inserted in the fallopian tubes using a catheter. Last year, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration reported that during the 13 years following approval of the device, it received thousands of complaints regarding physical complications that resulted after implantation. During the time between July 2015 and October 2015, the FDA received over 2,800 complaints alone.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

Every patient understands that all surgeries carry some level of risk. The nature and extent of those risks depend on the facts surrounding the individual’s circumstances and the surgery being performed. But even though some risks are understood, issues can arise and surgeons can make mistakes—and the patients may suffer devastating consequences as a consequence of them. Sometimes, the injuries that result can give rise to a medical malpractice claim, even if the plaintiff consented to the procedure.

Medical malpractice claims are brought when the care provided by a medical provider does not meet the applicable standard of care in the medical community, and causes the patient injuries. A plaintiff must demonstrate that the medical provider owed him a duty of care, that the care provided fell below the standard of care, and that the plaintiff suffered damages.

Consenting to Medical Care

In many cases, when a patient undergoes surgery, they have already explicitly consented to the surgery. In fact, a patient’s express or implied consent is generally required for all procedures performed by health care professionals. However, in order to be valid, a patient’s consent must be informed—which means being fully aware of the risks and alternatives.

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