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

REQUEST FREE CONSULTATION
Published on:

By

Medical malpractice cases often rely on experts who can testify about what a reasonable medical provider would have done in similar circumstances. In fact, this is often the most hotly contested issue in many cases. In a recently decided case, the plaintiff brought a medical malpractice suit against an emergency room doctor after the doctor allegedly misdiagnosed her.

The plaintiff, a 15-year-old girl, fell from a large structure and was brought to the emergency room after demonstrating signs of a stroke. After performing some basic tests, the doctor believed that she had suffered a concussion and discharged her. The plaintiff went to another emergency room the following day after continuing to experience symptoms, where she was discovered to have suffered a stroke overnight.

The plaintiff alleged that her doctor was negligent by failing to diagnose her with a carotid artery dissection, a condition in which the layers of an individual’s arteries separate, often causing a stroke. She also alleged that the misdiagnosis delayed her treatment, which ultimately resulted in permanent neurological damage.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

Food recalls and food safety have been a major issue for consumers across the United States lately. When we purchase food or order food at a restaurant, we are relying on countless individuals involved in the food processing and preparation chain to use reasonable care and to ensure against contaminants. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) is the federal agency responsible for regulating food safety, and it provides information to consumers about recalls and other emerging events that may put consumers’ health at risk.

Consumers who suffer illnesses as the result of contaminated foods can bring a claim against the parties that may be responsible for the illness. To recover compensation from a defendant, the plaintiff needs to prove a number of things. First, the plaintiff must show that the defendant grew or produced the food and shipped it.

Next, the plaintiff must prove that he or she consumed the food and experienced illnesses diagnosed by a medical physician. The plaintiff must also show that the physician linked the illnesses to the contaminated food. The plaintiff must also illustrate that he or she consumed the food in close proximity to when the symptoms manifested. Finally, the plaintiff must show that the contamination was a direct cause of the defendant’s actions and that the defendant failed to exercise reasonable care to protect against contamination.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

Many individuals sign releases or waivers without reading the fine print. However, the terms of the policy matter, since signing a release waiver may give up someone’s right to sue if they are injured.

In a recent case, Ketler v. PFPA, LLC, a gym member brought suit against Planet Fitness. In April 2013, the man was injured while using exercise equipment at a Planet Fitness facility. A cable broke on a seated rowing machine that he was using, injuring him. He alleged that the injuries were the result of Planet Fitness’ negligence in maintaining its equipment. However, Planet Fitness argued that his claim was barred because he signed a waiver when he signed up for the gym.

The waiver that he signed stated, “I understand and expressly agree that my use of this Planet Fitness facility . . . involves the risk of injury to me or my guest whether caused by me or not. I understand that these risks can range from minor injuries to major injuries including death.” It also stated, “I understand and voluntarily accept this risk and agree that Planet Fitness . . . will not be liable for any injury . . . resulting from the negligence of Planet Fitness . . . whether related to exercise or not.”

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

There are hundreds of thousands of products in our modern, consumer-driven world. While many of these are products that we may select and purchase of our own accord, there are numerous other products that we are forced to encounter on a daily basis. Regardless of the circumstance, products can pose a serious danger to the health and safety of you and your family.

Every state has adopted a consumer protection law that allows consumers who suffer injuries due to a dangerous product to bring a claim against the manufacturer and other potentially liable parties. Although there are some differences in these laws, they generally impose the same requirements on plaintiffs seeking compensation from a product manufacturer or distributor.

In general, product makers owe the public a duty to design products that are reasonably safe and to ensure that individual products on the manufacturing line do not suffer from defects that render them unreasonably dangerous. The product liability laws also impose liability against defendants who fail to provide an adequate warning about certain dangers that a product may pose, or who fail to provide sufficient instructions for using the product in a safe and reasonable manner.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

As a law firm that represents those who have been seriously injured, Moll Law Group knows that one of the best ways to prevent personal injuries or even death is to take the adequate precautions beforehand. Of course, this does not mean that society should shift the blame onto those who have been hurt in serious or fatal accidents. Instead, we all should be held to a high standard when it comes to the effects of our actions.

At Moll Law Group, we have been studying and practicing personal injury law for decades, and we understand that the law is not static. It changes over time. With the advent of new ideas and technologies, what was once considered the norm years ago may now be understood to be physically dangerous due to consequences that may not have been realized at the time. This is why Moll Law Group encourages new ideas and is enthusiastic about technologies that increase the overall safety of society.

Here at Moll Law Group, we want to encourage safety in all forms. And to further that aspiration, we are offering two $1,000 scholarships to selected college students who submit an essay about safety or injury prevention. Acceptable topics include, but are not limited to, products liability (dangerous products), premises liability (slip-and-fall accidents), auto safety, medical care, nursing home care, and child safety. For more ideas on acceptable topics, see Moll Law Group’s website.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

As Chipotle locations are reopening after multiple, multi-state foodborne illness outbreaks, consumers are becoming more concerned about whether their food is safe. According to the law, a business can be held liable for failing to use reasonable care when preparing, storing, or selling food.

Under a negligence approach, the plaintiff must show that the restaurant failed to meet its duty to provide a safe environment, to make meals and food items that are safe to consume, and to identify and prevent unreasonable dangers that affect consumer health and safety. The plaintiff must also prove that the defendant’s failure to meet these duties was the direct cause of his or her harm.

Some states also impose a strict liability standard against restaurants and food sellers. Under strict liability, the plaintiff does not have to demonstrate that the defendant failed to use reasonable care. Instead, the plaintiff must show that he or she consumed food served by the establishment or purchased at the store that was unreasonably dangerous. States also allow plaintiffs to bring a variety of breach of warranty claims against potentially liable food producers and sellers.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

The Illinois Supreme Court’s recent decision in Coleman v. East Joliet Fire Protection District brings a significant change to Illinois law. Its decision greatly increases the exposure of local public entities to lawsuits. In the decision, the court repealed the public-duty doctrine, which held that local government entities owed a duty to the public in general, but not to individual citizens.

The lawsuit was filed by the family of a woman from Will County who died after waiting for an ambulance for 41 minutes. The woman called 911 and told the operators that she could not breathe and needed an ambulance. Her call was then transferred to another county’s dispatch operator, without relaying any information about the call. The second operator asked the woman questions but received no response. He then hung up and called back but received a busy signal, so he requested an ambulance for an unknown medical emergency.

Responders were then sent to the woman’s house, but no one answered the door. The responders asked dispatch for more information but did not receive any. They told the neighbors that they could call the police and ask them to make a forced entry. The responders then left, at the direction of their supervisor.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

This month, a panel of federal appellate judges upheld the dismissal of a plaintiff’s action against the manufacturer of the generic drug allopurinol, based on preemption. In Houston v. United States, the plaintiff alleged that in 2011 he was diagnosed with gout, which is a type of arthritis, and prescribed allopurinol. This drug is a generic version of the brand name drug Zyloprim. Roughly 30 days later, the plaintiff indicated that he developed a rash on his face and pain in his eye. He was eventually diagnosed with Stevens-Johnson syndrome (SJS), a life-threatening skin condition, which his treating physicians attributed to a reaction to the allopurinol.

The plaintiff initiated an action in 2014 against the drug maker, Qualitest, the medical facility, and his health care provider, alleging that the drug maker failed to provide an adequate warning about the risk of developing SJS after taking the drug. The plaintiff also alleged a design defect claim. The health care facility and physicians were funded by the federal government, so the United States removed the action to federal court. All three defendants then filed a motion to dismiss, which the district court granted.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

The birth of a new baby is an exciting time. However, most often mothers and babies are at the mercy of the hospital or medical provider where they are receiving care during the birth. They rely on the medical staff to care for them and to make sure that everything goes smoothly. Unfortunately, medical staff can make mistakes, which may carry serious consequences. A recent case demonstrated an instance in which a hospital’s careless error caused the baby permanent injuries.

According to one news source, the plaintiff’s daughter was born in 2009. The mother was an active air force captain and gave birth at a military hospital. When the mother was in the hospital getting ready to have a planned Cesarean-section delivery, she was given a medication to which she was allergic. That allergy was documented in her medical records at the hospital. When the mother then had an allergic reaction, she was given an antihistamine, which made her blood pressure drop and deprived her baby of oxygen.

The daughter, who is now six years old, suffered brain and nerve damage as a result. Those medical issues forced her to undergo occupational and physical therapy each week. She also has to wear leg braces and requires special accommodations at school.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) has issued tighter regulations for surgical transvaginal mesh products that are designed to address pelvic organ prolapse, which is a condition that occurs when the pelvic floor is no longer able to support a woman’s pelvic organs. The surgical mesh is intended to strengthen the pelvic floor and wall, and to help keep the pelvic organs in place. The devices have been used for several decades in surgeries to treat pelvic organ prolapse and the stress urinary incontinence that results from the condition.

Common issues associated with the devices surfaced around 2002, involving devices implanted through the vaginal canal as opposed to through the abdomen. The method of implantation through the vaginal wall was touted as a more efficient way to implant the device that required less healing time and resulted in a smaller incision. According to the FDA, however, the veracity of these claims has not been proven.

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 © 2024, Moll Law Group
JUSTIA Law Firm Blog Design