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

REQUEST FREE CONSULTATION
Published on:

By

In a recent court decision, Johnson & Johnson, the world’s largest maker of health care products, must pay $72 million to the family of a woman who claimed that the company’s products caused her ovarian cancer and ultimately her untimely death. This recent verdict was the first time a jury found that Johnson & Johnson had to pay damages related to the company’s talc-based products.

The plaintiffs claimed that the woman’s fatal ovarian cancer was caused by the company’s use of talcum powder in its products, including in its baby powder and Shower to Shower brand. Johnson & Johnson advertised its Shower to Shower brand (which included talc) for feminine hygiene, claiming that “just a sprinkle a day keeps odor away.” In 1999, the American Cancer Society advised women to use cornstarch-based products in the genital area. Cornstarch is generally now used instead of talc as an absorbent in baby powder and feminine hygiene products. However, Johnson & Johnson continues to use talc in some of its products and maintains that it is safe. The woman used the products for 35 years for feminine hygiene. More than three years ago, she was diagnosed with ovarian cancer, which ultimately caused her death at age 62.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

One of the most popular gifts on everyone’s Christmas lists last year was a hoverboard. These devices appeal to everyone, from kids to adults, and offer a chance to see what futuristic travel might be like. For all the ads and articles about hoverboards, however, it seemed like there were just as many stories about users suffering severe injuries while using the devices.

Recently, the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), a federal agency tasked with overseeing product safety and consumer health, issued a letter that essentially made the existing voluntary safety standard for “self-balancing scooters” a mandatory set of requirements. The voluntary standard is known as UL 2272 and primarily focuses on the device’s electric drive train, rechargeable battery, and charging mechanism. The guidance is designed to test the entire device and protect against any electrical or fire-hazard safety issues.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

Construction sites can be very dangerous for workers. There are a number of injuries that can occur on the job. Workers are surrounded by dangerous machinery, and sometimes those machines can malfunction. However, even if a machine malfunctions, a plaintiff still has to prove that the company contributed to causing the injury in order to hold the company liable.

In a recent case, a construction worker who was injured by a crane while at work sued the company that leased the crane to his employer. However, the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit found that even though the crane had malfunctioned, it was not caused by the company’s failure to inspect the crane.

In September 2012, the plaintiff was working at a construction site, and he and his coworker were moving a crane to another location. They approached a road with overhead power lines that had to be lowered for the crane to cross. The plaintiff signaled to his coworker to stop the crane at the base of some wood matting placed to help the crane cross. The coworker stopped the crane, but then the crane began moving forward again. The crane pushed the wood matting down, causing the plaintiff to fall and slide toward the crane. His foot slipped under the treads of the crane, crushing his right foot. His foot was severely injured and had to be amputated.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

It seems like there is a never-ending stream of dietary health supplements hitting the market each day. While many of these supplements are considered hot trends or major miracle breakthroughs that can remedy a variety of ailments, they can also pose serious health risks to consumers. There have also been too many major news events involving dietary supplements that were so dangerous they had to be removed from the market entirely.

Recently, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued eight separate warning letters to companies that manufacture products containing cannabidiol (CBD) that are intended for use as dietary supplements. According to these warning letters, the companies’ claims that the CBD-containing products can help treat certain conditions like cancer, lupus, post-traumatic stress disorder, and other ailments were not appropriately verified by the FDA.

CBD products are non-narcotics containing ingredients derived from cannabis sativa, a plant that is also used to make the narcotic drug marijuana. Although some states have decriminalized and even legalized marijuana consumption, it remains illegal on the federal level.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

Settlements can be a useful way for parties to avoid a long, drawn-out trial and still come to what they feel is a fair agreement. However, settlements often come with conditions. One of these may be a settlement agreement that includes a release of future liability. In a recent case, a settlement release barred all future claims arising from an incident against any parties. This meant that even though the plaintiff settled with a car insurance company, she was no longer able to sue her doctor for alleged medical malpractice while treating her for the injuries she sustained in the accident.

A 15-year-old girl was a passenger in a car when the driver of the car lost control and crashed. The girl was treated by a doctor for injuries she sustained in the accident. After bringing suit against the driver, the girl’s mother signed a release in exchange for a settlement with the driver and his insurer. The release did not discuss the treating physician or the clinic in particular, but it released all other claims that might develop from the accident.

The girl and her mother then filed a malpractice suit against the treating doctor. Specifically, they alleged that the girl’s arm would have healed faster and required less treatment if the doctor had done a skin graft and told her how to properly care for her wounds.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

Today, there are thousands of lawsuits being brought against the makers of transvaginal mesh products, including Johnson & Johnson. This month, a jury in Georgia returned a verdict against Johnson & Johnson in favor of the plaintiff, finding that the manufacturer was responsible for injuries that the plaintiff sustained after being implanted with a Mentor ObTape transobturator vaginal sling. While the manufacturer of the device discontinued it in 2006, countless women received the device prior to this time.

Due to the incredible volume of cases involving health complications linked to the Mentor ObTape product, they have been organized into a multi-district litigation (MDL) proceeding centralized in the Middle District of Georgia. MDLs are similar to class actions in that common questions of fact and law are resolved on a broader basis, but they are different in that each plaintiff’s claim is evaluated individually and subject to a unique determination of whether damages are appropriate.

In her complaint, the plaintiff alleged that her doctors prescribed and implanted a ObTape device to treat her stress urinary incontinence. Shortly after the surgery, the plaintiff began experiencing severe pain, infections, and a worsening of her urinary incontinence. She also required multiple follow-up surgeries to address these symptoms and will need extensive continued medical care well into the future.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

Seemingly insignificant facts can sometimes have a huge effect on a case. In a recent case, a lawsuit against a bus driver transporting students to a football game was dismissed because the bus was bringing students to an extracurricular activity rather than to attend classes. This seemingly insignificant fact ended up actually being very important, since this meant that the school was not liable under the statute under which the plaintiff brought the lawsuit.

Often, cases are dismissed because a board of education and its employees are immune from certain lawsuits. However, a state statute created a waiver that allowed lawsuits against county and city boards of education for the negligent operation of “school buses” and “school transportation service vehicles” in certain circumstances.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

Fresenius Medical Care, a German medical company, has entered into a settlement agreement to resolve a landslide of cases brought against it involving its GranuFlo and NaturaLyte products used in dialysis treatments. Both of these products are dialysates and were used in thousands of dialysis clinics across the United States to treat patients experiencing kidney disease and kidney failures. Roughly one in every 500 Americans suffers from some illness that affects the kidneys and must undergo dialysis on a regular basis. Dialysis is a process that cleanses blood and eliminates toxins and wastes before returning it into the patient’s blood.

GranuFlo is a powder concentrate, and NaturaLyte is a liquid version of the same substance. The chemicals are used in dialysis machines to help neutralize the increased production of acid that can occur during the dialysis process.

In 2012, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration issued a Class I recall of both products after determining that the products posed severe threats to patients. Class I recalls are the most serious level of recall that the FDA can initiate and are appropriate when the product in question poses a substantial risk to patients, including the possibility of death.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

In a recent case, a plaintiff filed suit against a doctor and a prenatal care center after her baby sustained an injury during birth. However, the case was dismissed because the statute of limitations had passed, and the court rejected the plaintiff’s “equitable tolling” argument.

The plaintiff, an Illinois resident, was pregnant and went to a health center for prenatal care. She attended 12 visits at the Will County Community Health Center in Joliet, Illinois. In September 2008, the plaintiff sought treatment at an emergency room after experiencing abdominal pain. The emergency room doctor decided to induce labor, and the plaintiff began to give birth. During the birth, the plaintiff’s daughter became stuck and sustained an injury to her arm. After birth, the baby was diagnosed with Erb’s Palsy, a condition involving weakness of the arm due to an injury of the brachial plexus, a nerve cluster located in the shoulder. At the hospital, the baby’s arm was put in a sling due to the injury.

In May 2011, the plaintiff filed suit under the Federal Tort Claims Act against the health center and the emergency room doctor. Under the Act, a claim must be filed within two years after it accrues. The court found that the claims against the emergency room doctor and the health center accrued sometime in September 2008, shortly after the birth. Since the mother experienced a difficult delivery, and the baby was diagnosed with Erb’s Palsy, she had enough information to look into whether they caused the baby’s injury. Thus, the statute of limitations expired two years later, in September 2010.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

The news has been full of reports recently regarding a number of manufacturers’ vaginal mesh products. One of the largest manufacturers of these devices is Johnson & Johnson, which is facing numerous lawsuits in a multi-district litigation. The devices are intended to treat pelvic organ prolapse and urinary stress incontinence, but thousands of women reported experiencing severe complications after receiving the devices. These injuries included minor issues involving pain and very serious conditions that required additional surgeries and treatment.

A plaintiff who experiences severe injuries and damages as the result of a medical device may bring a product liability lawsuit to recover compensation. In a product liability case, the plaintiff may pursue three different theories of recovery. First, the plaintiff can show that the defendant designed the device in an unreasonably unsafe manner. Second, the plaintiff can establish that the specific unit that the defendant received suffered from a defect during the manufacturing process. Finally, the plaintiff can show that the defendant failed to provide sufficient warnings or adequate instructions regarding the device’s use and potential dangers. The plaintiff is not limited to one of these theories and may seek to establish all three.

Recently, a Philadelphia jury rendered a decision in the second lawsuit concerning Johnson & Johnson transvaginal mesh devices. In her complaint, the plaintiff alleged that she suffered severe pain and injuries after the mesh device eroded and that she was required to undergo three revision operations to remove the device.

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