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

REQUEST FREE CONSULTATION
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 →

Published on:

By

Malpractice claims are quite prevalent these days, and there have been concerns for a long time about which physicians are most prone to malpractice claims. This has raised the important question of whether certain physicians are sued more than others and whether those physicians share certain characteristics. A recent study looked at 66,426 claims paid against 54,099 physicians from 2005 through 2014. The study determined the concentrations of claims among physicians, and it also identified characteristics of physicians at high risk for recurrent malpractice claims.

The study, published in the New England Journal of Medicine, found that around 1% of all physicians accounted for 32% of paid medical malpractice claims. This means that a small number of doctors account for almost one third of all paid claims. Comparing physicians who paid one malpractice claim to those who had paid two claims showed that those who paid two were almost twice as likely to pay another in the future. Physicians with three paid claims were three times more likely to pay another in the future. And those with six or more paid claims were 12 times more likely to pay another in the future.

Risks Vary by Characteristics of Physician

The study also found that there were variable risks of recurrent malpractice claims depending on the specialty. For example, the risk among neurosurgeons was four times greater than the risk among psychiatrists. Psychiatrists and pediatricians had the lowest risk of recurrence, while neurosurgeons, orthopedic surgeons, general surgeons, plastic surgeons, and obstetrician-gynecologists had the highest risk of recurrence.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

Wright Medical, the developer and manufacturer of the Conserve metal-on-metal hip implant, has asked the federal judge overseeing the multi-district litigation in Georgia to vacate the $11 million verdict that the jury returned during the first bellwether trial. A multi-district litigation (“MDL”) is a special proceeding used to consolidate numerous lawsuits that deal with the same complex product liability issues or disaster before one judge in a centralized forum. A bellwether trial is a trial that occurs in the MDL to test the parties’ claims and defenses. Usually, the case selected for the bellwether trial contains factual and legal issues that are common to the rest of the cases in the MDL.

In November 2015, the jury returned its verdict in the first ever federal case addressing claims that Wright Medical’s metal-on-metal hip implant resulted in injuries to a patient. The plaintiff alleged that although the hip implant was marketed as lasting from 15 to 20 years, she began to feel severe pain after only six years.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

Earlier this month, a Nebraska court heard a case brought by a woman who was injured when she stepped back to avoid an approaching dog that she thought was going to attack her. The court ultimately determined that the plaintiff’s case should be able to proceed towards trial, despite the fact that the dog did not bite her, since she alleged that her injuries were still the result of a dangerous dog.

Grammer v. Lucking: The Facts of the Case

The facts of the case are fairly straightforward. A woman and her husband approached a neighbor’s yard with two dogs present. One of the dogs was chained, and the other was not. As the couple approached, the dog ran toward them. The woman, fearing that the approaching dog would attack her, stepped backwards and lost her balance, falling to the ground and injuring her arm. The woman filed a lawsuit against the owner of the dogs.

The trial court dismissed the case against the defendant, claiming that under the relevant state statute, the evidence was insufficient to show that the injury was caused by the dog “chasing” the plaintiff. However, on appeal, the court reversed the decision, holding that the lower court’s definition of “chase” was too narrow, and the evidence presented was sufficient to show that the injuries were caused by the dog chasing the plaintiff.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

Johnson & Johnson, fabricante de la marca Ethicon de productos de malla transvaginal, ha acordado pagar $120 millones para resolver las primeras 2,000 a 3,000 demandas presentadas en corte alegando que los productos hizo que los demandantes sufrieran lesiones y daños graves. Esta es la primera vez que Johnson & Johnson ha entrado en un acuerdo que abarca un número considerable de casos en relación con el producto Ethicon. En el pasado, ha establecido casos de uno en uno. Hasta ahora, el fabricante había disminuido toda oportunidad para negociar con los demandantes y sus abogados, así como los muchos otros fabricantes de aparatos médicos involucrados en disputas de malla transvaginal.

Productos de malla transvaginal están diseñados para tratar una serie de condiciones que incluyen el prolapso de órganos pélvicos. Reclamaciones de los demandantes sostienen en gran medida, sin embargo, que los productos dieron lugar a graves daños de órganos, dolor constante, y otras lesiones devastadoras. En algunos casos, el dispositivo de malla transvaginal se hizo mas chico después de ser implantados, lo que resulta en dolor y lesiones graves. En junio del 2012, Johnson & Johnson acordaron remover algunos de sus productos del mercado. 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