Illinois Injury and Mass Tort Lawyer Blog

Published on: December 17, 2015

Delaware Court Reduces Transvaginal Mesh Product Liability Claim Verdict from $25 Million to $10 Million

There have been thousands of lawsuits brought in recent years against the manufacturers of transvaginal mesh (TVM) products, which have been identified as causing severe, painful, and often permanent injuries. Multiple medical device manufacturers have developed and marketed these devices, which are designed to treat pelvic organ prolapse and stress urinary incontinence. What the patients soon realized, however, is that the device caused severe internal damage, intense pain, and other related injuries.

To recover damages against a medical device manufacturer, the plaintiff must show that the defendant’s device bears an unreasonably dangerous design or that the device possesses a defect that occurred during the manufacturing process that renders the device unreasonably dangerous. The overwhelming majority of plaintiffs bringing claims against TVM manufacturers claim that the devices are unreasonably dangerous.

Once the U.S. Food and Drug Administration started receiving complaints about the health effects of these devices, it launched an investigation into multiple brands of TVM products, issuing warning letters to some and ordering others to perform post-market studies on the TVM products’ safety.

Continue reading →

Published on: December 16, 2015

Las Escuelas Publicas Disfrutan un Nivel de Inmunidad por Lesiones a Estudiantes

By Moll Law Group

La escuelas son costosas de operar. Existen salarios que pagar, edificios que calentar, y libros y computadoras que comprar. La lista de gastos es interminable. Con tantos gastos, lo distritos escolares públicos tienen hemorragias en las costuras. Para mantenerse a flote, los administradores escolares se encargan de encontrar la manera de reducir los costos de manera que no disminuye la educación de un niño o poner a un estudiante en un alto riesgo de daños. Esto es algo difícil de balancear, y a veces los administradores se equivocan.

Si un niño es lesionado en una escuela publica por las acciones de un empleado escolar, puede ser difícil obtener compensación por las heridas del niño en una corte de ley. En Illinois, para sobresalir en una demanda en contra del distrito escolar por daños a un estudiante, debe de ser comprobado que el empleado del distrito actuó con imprudencia, que es generalmente igualado con un desprecio intencionado a la seguridad del estudiante. Esto es un estándar mas alto que la mayoría de otros casos de daños y perjuicios, en cual un demandante solo debe comprobar que la negligencia de otra persona, o la falla en tomar cuidado razonable bajo las circunstancias, causo sus lesiones.

Aunque el estándar es mas alto en casos en contra de distritos escolares, no son imposibles de ganar. Si un empleado del distrito escolar tiene conocimiento previo de una condición peligrosa que existe en la propiedad de la escuela y falla en arreglar la condición antes de que el niño se lesionado, por ejemplo, eso puede ser desprecio intencional. Lo mismo es cierto de una maestra que desprecia una carta de un doctor sobre la condición medica, si el estudiante es lesionado como resultado.

Continue reading →

Published on: December 16, 2015

Public Schools Enjoy Some Level of Immunity for Injuries to Students

By Moll Law Group

Schools are expensive to operate. There are salaries to pay, buildings to heat, and books and computers to buy. The list of expenses is endless. With so many expenses, public school districts are hemorrhaging at the seams. To stay afloat, school administrators are charged with figuring out how to cut costs in a way that does not diminish a child’s education or put a student at increased risk of harm. This is a difficult balancing act, and sometimes administrators get it wrong.

If a child is injured in a public school because of the actions of a school employee, it can be difficult to obtain compensation for the child’s injuries in a court of law. In Illinois, in order to prevail in a lawsuit against a school district for injuries to a student, it must be proven that an employee of the district acted with recklessness, which is generally equated with a willful or wanton disregard for a student’s safety. This is a higher standard than in most other personal injury cases, in which a plaintiff must only prove that another person’s negligence, or failure to take reasonable care under the circumstances, caused his or her injuries.

Even though the standard is higher in cases against school districts, it is not impossible to overcome. If a school district employee has prior knowledge of a dangerous condition that exists on school property and fails to fix or repair the condition before a child is injured, for example, this may amount to recklessness. The same is true of a teacher who disregards a doctor’s note about a student’s medical condition, if the student is harmed as a result.

Continue reading →

Published on: December 15, 2015

Jury Awards $11 Million to Bellweather Plaintiff In Wright Medical Defective Hip Implant Litigation

By Moll Law Group

One of the first bellweather trials in the Wright Medical metallic hip implant litigation went to trial earlier this month, and the jury returned a verdict of $1 million in compensatory damages and $10 million in punitive damages. A bellweather trial is part of a multi-district litigation (MDL). Like a lead plaintiff in a class action lawsuit, the bellweather plaintiff’s claim is used to test the legitimacy of the plaintiffs’ claims and to help the parties get some picture of what common issues of law, fact, and damages might look like for the other claimants in the MDL.

In a product liability action, the plaintiff needs to prove that the defendant’s product was defective. This can be done in two ways: by showing that the product bears an unreasonably dangerous design, or by showing that the particular device that the plaintiff received suffered a manufacturing defect that rendered the product unreasonably dangerous.

Continue reading →

Published on: December 14, 2015

When Food Poisoning Strikes, Compensation May Be Available

By Moll Law Group

When families go out to eat, whether for Sunday brunch or a birthday dinner, they expect their food to not only taste good but also be safely prepared. This is true for the fanciest restaurants as well as the fast food restaurant on the corner. It is also true for food purchased at the grocery store or served via home delivery.

Unfortunately, however, food is not always as safe as it should be. Sometimes this results in an upset stomach that resolves itself after a couple of days and that a customer may not even attribute to food he or she recently ate. But sometimes food poisoning can cause serious health problems or even death.

One of the more common and well known sources of food contamination is the E. coli bacteria, which lives in the intestines of certain animals. The most common symptoms of E. coli are diarrhea, abdominal cramping, nausea, and vomiting. In more serious cases, kidney failure may occur. This most commonly occurs in children and those with compromised immune systems, like the elderly.

Continue reading →

Published on: December 12, 2015

Boston Scientific Issues Class I Recall for Chariot Guided Sheath Medical Device

By Moll Law Group

Earlier this month, medical device manufacturer Boston Scientific announced that it has initiated a voluntary recall of its Chariot Guiding Sheath devices (CGS). The CGS devices were designed and manufactured to be used in peripheral vascular procedures. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration, which is responsible for overseeing the approval and safety of medical devices, among other things, has labeled the recall a Class I, the highest and most serious level of recall that the agency issues. The agency’s website defines a Class I recall as “a situation in which there is a reasonable probability that the use of or exposure to a violative product will cause serious adverse health consequences or death.”

According to the recall, Boston Scientific has received reports that at least 14 of the CGS devices experienced shaft separation issues and other related issues that created complications in patients who were implanted with the CGS device. According to its statement announcing the recall, separation of the shaft can lead to life-threatening injuries like embolisms, blood flow obstruction, and emergency surgery to remove the device or its fragments.

Continue reading →

Published on: December 11, 2015

Former Football Players May Be Entitled to Compensation for Head Injuries

By Moll Law Group

For years, many former professional football players struggled with a constellation of neurological and mental health symptoms of unknown etiology. Many players believed that their symptoms were the result of their days on the gridiron, but clear explanations were rarely forthcoming.

More recently, the base of evidence has grown to indicate that repeated blows to the head, especially those involving concussions, can cause severe neurological impairments and a condition called Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy (CTE). While symptoms may be mild at first, retired players may ultimately be plagued by Alzheimer’s disease, Parkinson’s disease, Lou Gehrig’s disease (ALS), and severe dementia as a result of their playing days. CTE is also associated with extreme depression and even suicide.

As a result of their debilitating conditions, more than 5,000 former players sued the National Football League (NFL) for failing to warn them of the dangers of repeated concussions, and even concealing those dangers. These lawsuits were ultimately consolidated into a class action lawsuit, which also alleged that the NFL knew or should have known of the risks associated with frequent blows to the head.

Continue reading →

Published on: December 10, 2015

Mississippi Court Dismisses Medical Device Action Against Foreign Manufacturer

By Moll Law Group

In Arnoult v. CL Med. Sarl, a product liability case, the plaintiff filed suit against the manufacturer of a mid-urethral sling intended to treat stress urinary incontinence. The device, called an I-STOP, was manufactured by a company based in France called CLMS, which sold the device in the United States. The device was distributed by another company called Uroplasty, which the plaintiff also sued in her product liability action.

In her complaint, the plaintiff alleged claims of design and warning defects pursuant to Mississippi’s Products Liability Act, in addition to actions based on negligence, breach of express and implied warranties, fraud by concealment, fraud, negligent infliction of emotional distress, negligent misrepresentation, and loss of consortium.

Continue reading →

Published on: December 9, 2015

FDA Approves First Genetically Engineered Animal for Human Consumption

By Moll Law Group

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) made major headlines this week when it granted approval for the first genetically engineered animal intended for human consumption. Dubbed AquAvantage salmon, the fish are designed to reach harvest maturity much faster than their non-genetically modified counterparts.

The approval has many consumers leery of genetically modified foods concerned because the FDA did not require the maker of the salmon, AquaBounty, to label the fish as genetically modified. Instead, the fish can be marketed and sold under the name “Atlantic Salmon.” FDA approval for genetically modified foods involves a determination of whether the altered food item in question is materially different from its non-genetically altered counterparts.

Stated differently, the FDA does not require a genetically modified food to be labeled as such unless the genetically engineered food is found to materially differ from its non-genetically engineered counterpart.

Continue reading →

Published on: December 8, 2015

Child Birth Injuries and Medical Malpractice Claims

By Moll Law Group

Everybody hopes for a healthy baby. Nowadays, pregnant mothers are tested and retested for dangerous genetic conditions that can cause a baby to be born with severe impairments, and multiple ultrasounds of a baby in utero are not uncommon even during healthy pregnancies.

Despite these precautions, sometimes medical errors are made during a mother’s pregnancy or at the time of birth that cause a child to be born with significant impairments or even die during childbirth. In Illinois, these errors may amount to negligence, or what is called medical malpractice. Medical malpractice occurs in childbirth cases when a doctor or hospital employee fails to provide the same level of care that other obstetric healthcare providers would provide under similar circumstances, and this failure, or breach, causes an injury to a baby.

Birth injuries come in many forms. Sometimes, the injuries are physical, and a baby’s shoulders or arms possess limited function as a result of a doctor’s malpractice. Other times, the injuries are to a baby’s brain. Perhaps a doctor made an improper use of a birthing tool or failed to provide a timely Cesarean section procedure, and the error resulted in a baby having severe brain damage that may last a lifetime or may even result in death.

Continue reading →