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

REQUEST FREE CONSULTATION
Published on:

By

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:

By

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:

By

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:

By

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:

By

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:

By

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:

By

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:

By

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 →

Published on:

By

There are very few people who have not visited an emergency room at some point in their lives. Even the most cautious person can slip and fall, or cut their finger with a kitchen knife, and end up being taken to the emergency room. In addition to emergency rooms, urgent care centers are becoming more and more common as an alternative to traditional hospital emergency rooms. For some patients, urgent care centers are more convenient than a trip to the doctor’s office or a crowded emergency room.

No matter the venue, when a patient is in need of immediate medical care, the doctors charged with providing that care must provide the same level of care that other physicians, practicing urgent or emergency medicine, would provide under similar circumstances, taking into account a patient’s age and medical history. If they don’t, and their failure to meet these standards results in an injury or death to a patient, they may be liable for medical malpractice. Another name for medical malpractice is medical “negligence.”

For many patients, the worst part of an emergency room visit is the long wait before being seen. Hours after arriving at the emergency room doors, they are sent home with stitches, medication, or both. Usually, they return home tired but relatively healthy.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

With advances in medical technology, many medical procedures that used to be daunting are now routine. Patients often arrive at a hospital or surgical center early in the morning and leave by mid-afternoon with few after-effects from the procedure or anesthesia. Many are able to even return to work the next day.

For doctors, medical procedures are an effective way of monitoring for certain conditions or diagnosing a new illness. Procedures are also lucrative medical treatments, and the more procedures a doctor squeezes in during a day, the more money the practice or hospital is reimbursed by insurance companies.

Companies that design and manufacture medical devices also stand to profit significantly from the widespread use of one of their devices. In some cases, the race to bring new products to the market results in great innovations, with patients benefiting from less invasive but equally effective procedures. In other cases, however, the drive for profits may cause a company to overlook faulty equipment and rush a product to market. Companies may also provide doctors with inadequate instructions on how to use or clean a 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