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

REQUEST FREE CONSULTATION
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 →

Published on:

By

Surgeries carry high risks, even those considered “routine” procedures. Patients trust their surgeons to provide them with the necessary care. However, even surgeons can make mistakes. Some mistakes have minor consequences, while others are fatal.

In order to demonstrate a medical malpractice claim arising from an alleged surgical error, the plaintiff must show that the treating medical provider’s conduct fell below the applicable standard of care. Under Illinois law, doctors and other medical providers must provide treatment that meets the accepted level of care of other similarly situated medical providers under the circumstances. An individual must also have suffered an injury that was the result of the medical provider’s error. Finally, the plaintiff must prove that their injury was the result of the physician’s negligent conduct.

Surgical errors can occur for a number of reasons. The surgeon may be inexperienced, unprepared, careless, fatigued, or under the influence, or may fail to communicate necessary information to the patient. Errors made during surgery can result in physical injuries, as well as emotional pain, including depression and anxiety.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

For many of us, pharmaceuticals can offer a life-saving alternative to suffering from terrible conditions and injuries. In some unfortunate situations, however, certain pharmaceutical companies fail to appropriately design, manufacture, and market their drug products. One such example is Xarelto, a drug that is designed as a blood thinner. Now, thousands of lawsuits alleging health problems associated with taking Xarelto are pending in a multi-district litigation proceeding in the Eastern District of Louisiana.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) approved the drug for administration to patients who underwent knee or hip replacements to help reduce blood clots and associated risks. In the fall of 2011, the FDA broadened the approval of Xarelto to help treat patients who experience an irregular heartbeat, also known as atrial fibrillation. It is currently believed that millions of individuals have been prescribed Xarelto since it first hit the market.

Some patients taking Xarelto have reported suffering severe health consequences associated with the drug. Blood thinners can cause unwanted gastrointestinal bleeding and other conditions of a hemorrhaging nature. In response to these issues, the FDA issued two black box warnings. This is the strictest warning that the FDA can impose on a pharmaceutical product. To assign a black box warning, the FDA must find reasonable evidence that the drug is associated with a serious hazard.

Continue reading →

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 →

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.

California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) Opt-Out IconYour Privacy Choices Cookie Policy Manage Cookies

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 © 2026, Moll Law Group
JUSTIA Law Firm Blog Design