Illinois Injury and Mass Tort Lawyer Blog

Recently, 3M agreed to pay $6.01 billion to settle lawsuits that cover about 240,000 military veterans and service members who sued due to hearing loss they alleged was the result of the manufacturers’ Combat Arms earplugs. Earlier this year, 3M tried to move the lawsuits into bankruptcy court to avoid being held liable for the full scope of damages; the deal failed.

Aearo Technologies made the Combat Arms earplugs, which the military used to train service members, including those in Iraq and Afghanistan, from 2003-2015. 3M bought Aearo. When they sued, the plaintiffs alleged that the manufacturer had concealed design flaws, altered test results, and failed to provide proper instructions for the earplugs, and that, as a result they suffered hearing loss, tinnitus and other hearing damage. Plaintiffs claimed that the defendants had used their own lab to test the earplugs and used improper testing procedures that skewed the results of a mandatory test, in order to get a different Noise Reduction Rating label than it should have gotten.

In 2019, the 3M lawsuits were consolidated before a federal judge in Florida. Aearo filed for bankruptcy in 2022, but the bankruptcy judge dismissed it on the grounds that Aearo was financially healthy and therefore shouldn’t pursue bankruptcy. In the course of the 3M litigation, 16 earplug cases went to trial. The manufacturer lost 10 cases, and around $265 million was awarded to the plaintiffs. The verdicts are included as part of the $6.01 billion settlement.

Continue reading →

Recently, a family was awarded $800,000 in a civil lawsuits against McDonald’s and one of its franchises because their toddler was burned by hot Chicken McNuggets. The hot McNuggets fell from a Happy Meal onto the toddler’s legs, inflicting second-degree burns, similar to the earlier lawsuit from the ‘90s involving burning hot coffee. If you were injured by burning hot food, consult the seasoned Chicago-based lawyers of Moll Law Group. Billions have been recovered in cases with which we’ve been involved.

Call Moll Law Group About Your Claim

The jury found that both the corporation and the franchise owner, Upchurch Foods, should be held accountable for failing to warn or give proper instructions on the possibility of injuries from hot nuggets dispensed at a drive through.

The damages award is intended to compensate for disfigurement, mental anguish, inconvenience, loss of enjoyment of life and pain and suffering. These damages are intended to make up for past harm suffered by the toddler and her family, along with future injuries that the jury determined are likely to be suffered in the future. Continue reading →

It was recently reported that a plaintiff who claimed he developed cancer from exposure to Johnson & Johnson baby powder won $18.8 million in damages from the manufacturer. This case is distinct from the gynecological cancer claims arising out of thousands of talc-based products. The plaintiff filed suit asking for monetary damages because he’d developed mesothelioma, a deadly cancer, in his heart tissue due to significant exposures to the company’s talc products since his childhood. The six week trial was the first talc lawsuit the company faced in over 2 years. If you suffered from cancer or were injured due to Johnson & Johnson talc product use or exposure, consult the seasoned Chicago-based lawyers of Moll Law Group. Billions have been recovered in cases with which we’ve been involved.

Talk to Moll Law Group About Your Claim

The jury awarded the plaintiff damages to compensate him for pain and suffering and medical expenses. The man was not awarded punitive damages. Additionally, the plaintiff won’t be able to collect the judgment in the future because of a bankruptcy court order that froze most of the talc litigation.

The company’s VP of litigation has announced that Johnson & Johnson will appeal. He reiterated that the baby powder is safe and isn’t carcinogenic and doesn’t contain asbestos. In the course of closing arguments at the jury trial, the company’s attorneys also said there wasn’t evidence that connected the plaintiff’s mesothelioma to asbestos or establishing that the plaintiff was exposed to the contaminated talc. The plaintiff, meanwhile, argued that the company had covered up the contamination for decades.

Continue reading →

Recently, in an important ruling for plaintiffs, a bankruptcy judge rejected Johnson & Johnson’s ploy to restrict the talc-related lawsuits against it, finding that the Johnson & Johnson’s bankruptcy petition was filed in bad faith. This was the second time the company was prevented from trying to limit its own exposure and settle lawsuits that allege its talc-based products cause cancer.  If you suffered from cancer due to Johnson & Johnson talc use, consult the seasoned Chicago-based lawyers of Moll Law Group. Billions have been recovered in cases with which we’ve been involved.

Call Moll Law Group About Your Claim

Tens of thousands of women have claimed that they suffer from gynecological cancers because they used Johnson & Johnson’s talc products. They claim that Johnson & Johnson knew about the risks that attended use of its talc products, including the baby powder for which the company is famous. In order to shield itself, the company created LTL Management, a subsidiary, and asked the court to allow the subsidiary, which filed for bankruptcy, to be able to pay $8.9 billion in order to resolve all the lawsuits against Johnson & Johnson.

Judge Michael Kaplan of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of New Jersey ruled for dismissal of the bankruptcy case because, he reasoned, the plaintiffs’ lawsuits don’t place the company in imminent financial distress. During after-hours trading, the company’s shares dropped nearly 2%. The first bankruptcy effort was dismissed for the same reason by the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in Philadelphia. Continue reading →

VRURC portable chargers that are sold exclusively on Amazon.com were recently recalled. One caught fire on a commercial flight. These chargers include cables and a built-in wall plug. They have a model number “OD-B7,” which is printed on the back of the recalled chargers, which were solid in white, red, pink, orange, green, blue and black. If you have one of these chargers, you should stop using it. The seasoned Chicago-based attorneys of Moll Law Group may be able to represent you in a product liability lawsuit if you were burned or suffered other injuries due to the VRURC portable charger. Billions have been recovered in other product liability lawsuits with which we’ve been involved.

Call Moll Law Group About Your Portable Charger Claim

While consumers have been asked to immediately cease use of the recalled chargers and to ask the manufacturer for a free replacement, this remedy may not address the losses associated with burns or other injuries inflicted by the defective product. Between July 2021-May 2023, the portable chargers were sold exclusively online at Amazon for $30 -$40.

The recall number was 23-238. Around 190,000 were affected. Built-in cables with various kinds of connectors are attached to the chargers, and there is also a built-in wall plug.

Continue reading →

Recently, the manufacturer recalled all sizes of woom ORIGINAL 2018 – 2021 model bikes through the fast track process. The bike’s stems for the handlebars appears to have a defect. Consumers have been asked to stop using these bikes. When a child is injured by a defective bike, a family may be unprepared for the bills and grief they suffer as a result of their child’s pain—if your child was injured by the bike, you may be able to seek remedies through a product liability lawsuits. The seasoned Chicago-based product liability lawyers of Moll Law Group may be able to help you. Billions have been recovered in product liability lawsuits with which we’ve been involved.

Call Moll Law Group About Your Claim

The woom bikes were recalled due to 77 reports that the handlebar stem of its bikes detach or loosen. Injuries suffered by children so far have included bruising, cuts, and abrasions.

You should take a look at your child’s bike to see if it is affected by the recall. The stems on woom bicycles have a single silver bolt to clamp onto a steerer tube. The bikes are red, green, blue, yellow, and purple and were designed for children between 18 months and 14 years. Six versions of this bike were sold and the word “woom” appears in white lettering on the downtube, and a metallic “woom” is visible on the front of the headtube. Woom bikes also have markings in black letters on the chain stay and the wheel size on the front fork’s sides. Woom 2 through 6 are pedal bikes, while woom 1 and woom 1 PLUS are balance bikes.

Continue reading →

Between January 2003-December 2021, 284 entrapment deaths were reported in connection with adult portable bed rails. The United States Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) is taking steps to protect vulnerable consumers from becoming injured through entrapment with these rails. To that end, it has released a new federal mandatory safety standard. If your loved one suffered suffocation or other injuries through entrapment because of adult portable bed rails, you should consult the experienced Chicago-based product liability lawyers of Moll Law Group about whether you have a viable claim for damages. Billions have been recovered in lawsuits with which we’ve been involved.

Consult Moll Law Group About a Bed Rail Claim

The CPSC has voted to adopt a mandatory safety standard for adult portable bedrails in order to address the risk of entrapment, and thereby reduce the number of injuries and deaths. The standard mandates certain steps be taken in connection with all adult portable bed rails sold in the country and manufactured after the effective date. First, the standard institutes a mandatory performance requirement. Second, companies are supposed to use a certain test procedure to reduce the changes of entrapment and other dangers linked to the use of adult portable bed rails.

Issues with Philips Respironics’ CPAP machines, ventilators and other respiratory devices led to a major recall of certain models. The FDA received reports that the polyester-based polyurethane (PE-PUR) foam used in these breathing support device. Recently, the recall notice was updated with important new information. Over the past year, the FDA has received over 69,000 complaints with regard to Philips’ recall of its breathing support devices. This is an incredible number of complaints, particularly since the company had gotten only 30 similar reports in the ten years before the product was recalled in June 2021. Most post-recall complaints came in within the last 3 months when it updated its safety notice for the recall. If you were injured as the result of a Philips breathing support device, call the trustworthy Chicago-based lawyers of Moll Law Group. We represent clients around the country in these breathing support device cases, and other lawsuits involving defective products. Billions have been recovered in lawsuits with which we’ve been involved.

Consult Moll Law Group About Your Case Against Philips

In March, the FDA had ordered the manufacturer Philips Respironics to let all impacted users, distributors, suppliers, and retailers know that breathing support devices had been recalled. The recall was based on the breakdown of polyester-based polyurethane foam used to dampen sound and vibrations in the devices. This could send foam particles and chemicals into the patient’s airstream. The agency had noted that the manufacturer’s efforts to let consumers know up to that point had been insufficient.

Later, Philips expanded the recall to include more devices containing foam; the recall affected around 5.5 million machines made between 2009-April 2021. Most of the 48,000 post-recall medical device complaints came in between May 1- July 31. Death associated with using the breathing support device was reported 44 times. More than 300 separate lawsuits were filed as of August 15. For comparison, there were around 21,000 device reports, including 124 deaths connected to the recall in April 2022.

Continue reading →

Instant Pot is an extremely popular kitchen appliance, a multicooker that allows consumers to make large meals easily. Recently, however, Instant Brands, the parent company of Instant Pot, Corning Ware, and Pyrex, filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy. The multicooker market has become saturated after years of good sales and demand during the pandemic—it was the top selling unit on Amazon Prime Day in 2015 with 215,000 orders and bloggers wrote and generated trend pieces about it. After an initial surge of demand during the pandemic, the pot is no longer doing well. The item isn’t seen as a kitchen accessory, and Instant Brands has made a number of other products, such as air fryers and coffee machines, to expand its line; they have not been as popular. In the 12 month period ending in April 23, the sales of Instant Pot and other multicookers fell by 20% compared to the 12 month period prior. If you were injured by Instant Pot, you may have a claim. You should call the seasoned Chicago product liability lawyers of Moll Law Group. Billions have been recovered in cases with which we’ve been involved.

Consult Moll Law Group About Your Instant Pot or Other Product Liability Claim

With mass litigation, each plaintiff is treated as an individual with individual damages. These damages may be essential to plaintiffs and their families who have suffered serious injuries as a result of using a defendant’s product. Treating plaintiffs as individuals with clearly independent claims for damages differentiates mass litigation from class actions, in which many plaintiffs join a single lawsuit. Mass litigation can force companies to change policies that harm consumers or others. Corporations that do not want to change claim that the system is broken and try to use bankruptcy to manage the claims against it, rather than allow these claims to go before a jury.

It’s not clear what the outcome will be of the Chapter 11 bankruptcy. Sometimes companies do get financially stable through the bankruptcy reorganization process. This process can allow the company to get rid of liabilities. However, the process often fails, too, and may take on more debt and need to file for liquidation under Chapter 7.

Continue reading →