Articles Posted in Product Liability

Military veterans around the United States have sued the manufacturers of 3M Combat Arms Earplugs V2. Their lawsuits allege the earplugs caused the loss of hearing and tinnitus they were supposed to protect against. The litigation came on the heels of the settlement of a whistleblower lawsuit that alleged 3M knowingly sold the government defective combat earplugs and that the defect decreased the protection afforded to servicemembers by the earplugs. In a whistleblower lawsuit, damages go to the government and the whistleblower. Those servicemen and women who were injured still have product liability claims pending in multidistrict litigation. Bellwether trials that give both sides a sense of whether the claims will be successful have already commenced and are scheduled through January. If you believe you suffered hearing loss or tinnitus due to the 3M Combat Arms Earplugs, it’s important to talk to our seasoned Chicago lawyers right away. Billions have been recovered in product liability lawsuits with which we’ve been involved. We represent consumers across the country.

Talk to Moll Law Group to See if You Have a 3M Claim

Multidistrict litigation gives both sides a sense of whether claims against a manufacturer are likely to be successful and give both sides a sense of the value of their cases based on how similar those cases are to ones that have already gone to trial. The 3M court ordered a series of bellwether trials. For the first trial, there were three plaintiffs: the defendant picked one of the plaintiffs, the plaintiff picked a plaintiff, and the judge picked a plaintiff. Seven bellwether trials have been conducted in total, with a recent massive victory for plaintiffs in the Finley case. It had the most sizable verdict among the bellwether trials, including a punitive damages award. The plaintiff’s award was $7.5 million in compensatory damages and $15 million in punitive damages.

The next bellwether trial in the litigation began as scheduled this month. In the trial, there are two claims being tried together. 3M had filed a motion to continue the trial earlier in January because defense counsel had tested positive for COVID-19, but this motion was denied. The judge determined that lawyers with positive tests could still come out of quarantine by January 9.

Continue reading →

Many people use continuous positive air pressure (CPAP) machines because they have sleep apnea, a common condition. Symptoms of sleep apnea that CPAP machines are meant to address include excessive daytime sleepiness, heavy snoring, memory difficulties and fatigue. When sleep apnea isn’t treated, the result can be depression, diabetes, heart disease, or high blood pressure. However, in 2021, Philips Respironics, which makes CPAP and BiPAP machines, along with ventilators, issued a voluntary recall because the polyester-based polyurethane (PE-PUR) sound abatement foam used in some of its machines carry health risks. CPAP lawsuits are likely to arise over the course of the coming year, 2022. If you were harmed by a CPAP machine, or believe you may have been, you should call the seasoned Chicago-based lawyers of Moll Law Group. Billions have been recovered in cases with which we’ve been involved.

The devices affected by the recall were made between 2009 and 2021. The warning from CPAP machine manufacturer Philips Respironics indicates that the PE-PUR foam used in its machines can degrade and enter the air pathway of the device. A consumer could develop serious, even fatal injuries, from inhaling black debris and chemicals from this foam. Consumers have been encouraged to get their devices repaired or replaced. As of October 2021, the manufacturer had made around 750,000 repair kits and replacement devices. It expects that the process of replacing all the affected devices could take around 12 months. But what if you have already been harmed by your CPAP machine?

Give Us a Call If You Believe You Might Have a CPAP Claim

If you were injured by your CPAP, you may have viable grounds to bring a product liability lawsuit against Philips Respironics and you should give us a call to talk about your situation. Product liability lawsuits can be filed against manufacturers in connection with manufacturing, marketing, or design defects in their products when those defects harm consumers. Those with successful lawsuits may be able to recover compensation for their losses including medical bills, lost wages, loss of enjoyment of life, and pain and suffering.

Continue reading →

Product liability lawsuits continue to be filed against manufacturer Abbott Laboratories for failing to warn parents that their baby formula Similac may cause premature infants to suffer from necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC), which is a very serious gastrointestinal infection. A motion has been made to consolidate 33 NEC lawsuits against the manufacturer in Illinois. If you believe your premature baby developed NEC due to Abbott Laboratories’ Similac formula, you should call the Chicago-based product liability attorneys of Moll Law Group. Billions have been recovered in cases with which we’ve been involved.

Discuss Your Potential NEC Claim with Moll Law Group

When you feed your baby, you trust that what you’re providing is reasonably safe for him or her to consume. Unfortunately, recent studies show that formulas made from cow’s milk, such as Similac, are dangerous for premature infants. In premature infants, there is an increased risk of the baby developing an extremely dangerous infection of their bowels called necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC) as a result of consuming cow’s milk. When a baby develops this infection, the tissue in his or her intestines decays rapidly, eventually resulting in perforations in the tissue of the intestinal wall. Bacteria then has an opening to leak into the abdominal cavity and can rapidly grow into a widespread systemic infection and sepsis.

A premature baby can develop mild, moderate, or severe NEC as a result of Similac. While a mild case isn’t life-threatening, a severe case can have permanent, even fatal consequences when it’s not properly diagnosed and treated. There is scientific evidence that dates back to the 1990s that connects Similac and preemies, but the more recent evidence is considered conclusive, such that the American Academy of Pediatrics strongly warns parents and caregivers not to feed Similac to premature infants.

Continue reading →

Recently, another lawsuit was filed on behalf of a farm worker alleging neurological injuries related to his application of paraquat, an herbicide, to farmlands to desiccate crops prior to planting new ones. Like many other lawsuits related to the herbicide, his complaint alleges failure to warn, design defects, negligence, breach of warranties, and public nuisance. Like many other plaintiffs, his injuries are consistent with Parkinson’s disease. Litigation against manufacturers of Paraquat, such as Syngenta and Growmark, has been ongoing since 2017. In December, Case Management Order 12 was issued for multidistrict litigation in Illinois. If you believe you may have suffered neurological injuries due to Paraquat exposure, you may have a claim for damages. Call the experienced Chicago product liability lawyers of Moll Law Group to discuss your case. Billions have been recovered in lawsuits with which we’ve been involved.

Studies conducted on animals have found that paraquat can do damage to dopaminergic neurons in the brain. It is, in fact, the agent used by scientists to produce Parkinson’s symptoms in animals because it is so effective at creating neurological injuries. Lawsuits are underway in federal courts across the country.

Consult Our Chicago-Based Lawyers About Your Injuries Arising Out of Paraquat

In Illinois, discovery, or the process by which each side gains information about the other side’s arguments and evidence, is now underway in the paraquat multidistrict litigation. Case Management Order 12 specifies that limited fact discovery for certain cases must be complete by March 31, 2022. The limited fact discovery allowed includes written fact sheets, requested documents, and up to 3 depositions per plaintiff. The defendant manufacturers can take depositions of the plaintiff, or a family member of the plaintiff, the plaintiff’s treating doctor, and a fact witness who can attest to the paraquat exposure. In order to get discovery beyond these three depositions, the manufacturer and plaintiff must agree or get the court’s permission.

Continue reading →

You may have used prescription strength Zantac, a heartburn drug, to treat and stop stomach ulcers and address gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). It’s important to be aware, however, that Zantac has been linked to cancer and discontinued. On October 8^th, a federal judge presiding over the Zantac multidistrict litigation ruled that the brand manufacturers of Zantac — GlaxoSmithKline, Sanofi, Pfizer, and Boehringer Ingelheim — should face lawsuits by people formerly prescribed the drug. If you were harmed by Zantac, you should call the experienced Chicago product liability lawyers of Moll Law Group. Billions have been recovered in cases with which we’ve been involved around the country.

The court denied requests by manufacturers that it dismiss a class action related to the drug’s marketing and severe health issues. Additionally, however, the court ruled to dismiss all generic manufacturer cases; only cases against brand manufacturers may continue.

Losses from Zantac Use

The Zantac multidistrict litigation was pursued by patients prescribed Zantac who developed cancer and sustained losses as a result. Lawsuits allege that the drug’s active ingredient is an unstable molecule and that the Zantac drug label did not properly warn the public that a risk of cancer existed.

Continue reading →