Product Liability

Published on: April 14, 2022

Recall of Sure and Brut Aerosol Sprays

deodorant-g44ebc4c3b_640 In February 2022, manufacturer HRB Brands voluntarily recalled its Sure and Brut Aerosol sprays, which are used as antiperspirants or deodorants to stop or mask body odor. This recall was instituted because benzene, which is carcinogenic, was present in the product. Most of these sprays were distributed in the United States with one spray, Brut Aerosol Deodorant, distributed in Canada. Consumers have been advised to stop using recalled sprays when the expiration date is on or before August 2023. If you were harmed by the recalled Sure or Brut Aerosol sprays or another aerosol spray that contained benzene, you should give the seasoned Chicago product liability lawyers of Moll Law Group a call. Billions have been recovered in cases with which we were involved.

Call Moll Law Group If You Were Harmed by an Aerosol Spray

The voluntary recall of Sure and Brut Aerosol sprays affects all lot numbers that expired on or before August 2023 Benzene isn’t listed as an ingredient in these products; the unanticipated benzene levels come from the propellant spraying the substance from the can. Benzene is a human carcinogen that can occur through inhalation, oral consumption, or through the skin. Benzene is prevalent in the environment and people around the world are exposed to it daily both indoors and outdoors, but sometimes exposures result in cancers like leukemia and blood cancer of the bone marrow, along with life-threatening blood disorders. Helen of Troy Limited owned and distributed the product before June 7, 2021.

Distributors and retailers have been told to stop distribution of the affected aerosol sprays. If you have questions about the recall, you can contact TCP HOT Acquisition LLC, dba HRB Brands by calling 1-866-615-0976 Monday to Friday from 8:30am–5pm (PT). You can request a product refund as a remedy. However, if you suspect you were injured or made sick by the product, you should call a doctor or healthcare provider and notify the FDA’s MedWatch Adverse Event Reporting program about your adverse reactions or quality problems.

Continue reading →

Published on: April 8, 2022

Recall of Airborne Gummies

By Moll Law Group

Reckitt voluntarily recalled certain bottles of 63-count and 75-count Airborne Gummies because it was found that when the bottle is opened for the first time, pressure built up within the bottle presents the possibility of injury. Bottles of gummies that have already been opened do not present this danger to consumers and others. Around 3.7 million units of this product have already been sold. If you were harmed by a bottle of Airborne gummies, you should give the experienced Chicago-based product liability attorneys of Moll Law Group a call. Billions have been recovered in cases with which we’ve been involved.

Discuss a Claim with the Moll Law Group

Certain Airborne Gummies were recalled in cooperation with the United States Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC). When pressure builds up in the recalled bottles, the cap and seal may fly off forcefully. However, not all Airborne Gummies were recalled. Rather, the recall affected only bottles with certain flavors distributed in the United States between May 2020 – February 2022. The affected flavors were assorted fruit, orange, and blueberry pomegranate. Elderberry and Honey Lemon are not affected by the recall. Consumers have been advised not to open the product; you should use a lot code search tool to figure out whether your bottle is included in the recall. As a consumer, you can contact Reckitt to return an unopened, affected bottle and get a full refund. The item can be returned using postage-paid labeling. However, bottles that have already been opened aren’t subject to the recall because the pressure has already been released from them. Additionally, you should be aware that the gummies inside aren’t affected by the build-up of pressure and may still be consumed.

However, what if you were injured by a bottle that you opened when the cap came flying off? You may be able to recover compensation through a lawsuit against the manufacturer of the bottle. In a product liability lawsuit, it is alleged that a particular product is defective with regard to its marketing, design, or manufacturing. Marketing defects tend to involve failure to warn.

Continue reading →

Published on: March 30, 2022

Fitbit Recalls Its Smart Watches Due to Burn Risks

By Moll Law Group

woman-g233a70add_640-300x200 The Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) has announced Fitbit’s March 2, 2022 recall of its Iconic smart watches due to the risk of burn injuries. The company found that the lithium-ion battery in its smartwatch may overheat. Around 1 million affected Fitbits have been sold around the country. The remedy if you have this smartwatch, is a refund. However, if you were burned by a Fitbit or any other smart watch, you should consult the seasoned Chicago-based product liability lawyers of Moll Law Group about whether you have grounds to sue for damages. Billions have been recovered in cases with which we’ve been involved.

Call the Product Liability Lawyers of the Moll Law Group About a Defective Smartwatch

The smartwatches involved in the recall are the Fitbit Iconic Smartwatches, which are sold with a polyurethane band and that have a 1.4 inch color LCD screen. Watches are sold in different colors including combinations that feature smoke gray, burnt around, ink blue, silver gray, and slate blue. One of them is cobranded with Adidas. The smartwatch tracks sleep, heart rate, and activity. The recalled Iconic smart watch has a model number, FB503, printed on the back of the device close to where the band connects to the watch.

The company has received at least 115 reports in America, as well as 59 reports from around the world that the battery overheats. Seventy-eight people have reported burn injuries in America; these included 2 reports of third-degree burns and 4 reports of second-degree burns. There have been 40 reports of burn injuries across the globe.

Continue reading →

Published on: March 16, 2022

CPSC Complaint Against Leachco for the Podsters

By Moll Law Group

newborn-gc398873d0_640-300x200 Leachco, Inc. manufacturers infant loungers called the “Podsters.” After reports of two infant deaths in connection with these loungers, the company refused to undertake a voluntary recall. The United States Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) filed an administrative complaint about the loungers against Leachco. The complaints concern Leachco’s Podster, Podster Plush, Bummzie and Podster Playtime. If your baby was suffocated in one of the Podsters, or another infant lounger, you should consult the seasoned Chicago-based product liability lawyers of Moll Law Group about whether you have recourse. We represent clients around the country. Billions have been recovered in lawsuits with which we’ve been involved.

Give the Product Liability Lawyers of the Moll Law Group A Call

Podsters measure 71-75 inches in circumference and are about 23.75 by 21.5 by 8 inches. They’re designed with a removable cover with a core of elastic nylon-spandex and padded insert and come in a variety of prints. Around 180,000 Podsters have been sold. However, the CPSC found in January that public safety required a warning of the suffocation hazard the Podster presents. In an administrative complaint filed against Leachco, the CPSC Chair noted that the Commission wouldn’t ignore products that put vulnerable infants at unnecessary risk and that the CPSC was filing the complaint as a last resort because the manufacturer had failed to respond to safety concerns previously raised.

The complaint explains that the infant loungers may obstruct airflow if an infant moves, rolls, or is put in a position in which his nose or mouth are obstructed by the Podsters. The loungers include warnings and instructions about using the product but the complaint reasons that caregivers will foreseeably use the infant lounger for sleep, leaving the infant without supervision. By law, the actual use of a product is part of the evaluation of whether a product is defective.

Continue reading →

Published on: March 10, 2022

Hot Air Brushes Recalled Due to Danger of Electrocution or Shock

By Moll Law Group

hairdresser-gf51ec0d83_640-e1646839051297 BrushX hot air brushes were recalled on February 17, 2022 due to the risks of electrocution or shock. If you were left with injuries due to electrocution or shock from a BrushX hot air brush, you should consult the experienced Chicago-based product liability lawyers of the Moll Law Group about whether you have grounds to sue for damages. Billions have been recovered in cases with which we’ve been involved. When you’ve been harmed by a large company, it’s wise to pursue product liability lawsuits with a lawyer who understands how to mount a strong case for clients.

Give the Product Liability Lawyers of the Moll Law Group A Call

The BrushX hot air brushes were recalled because they weren’t designed with an immersion protection device. That means if you use the brush and it falls into water over your sink or bathtub while it’s plugged in, you could be electrocuted or shocked. Around 100,000 hot air brushes were affected by the recall: the BrushX One (the Styler, Dryer & Volumizer), as well as the BrushX Gen.2 hot air brushes.

The brushes in question have been sold in both black and combinations of black and pink. A “not waterproof” symbol marks the back of the brush.

Continue reading →

Published on: March 3, 2022

Second Infant Died After Consuming Recalled Abbot Baby Formula

By Moll Law Group

baby-g909db3e6f_640-e1646267137939 Recently, Abbot Nutrition expanded its recall of baby formula after a second baby died from infection after consuming the formula Abbot Nutrition’s Similac PM 60/40 with a lot code 27032K800. Four reports of Cronobacter sakazakii infection have been reported in connection with products from the plant. If your baby was harmed, hospitalized, or died because of its consumption of Abbot Nutrition’s Similac, you should call the experienced Chicago-based product liability lawyers of the Moll Law Group about whether you have a claim against the manufacturer. Similac PM is specifically intended for infants that are helped by lowered mineral intake; the specific formula in question wasn’t included in a prior, February 17 recall for lots of Similac, Alimentum, and EleCare, powdered formulas, that were also produced at the same plant. No parent should have to go through the anguish of a baby who dies because of a formula that should have been safe.

Call the Seasoned Product Liability Lawyers of Moll Law Group About Your Lawsuit

The FDA has updated its website to investigate another illness due to another Cronobacter sakazakii, which is a rare and dangerous bacteria that causes serious medical complications, including blood infections. A child died after hospitalization and an infection with this germ may have contributed to his death. He had consumed Similac before becoming infected. While four infections involving Cronobacter sakazakii were reported to the FDA and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, a Salmonella Newport infection was also reported alongside the outbreak. The five infants who became sick were all hospitalized. Two died.

Following the second baby’s death, Abbott Nutrition recalled the powdered formula the baby had consumed. To determine whether you are using a lot of powdered formula that has been recalled, you can look at the 7-9 digit code and expiration at the bottom of the package. Take a look at whether the first two digits of the code are 22 -67, the code contains Z2, SH, or K8, and the expiration date is April 1^st or later. You can type in the code on the bottom of your package at Similacrecall.com to make sure it’s part of the recall.

Continue reading →

Published on: February 28, 2022

Another Lawsuit Filed in Elmiron Multidistrict Litigation

By Moll Law Group

eyes-gdebe702c9_640-e1644292120741 Elmiron is a drug for bladder pain manufactured by Johnson & Johnson, its subsidiary Janssen Pharmaceuticals, and other parties for eye damages. If you suffered injuries due to Elmiron, you may have a claim that should be part of In Re: Elmiron MDL No. 2973. Recently, another lawsuit was filed on behalf of a woman who was injured after she was prescribed and used Elmiron. If you were harmed by Elmiron, you may be able to file a lawsuit for damages you’re your case may be joined to the MDL. You should consult the seasoned Chicago product liability lawyers of Moll Law Group about whether you have grounds to sue. Billions have been recovered in cases with which we’ve been involved. We represent consumers around the country.

Call Moll Law Group if You Believe You Have an Elmiron Claim

The most recent product liability lawsuit arising out of Elmiron was filed on January 10, 2022, but it has joined more than 600 other lawsuits in multidistrict litigation in multidistrict litigation in New Jersey federal court. These lawsuits are being pursued on behalf of those who were prescribed Elmiron for their interstitial cystitis and believe they experienced retina damage and visions problems as a result. Interstitial cystitis triggers chronic bladder pain.

The most recent lawsuit alleges that Janssen became cognizant of the vision problems associated with Elmiron shortly after it came onto the market in 1996, which, if true, means they continued to sell the drug long after they knew it had harmful side effects.

Continue reading →

Published on: February 21, 2022

Experienced Firm for HawkOne Directional Atherectomy Claims

By Moll Law Group

doctor-g64d60a972_640-e1644291190381 The FDA has issued a Class 1 recall, which is the most serious kind of recall, for HawkOne Directional Atherectomy Systems. When a Class 1 recall is issued, it is because using the recalled device may cause death or severe injuries. If you were injured or a loved one was killed because of the HawkOne Directional Atherectomy System, you may have grounds to sue and should contact the experienced Chicago-based product liability lawyers of Moll Law Group about whether you have a viable claim. Billions have been recovered in cases with which we’ve been involved.

Give Moll Law Group a Call About HawkOne Directional Atherectomy Systems Injuries

The HawkOne Directional Atherectomy System is used by surgeons to improve blood flow during procedures. Made up of a catheter and cutter driver, it is used to take out blockages that occur in peripheral arteries. Unfortunately, when it is used forcefully, there is a risk of the guidewire inside the catheter shifting down or prolapsing, which can result in the tip of the catheter breaking away or separating. This can then result in significant adverse events such as an arterial dissection in which the inside wall of the artery is torn. The tip breaking off can also decrease blood flow resulting in arterial rupture or ischemia. When there are blood vessel complications, further procedures may need to be conducted to catch and take out the tip that has detached. Sometimes the tip migrates, creating further complications.

Medtronic sent an Urgent Medical Device Notice letter to consumers on December 6, 2021, because it has already received 163 complaints about the device. While no deaths have been reported, there have been 55 injuries so far. Prior to the recall, consumers and health care providers were asked to share the information with anyone at the practice or organization who needs to be aware of this problem, or to any other organization where the product has been sent. Health care providers were asked to review instructions. Even so, injuries and deaths may have occurred as a result of the defective device.

Continue reading →

Published on: February 14, 2022

New Study May Impact Hernia Mesh Claims

By Moll Law Group

stomach-pain-gee79c2f12_640-e1644290768305 Hernia mesh is a medical device commonly placed by surgeons in the area around a hernia in order to support damaged tissue during the healing process. Nine out of 10 hernia surgeries each year involves the mesh. Unfortunately, complications such as bowel obstructions and perforation, sometimes do arise once the mesh is placed, and patients may need additional surgery to remove the mesh, as well as extensive medical care when that happens. A recent study asked whether synthetic mesh is better than biologic mesh at reducing a 2-year risk of hernia recurrence when a single stage repair of ventral hernias is made. The findings tend to support the use of synthetic mesh rather than biologic hernia mesh because synthetic mesh entails lower costs and recurrences. If you were injured by hernia mesh, 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.

Give Moll Law Group a Call About Your Hernia Mesh Claim

Injured consumers have filed at least 14,827 lawsuits against Bard and 3596 lawsuits against Ethicon. They are consolidated in multidistrict litigation. In the recent study, a multicenter randomized clinical trial, 253 patients were randomized to synthetic mesh and biologic mesh. At two years, the follow-up rate was 92%. Synthetic mesh majorly reduced the risk of hernia recurrence and did more in that regard than biologic mesh when a patient was going through single stage repair of ventral hernias.

The study noted that biologic mesh is usually used to reinforce contaminated ventral hernia repairs but is expensive and associated with high rates of long-term recurrence of hernias. Synthetic mesh costs less and may be able to do the same thing, but its efficacy in contaminated hernia cases hadn’t previously been subjected to rigorous study.

Continue reading →

Published on: January 31, 2022

3M Litigation Update

By Moll Law Group

ear-g6f2aa7489_640-e1643736116323 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 →