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

REQUEST FREE CONSULTATION
Published on:

By

In a recent case, a 90-year-old woman was admitted to a hospital in 2009. During her stay at the hospital, the woman suffered several complications, and she died within weeks of her arrival. The woman’s son requested her medical records, and he received them almost one year after her death. A little over one year after receiving the records, the son obtained a professional opinion that the woman’s doctors were negligent in treating her. One month after obtaining that opinion, the son filed a complaint against his mother’s two doctors, who cared for her during her hospital stay.

Almost two years after filing the initial lawsuit, the son had a doctor review his mother’s CT scans that were taken during her stay at the hospital. The son had received this information when he requested his mother’s original medical files. The doctor provided an opinion stating that the radiologist, who had read the CT scans while his mother was staying at the hospital, had failed to identify a collection of fluid in her brain. The reviewing doctor also believed that the radiologist’s failure to identify the fluid caused or contributed to the mother’s death. After receiving the second opinion, the son filed a medical malpractice lawsuit against the radiologist under Illinois’ Wrongful Death Act (740 ILCS 180/1) and Survival Act (755 ILCS 5/27-6).

The radiologist argued that the case was time-barred because the case was filed more than two years after the mother’s death, exceeding the two-year statute of limitations. The radiologist also argued that the “discovery rule” did not apply in the son’s wrongful death and survival act case. The radiologist also claimed that even if the discovery rule applied, the case was still untimely because the son had enough information to determine whether or not to file more than two years before he filed his complaint.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

Recently, a man was prescribed Valsartan, a medication used to treat high blood pressure, and the pharmacy mistakenly gave the man a container with both Valsartan pills and Lithium pills. The pills were the same color but different shapes. The man took the medication as prescribed. When the man’s wife discovered the mistake a few days later and brought back the container, a pharmacist confirmed that the container had both pills inside. The pharmacy then set aside the medication and later destroyed it, in accordance with the company’s policy.

Soon afterward, the man experienced numbness and weakness in his hand and checked into the hospital. The treating physician believed that the man had a reaction to the Lithium pills he mistakenly took. The man’s symptoms continued to worsen in the following months, and he was diagnosed with carpal tunnel syndrome and polyneuropathy, allegedly due to his consumption of Lithium. The man had surgery performed on his hand and arm, but he continued to suffer from pain and stiffness in his hand.

The man filed a negligence case against the pharmacy for his injuries. During discovery, the pharmacy was asked to turn over the container with the mixed pills to determine if some of the pills were Lithium pills. The pharmacy stated that it had destroyed the container and its contents, pursuant to the store’s policy. Due to the pharmacy’s destruction of evidence, the man filed for sanctions against the pharmacy.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

As a personal injury law firm serving clients nationwide, Moll Law Group represents injured victims and their families. Many of these injuries were either preventable or unnecessary. Through it’s years serving the American community, Moll Law Group has come to understand that one of the best ways to avoid serious injury is by taking preventative measures. That is why Moll Law Group offers safety information and tips through its free consumer safety network – Legal News Network. In addition to providing safety information and donating to non-profit organizations, Moll Law Group offers bi-yearly scholarships to college students who write essays on the topic of safety and injury prevention.

College students were encouraged to submit an essay that provides safety information on the topic of their choice that furthers the injury prevention goal of the firm. Topics could vary from information on defective and dangerous products to transportation issues (e.g. distracted driving).

Among the many submissions received, the scholarship committee was finally able to narrow the list down to five finalists who share the same injury prevention vision. Now, Moll Law Group is asking for help from the community to assist in selecting the winner of the $1,000 scholarship award. Vote for your favorite injury prevention essay HERE. We will also heavily consider likes, shares and comments each essay receives on social media to determine the winner.

Continue reading →
Published on:

By

Un número considerable de pacientes con cáncer de los senos en los Estados Unidos han recibido tratamiento con un fármaco/medicamento llamado Taxotere , que es fabricado por una compañía llamada Sanofi. A diferencia de otros fármacos contra el cáncer que requerían citas semanales, Taxotere sólo necesitaba tratamiento una vez cada tres semanas. Para los pacientes de cáncer que todavía están ocupados haciendo malabares con otros compromisos, esta fue una opción atractiva. Además de ser utilizado para tratar el cáncer de mama, el fármaco también se ha empleado para tratar cáncer de estómago, cáncer de pulmón de células no pequeñas, cáncer de cuello, cáncer de cabeza y cáncer de próstata metastásico. Poco después de que la droga se convirtiera en un tratamiento popular, numerosos informes salieron a la luz de pacientes que afirmaban que sufrieron la pérdida permanente del cabello como resultado de tomar la droga. Según la multitud de demandas que se presentaron después de que los informes se generalizaran, los demandantes en gran parte alegaron que el fabricante de la droga no proporcionó las advertencias y revelaciones apropiadas con respecto a los potencialmente desfigurantes efectos secundarios de la droga. Otras denuncias incluyeron no llevar a cabo investigaciones apropiadas sobre la seguridad y los efectos secundarios potenciales del medicamento, ocultar la información a los consumidores y no comunicar de manera completa y precisa la gravedad de los peligros que podrían derivarse de tomar el medicamento.

Además de los informes de reacciones adversas que surgieron, los estudios han demostrado que casi el 10 por ciento de los pacientes de cáncer de mama que tomaron Taxotere sufrieron de alopecia que persistió durante 10 años o más. Esto causó una variedad de lesiones y consecuencias, incluyendo angustia emocional, dolor y sufrimiento, ansiedad social y desfiguración.

Los fabricantes de fármacos/medicamentos tienen el deber de usar un cuidado razonable al desarrollar, fabricar, comercializar y vender los productos que fabrican. Si una empresa incumple ese deber, puede ser considerada responsable de los daños que resulten, incluyendo el dolor y el sufrimiento. Además de esta causa de acción basada en la negligencia, las víctimas pueden presentar una demanda de responsabilidad por el producto contra el fabricante de fármacos. A diferencia de una causa de acción por negligencia, el demandante no tiene que demostrar que el acusado fue culpable. En cambio, el demandante debe probar que el diseño de la droga era excesivamente peligroso. Esto incluye cualquier falla en proporcionar advertencias adecuadas.

Continue reading →
Published on:

By

A substantial number of breast cancer patients in the U.S. have received treatment using a drug called Taxotere, which is manufactured by a company called Sanofi. Unlike other cancer drugs that required weekly appointments, Taxotere required treatment only once every three weeks. For cancer patients who are still busy juggling other commitments, this was an appealing option. In addition to being used to treat breast cancer, the drug has also been employed to treat stomach cancer, non-small cell lung cancer, neck cancer, head cancer, and metastatic prostate cancer.

Soon after the drug became a popular treatment, numerous reports surfaced from patients claiming that they suffered permanent hair loss as a result of taking the drug. According to the slew of lawsuits that were filed after the reports became widespread, the plaintiffs largely alleged that the drug maker failed to provide appropriate warnings and disclosures regarding the drug’s potentially disfiguring side effects. Other allegations included failing to conduct appropriate investigations into the safety and potential side effects of the drug, concealing information from consumers, and failing to fully and accurately communicate the severity of the dangers that could arise from taking the drug.

In addition to the adverse reaction reports that surfaced, studies have shown that nearly 10 percent of breast cancer patients who took Taxotere suffered alopecia that persisted for 10 years or more. This caused a variety of injuries and consequences, including emotional distress, pain and suffering, social anxiety, and disfigurement.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

Earlier this month, a Massachusetts court issued a written opinion in a medical malpractice case adopting the continuing course of treatment doctrine. The continuing course of treatment doctrine acts to toll the statute of limitations in medical malpractice cases while the defendant is still providing medical care for the plaintiff. Thus, if the doctrine is applied, only once the defendant stops providing medical care will the statute of limitations begin. In the case, Parr v. Rosenthal, the court ultimately adopted the doctrine but declined to apply it in the specific facts presented in the plaintiffs’ case.

The Facts

The plaintiffs’ son was born with an unexplained lump on the back of his leg. After several years of unsuccessful diagnosis attempts, the plaintiffs found a group of doctors who were able to identify the lump as a desmoid tumor. While the tumor was identified, none of the doctors treating the boy was familiar with how to treat a desmoid tumor. The treating physicians referred the parents to the defendant, who was another doctor in the group who had not yet met with their son. After discussing the procedure with the boy’s parents, it was agreed that the defendant would perform an emerging procedure called radio frequency ablation.

Unfortunately, the boy was badly burned by the defendant during the procedure, and the procedure could not be completed. The original group of doctors continued to care for the boy, but the defendant provided no follow-up care. Eventually, the boy’s leg needed to be amputated due to the worsening condition of the burn. Several years later, the plaintiffs filed this lawsuit against the defendant, naming only him and none of the doctors in his practice group.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

Thousands of women have filed lawsuits against Bayer, alleging that they have suffered injuries as a result of receiving the company’s birth control implant device, called Mirena. The T-shaped device is made of polymer and implanted in the uterus. It releases synthetic progestin hormones that alter the uterine wall and decrease the rate at which sperm can survive in the uterus. It also prevents ovulation.

In March 2014, one of these lawsuits went to trial in the Northern District of Georgia. The plaintiff in this case stated that the contraception device resulted in the development of a pseudotumor cerebri. The symptoms associated with this condition led to vision and hearing issues, neck and head pain, vertigo, and severe migraine headaches. The plaintiff’s complaint included claims for concealment, failure to warn, breach of express and implied warranties, negligence, fraud, and strict liability. The defendant moved for summary judgment, and the district court granted the motion. The plaintiff appealed, stating that the lower court abused its discretion when it denied her motions to extend the time to conduct factual discovery and expert witness disclosures.

On review, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the lower court’s motion for summary judgment. The appellate court concluded that it was proper to deny the plaintiff’s motion to extend the discovery deadlines, particularly since the lower court had already granted the plaintiff one prior extension to conduct discovery. Additionally, the appellate court ruled that the lower court was not acting beyond its discretion when it denied the plaintiff’s request to amend the complaint to name two additional defendants that were foreign companies.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

A man filed a negligence case against a land surveyor after he tripped and fell on a stake while on his own land. The stake had been placed there by a surveyor while he was performing a survey of the land. When the surveyor had surveyed the land, he marked the boundary of the property with wooden stakes tied with ribbons, which were driven into the ground. They were surrounded by grass but still visible. Shortly after the completion of the survey, the landowner was unloading some equipment into a storage building when he tripped on one of the survey stakes. He seriously injured his hip and then sued the land surveyor for negligence. An appellate court recently issued an opinion in the case.

The plaintiff did not present an expert witness to support his case. The surveyor argued that the plaintiff was required to show that his conduct fell below the standard of care in his placement and removal of the stakes. The plaintiff argued that placing stakes in a way in which they were not clearly visible was ordinary negligence, rather than professional negligence. He also argued that it was within the common knowledge of laypersons and that an expert was not required under the “common knowledge” exception. Under the common knowledge exception, a party can make out a case of professional negligence without expert testimony in cases in which the evidence and alleged negligent conduct is within the understanding of laypersons.

First, the court had to decide whether or not land surveyors are “professionals” in order to decide whether expert testimony was required. The court found that based on the specialized knowledge, high standards, and continuing education of surveyors, registered surveyors are technically professionals. Since the defendant was a professional, a plaintiff is normally required to present expert testimony to establish the standard of care.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

Major breakfast food retailer Kellogg’s has issued a voluntary recall that covers 10,000 cases of its famous Eggo waffle products over concerns that they are contaminated with listeria. The contaminated cases reached an estimated 25 states in the U.S. Listeria is a very dangerous foodborne illness pathogen that can lead to severe health problems and even death, especially if the victim is a child, elderly individual, or person with a compromised immune system. Pregnant women may also experience a miscarriage or stillbirth if they contract listeria while pregnant. In otherwise healthy persons, listeria can lead to severe, flu-like symptoms, including headaches, nausea, stomach pain, vomiting, high fever, stiffness, and diarrhea.

Although the company has not received any reports indicating that an individual has become ill as a result of consuming a contaminated waffle, the risk is still very serious. Kellogg is asking consumers who may have purchased an affected package to return it immediately and to refrain from consuming its contents.

There have been a number of multi-state food-borne illness outbreaks involving listeria this year, including frozen vegetables, raw milk, packaged salads, and citrus. For the Centers for Diseases Control to formally recognize an outbreak, there must be two or more individuals who manifest disease-specific symptoms as a result of consuming the same drink or food item that has been contaminated. The CDC will then investigate the outbreak to determine its source and underlying cause.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

Over 360,000 toddlers suffered injuries as a result of falling or tipping over during the years between 1990 and 2010. A Poland-based manufacturer called Lenny Lamb has recently come under fire for problems and risks associated with its Lenny Lamb brand child carriers. The company recently issued a recall for its buckle onbu infant carrier, even though it has not received any reports of specific injuries. The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission has not received any reports or information regarding injuries either.

According to media reports, nearly 1,000 of the onbu carriers were missing a key component. The carriers feature a strap used to secure the device, in which the infant is placed, to the wearer’s body. The affected products are missing internal stitching that ensures the child stays inside the sling device. The device is intended to be worn with the infant carried on the wearer’s back. This means that if the device fails, and the infant falls, the wearer will have a difficult time reacting quickly enough to save the child from harm.

The carrier also features a hood, interior adjustable panel, and shoulder pads. It retails for roughly $90. Affected units were sold online at Bibetts, Lenny Lamb, 5 Minute Recess, Cozy Cuties, and a variety of other outlets between May 2016 and June 2016. To learn more about which units may be affected by the product defect, visit the Consumer Product Safety Commission website.

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