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

REQUEST FREE CONSULTATION
Published on:

By

A woman filed a negligence case against a doctor after the doctor left a surgical sponge in her abdomen while she was undergoing gastric bypass surgery. The woman underwent a gastric bypass surgery in 2003, and she had several follow-up appointments in the subsequent years. The woman said that she began having uncomfortable sensations and pain in her stomach about one year after the surgery. The woman described these symptoms to her doctor at several follow-up appointments.

In 2009, she had a CT scan done for an unrelated condition, which revealed that she had a surgical sponge in her abdomen. She had it removed immediately. Less than a year later, the woman brought a medical malpractice claim against the doctor, seeking compensation for her medical expenses as well as for the pain and suffering she endured.

The defendants argued that the woman’s claim was barred because the statute of limitations had passed. The woman’s attorney argued that the claim was not barred, due to the “continuing course of treatment doctrine.” Under the state’s continuing course of treatment doctrine, a plaintiff generally needs to show that 1) there was a medical condition that required ongoing treatment or monitoring; 2) the defendant provided ongoing treatment or monitoring after the negligent treatment; and 3) the plaintiff brought the claim within the statute of limitations after the treatment ended.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

The Food Safety Inspection Service, which is the administrative arm of the USDA responsible for regulating food safety in the majority of food products containing meat, has issued a recall covering 8,800 pounds of ground beef from PT Farm, a New Hampshire-based operation. The ground beef is believed to be contaminated with the dangerous and potentially deadly pathogen E. coli. The recall covers products produced between June 6 and June 16, 2016. It was at this time that the first case of E. coli linked to the beef products was identified. Just last week, another individual was confirmed to be ill as a result of consuming E. coli-infected beef products.

E. coli symptoms can manifest in a variety of situations. For many people, fevers are common, along with gastrointestinal or stomach issues. Although affected individuals typically recover within five to seven days, there are some instances in which the individual must be admitted to the hospital. This is especially true for individuals with compromised immune systems, pregnant women, children, and the elderly. If you believe that you have consumed a food product that is contaminated with E. coli, it is critical that you contact a medical professional immediately to receive a proper diagnosis and medical attention.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

In a recent case, a man brought a claim against a church after he was hit by a car while he was crossing a road to go to the church. The man had just parked his car in an overflow parking lot, which was owned and staffed by a local church. He was going to attend an event at the church, and to get to the church he had to cross a busy five-lane road. The man and his wife sued the church, alleging that the church negligently located its overflow parking lot in an area that required churchgoers to cross a busy road and failed to provide churchgoers with assistance in crossing the road.

The church argued that it did not owe a duty to the man because it did not own or control the road he was crossing when he was injured. However, the appellate court found that the location of the church’s overflow parking lot exposed churchgoers to an unreasonable risk of injury. Specifically, it required them to cross a busy road where there was no marked crosswalk or traffic signal in order to cross the road and get to the church.

The court explained that those who own, possess, or control property have a duty to exercise ordinary care in managing the property so that others are not exposed to an unreasonable risk of harm. Even though the church did not control the street where the man was hit, it did control the location of the overflow parking lot, which could have contributed to his injury.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration recently issued a new warning increasing the cautions associated with fluoroquinolone-based medications, concluding that this class of antibiotics may be too strong to address bronchitis, sinus infections, and urinary tract infections. The FDA has received a number of complaints regarding the drugs and has concluded that dangerous side effects include disabling and potentially irreversible tendon, muscle, joint, nerve, and central nervous system pain. The warning label for these drug products has been updated to reflect these new risks.

The agency also stated in its warning that fluoroquinolones should only be prescribed to patients who have no other medical recourse for acute bacterial exacerbation of chronic bronchitis, uncomplicated urinary tract infections, or acute bacterial sinusitis. More specifically, health care professionals should immediately stop prescribing these medications for patients who have any of these conditions and support any serious adverse reactions as soon as possible. The current Boxed Warning for fluoroquinolone medicines applies to a number of conditions like tendon rupture, myasthenia gravis, and tendinitis, as well as peripheral neuropathy and a variety of other conditions.

Patients who have been injured as a result of taking dangerous pharmaceuticals can file a product liability or negligence claim against the drug manufacturer. The FDA requires drug manufacturers to comply with extensive regulations regarding the development, testing, approval, and marketing of new drugs. In many instances, companies that manufacture and sell dangerous pharmaceuticals have failed to comply with some of the testing requirements or even hidden information from the FDA about adverse side effects associated with the drugs when seeking approval.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

A 23-month-old boy tragically drowned in a pond after he climbed out of his crib and walked outside in the middle of the night. After the accident, the boy’s parents filed a product liability case against the company that manufactured the doorknob cover they had installed on their front door. The doorknob cover was a safety measure to prevent children from opening doors. The boy’s parents used the doorknob cover on the front door of their home to stop him from opening the door. However, the company argued that the doorknob cover was not defective or unreasonably dangerous if it were used properly.

At trial, evidence showed that after the boy began climbing out of his crib, to help ensure their son’s safety, the couple began using a chain lock on the front door in addition to the doorknob cover. On the night of the accident, the boy’s mother locked the tab lock on the doorknob but forgot to latch the chain lock. The boy was discovered the next morning, and the doorknob cover was on the floor in two pieces. Investigation notes with social services stated that the parents knew the boy was able to defeat the doorknob cover, which was why they installed the chain lock. However, the father denied making that statement.

The parents argued that evidence of their knowledge of the boy’s ability to defeat the doorknob cover should be excluded because it was irrelevant, and at most it was only a contributing cause but not the sole cause of the accident. They also argued that it was overly prejudicial. Despite their objections, the evidence was allowed at trial.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

In a recent case in front of a state appellate court, a woman died while in the care of a nursing home, and the woman’s daughter filed a wrongful death claim against the nursing home, alleging medical malpractice. In response, the nursing home filed a motion for summary judgment to have the case dismissed because the woman failed to designate an expert witness.

The woman then designated two expert witnesses. Subsequently, the court granted summary judgment because although the woman designated the experts, she failed to produce sworn expert testimony. The woman then filed sworn expert testimony by filing affidavits from the expert witnesses and requested a reconsideration of the judgment. The court denied the reconsideration motion. Under that state’s rules, sworn expert testimony is required in medical malpractice cases, and it is necessary to survive summary judgment.

The woman appealed and argued that the dismissal of the case was too harsh a sanction for a “discovery violation.” However, the court stated that the court did not impose sanctions because of her failure to follow discovery rules. Instead, the court dismissed the case because of a motion for summary judgment filed by the defendant, and she had failed to provide sufficient evidence to survive a motion for summary judgment. Accordingly, the state’s supreme court agreed with the decision and affirmed the dismissal.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By
  1. In a recent case before a state appellate court, a 29-year-old man dove into a pond at a park and broke his neck. Sadly, the man was paralyzed from the neck down as a result. His wife and he filed a claim against the state, alleging negligence and premises liability. At trial, a witness testified that there were “no swimming” signs posted at the recently filled pond, and the state planned to staff the swim area. On the day that the man dove in, there were other people swimming in the pond. The man testified that he thought the water looked deep enough, and he did a shallow dive into the water, but he did not check the depth of the water.

The case went to trial, and the state was not found liable. On appeal, the state’s supreme court agreed with the decision, finding that the state owed no duty to the man. The court found that the state was not responsible for the man’s injuries. First, it found that diving was an open and obvious danger of which he should have been aware. In addition, the court found that the state was protected under the recreational use statute. The state’s recreational use statute limited the liability of landowners when people use the land for recreational purposes without charge. The park would only have been liable if it had willfully or maliciously failed to guard or warn against a dangerous condition or activity—which did not occur in this case. Thus, the man and his family were unable to recover compensation.

Premises Liability in Illinois

Premises liability is based on the idea that owners and occupiers of land have a duty to maintain their premises to some degree in order to help prevent injuries to those who come onto the land. Generally, this duty depends on the type of person who comes onto the land. For example, an owner may have a higher duty to a business guest than to a social guest. In Illinois, however, the Premises Liability Act sets forth many of the laws related to premises liability.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

The safety risks of certain products are not always immediately apparent. After many U.S. consumers purchased hoverboards for the holidays this past year, many months went by before the Consumer Safety Commission warned of serious risks in most hoverboards. Product liability claims arise from situations in which defective products injure individuals or cause property damage.

Product Liability Claims

Product liability claims appear when the sale of a product causes injury, death, or other harm to consumers. There are a number of different ways in which individuals can hold sellers or manufacturers liable. For example, in Illinois, consumers may assert liability for negligence, strict liability, violation of express warranty, or violation of implied warranty.

Express warranty actions arise if the seller of a product claims that the product has a particular quality or will perform in a certain way. Implied warranty claims generally arise when a product is not of average quality or is not able to be used for its ordinary purpose. Negligence requires that the defendant have acted negligently, or without the required care. In contrast, strict liability claims do not require any showing of negligence but focus on the defective product itself. A seller can also be liable if it fails to adequately warn consumers of the dangers associated with the product.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

Hot dogs are a hallmark of summertime and an essential at seasonal barbecues. When we purchase hot dogs and other products at the market, the last thing we expect is for them to make us ill. Recently, the Oklahoma-based food manufacturer Bar-S Foods, Co. recalled over 372,000 pounds of pork and chicken hot dogs and corn dog products over fears that the products have been contaminated with listeria monocytogenes.

Affected groups and lot numbers or products were manufactured on July 10th through 13th. Consumers can also determine whether they’ve purchased a potentially affected batch of hot dogs or corn dogs by looking for the establishment number EST. P-81A on the packaging USDA mark of inspection. The manufacturer first informed the Food Safety Inspection Service, the branch of the U.S. Department of Agriculture that is responsible for food safety in most meat products, of the potential contamination on July 19, 2016. So far, there have not been any reports of illnesses associated with the consumption of contaminated hot dogs or corn dog products from the company.

Listerosis is a serious infection that can cause a whole host of painful, debilitating, inconvenient, and even deadly symptoms. Common examples of the symptoms that infected individuals experience include stiff neck, muscle aches, fever, headache, loss of balance, gastrointestinal symptoms, and vertigo. In cases that affect the elderly, children, or individuals with compromised immune systems, the infection can be deadly if it is not treated promptly and effectively. Pregnant women are particularly susceptible to infections from listeria, and they can suffer serious consequences like stillbirths, premature delivery, and infections. If you have purchased a package of Bar S hot dogs or corn dogs, do not consume them, and check the manufacturer’s website to find more information on returning the potentially dangerous goods back to the producer.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

In a recent case, a medical malpractice plaintiff had his case dismissed based on a procedural error. A boy was born prematurely by an emergency C-section surgery, and then he was transferred to the neonatal intensive care unit. He stayed in the unit for two months and was then discharged in stable condition. A year and a half later, a notice of claim was brought against the hospital for failing to properly treat and care for his mother prenatally and for failing to obtain informed consent regarding the boy’s care. The claim alleged that the boy suffered brain damage, development, speech, and psychomotor delays, cognitive defects, and respiratory distress and seizure disorder as a result.

The plaintiff filed the claim in court another year and a half later, and four months later he sought permission to serve a late notice of claim on the defendants. The court dismissed the case for failing to provide timely notice to the hospital.

The state’s laws required that a notice of claim be served on a public corporation within 90 days of the claim arising. In medical malpractice cases, the relevant time is when a negligent act or omission occurred. Here, the plaintiff failed to serve notice within the required 90 days after the hospital provided negligent care. The court could have extended the time to serve notice and allow late notice in certain circumstances—for example, if the public corporation had knowledge of the essential facts constituting the claim. However, in this case, the plaintiff’s attorney stated that he waited to make the motion to request serving notice because he needed to receive the medical records from the hospital.

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 © 2026, Moll Law Group
JUSTIA Law Firm Blog Design