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

REQUEST FREE CONSULTATION
Published on:

By

Everyone has seen someone slip on an icy sidewalk, and the injuries can be serious. But whose duty is it to maintain the sidewalk, and what does that duty require? In a recent case, a court held that a case had to be retried when a plaintiff failed to explain what the defendant’s duty was in training its employees and how they failed to meet that duty.

In a recent case, a woman slipped and fell on an icy sidewalk at a Marriott hotel while she was staying at the hotel for business. She broke her ankle and sued the hotel for negligently maintaining its sidewalks and failing to properly train the employees who were responsible for deicing the sidewalks. The case proceeded to trial, and the jury found the hotel 98 percent at fault. The hotel appealed the decision, and the state’s supreme court reversed and ordered a new trial. The court held that the trial court should not have allowed a “negligent training theory” without having testimony on the standard of care for training employees on how to deice the sidewalk, or how that had been breached.

The court explained that the jury could not have found that the hotel was negligent in training its employees because the required standard was never explained to the jury. In other words, the plaintiff did not provide any evidence that the hotel had a duty to instruct employees about the time that deicing would remain effective. The court stated that some evidence or testimony to support the position had to be admitted before a jury could return a verdict on that specific claim. The jury could not find that the hotel breached its duty to properly train employees because the standard of care required was never explained. As a result, the court reversed the decision, and the case had to be retried.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

Wright Medical, a manufacturer of hip implants and other medical devices, has asked a federal appellate court to overrule a jury’s verdict in the first bellwether trial to take place in the Conserve metal-on-metal hip implant MDL, which is situated in the Northern District of Georgia. According to the company, a new trial is justified because it believes that the jury was allowed to take two bites at the apple.

An MDL, or multi-district litigation, is a judicial mechanism that is used to consolidate and expedite cases that involve similar claims. It is like a class action in that plaintiffs with common causes of action and common factual allegations against the same defendant are grouped together. It is different from a class action when it comes to damages, however, with each MDL plaintiff needing to prove his or her individual claim. To test legal theories, claims, and damages, the lead attorneys in an MDL conduct a bellwether trial. This involves selecting a plaintiff whose case is representative of the broader MDL plaintiffs’ claims and litigating it to see what a jury would conclude. Hundreds of lawsuits have been filed against Wright Medical, which are now pending in the MDL action.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

New construction zones pop up all the time, especially during the summer. Even when a driver is paying attention to the warnings, a driver can still misunderstand the signs and enter the wrong lane. For that reason, adequate warnings are essential.

In a recent case, a man was killed in an accident while he was driving his motorcycle through a construction zone. The man inadvertently drove into a closed lane, and when he tried to go back to an open lane, he hit an uneven surface and was thrown off his motorcycle and into traffic. The man’s estate sued the state’s transportation commission and the state’s department of transportation for failing to place proper warnings, failing to properly maintain the condition of the road, and creating hazardous driving conditions.

The defendants argued that they were immune from liability because the placement of the traffic control warning was within their discretion. The court rejected their argument and denied their immunity claim. The court noted that a governmental entity and its employees acting within the scope of employment are not liable in that state for actions that are discretionary.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

One of Johnson & Johnson’s subsidiary companies has asked a federal appellate court to enter a stay of litigation in a lawsuit involving its Pinnacle metal-on-metal hip implant device. The company is seeking this time-out, claiming that it needs to appeal a $490 million jury verdict against the medical device manufacturer. During March 2016, a federal jury in Texas returned a verdict against DePuy Orthopedics, the subsidiary in question, totaling $490 million in favor of five plaintiffs who alleged the subsidiary’s hip implant caused them serious injuries.

Following a two-month trial on the product liability claim, the jurors concluded that DePuy’s metal-on-metal hip implants, which were a spinoff model based on the Pinnacle hip implants, were designed in an unreasonably dangerous manner and that DePuy had failed to include appropriate warnings with the products about the dangers that users may face. To recover compensation in a medical device case, the plaintiff must show that the medical device was designed in an unreasonably dangerous fashion. This can also include facts showing that the company failed to include proper warnings or instructions with the device. Here, for example, the plaintiffs alleged that DePuy failed to warn patients about the likelihood of metal fragments entering patients’ bloodstreams and causing metallosis. The jury returned a verdict form awarding $130 million in compensatory damages and $360 million in punitive damages.

Prior to this, in October 2014, the first case litigating whether the Pinnacle hip implant was defective was concluded when a federal jury returned a verdict stating that DePuy was not liable for the plaintiffs’ injuries and awarding the plaintiffs zero damages.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

Moll Law Group ha presentado su primera demanda contra el fabricante de Nexium, AstraZeneca, en nombre de un residente de Tennessee que sufrió heridas graves y potencialmente mortales después de haber sido prescrito y de tomar el medicamento Nexium. Presentada en el Distrito Oeste de Tennessee, la demanda alega que los acusados sabían o deberían de haber sabido que Nexium formula un serio riesgo de lesiones renales y que el fabricante de medicamentos fallo en proporcionar las instrucciones adecuadas en relación con las consecuencias potencialmente mortales que podrían resultar del uso de la droga.

El demandante comenzó a tomar Nexium en el 2003 y continuó utilizándolo hasta el 2008, cuando fue diagnosticado con una condición grave e inducida por fármacos de nefritis intersticial aguda a través de una biopsia. Como resultado de su condición, él estaba obligado a someterse a diálisis tres veces a la semana y está en espera de un trasplante de riñón.

Nexium es un tipo de inhibidor de la bomba de protones (IBP) que se utiliza para disminuir la cantidad de ácido que produce el estómago. Este tipo de medicamento se utiliza comúnmente para tratar la enfermedad de reflujo gastroesofágico (ERGE) y la úlcera péptica (PUD). Aprobado originalmente bajo el nombre de Losec en 1988, Nexium es un medicamento IBP de segunda generación y se pretende que sea una mejoría de la versión de primera generación, comúnmente conocida como Prilosec. Continue reading →

Published on:

By

Moll Law Group has filed its first lawsuit against the maker of Nexium, AstraZeneca, on behalf of a Tennessee resident who suffered severe and life-threatening injuries after being prescribed and taking the drug Nexium. Filed in the Western District of Tennessee, the complaint alleges that the defendants knew or should have known that Nexium poses a serious risk of kidney injuries and that the drug maker failed to provide adequate instructions regarding the potentially life-threatening consequences that could result from the use of the drug.

The plaintiff started taking Nexium in 2003 and continued using it until 2008, when he was diagnosed with a severe and drug-induced case of Acute Interstitial Nephritis following a biopsy. As a result of his condition, he was required to undergo dialysis three times a week and is awaiting a kidney transplant.

Nexium is a type of proton pump inhibitor (PPI) that is used to decrease the amount of acid that the stomach produces. This type of drug is commonly used to treat gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) and peptic ulcer disease (PUD). Originally approved under the name Losec in 1988, Nexium is a second-generation PPI drug and was intended to be an improvement on the first-generation version, commonly referred to as Prilosec.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

A former sales representative for the medical device manufacturing company Zimmer Biomet (“Zimmer”) has filed a lawsuit against the company, claiming that the orthopedics provider fired him as a result of the testimony he provided during a grand jury hearing against a physician who was accused of performing unnecessary knee replacement procedures. Further catapulting this story into the public eye is the fact that the sales representative, named Dominick Pistone, is the brother of Joseph Pistone, an FBI agent who served as the basis for the movie Donnie Brasco.

As a sales representative, Pistone sold Zimmer products for 25 years until the company terminated his employment in June 2015. The lawsuit also alleges that some time in 2007, Pistone learned that a physician who has not been identified by name was “performing numerous double knee replacements, well above the average . . .  primarily for financial gain and not in the best interest of the patients.”

Additionally, the complaint states that the device the unnamed doctor used in these procedures was not subject to FDA approval. The CEO of the company that formally manufactured the device, OtisMed, was sent to prison for two years, and the company was required to pay an $80 million settlement to Stryker, which had acquired OtisMed during 2009.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

In some cases, a plaintiff’s own conduct may contribute to an injury, decreasing the amount of damages awarded. In other cases, the plaintiff’s conduct may bar compensation completely. In a recent case, a boy’s family was barred from compensation after he was killed in a skateboarding accident.

Two brothers were skateboarding in a resort town when one of the brothers tragically died in a skateboarding accident. The two brothers had been riding their skateboards down a hill when one boy’s skateboard hit a small gap between the road and the concrete surrounding a manhole cover. The skateboard stopped, and the boy was thrown from the board. The boy was not wearing a helmet and suffered a traumatic brain injury. He ultimately died as a result.

The boy’s father and brother brought a wrongful death claim against several defendants, including the local water district and the local community association. The defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing that by participating in skateboarding, the boy assumed the inherent risks of skateboarding. The court of appeals affirmed the trial court’s decision to grant the summary judgment motion, since the claim was barred by the assumption of the risk doctrine.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

Consumers across the country should be aware of two recent events involving dangerous, contaminated, and inappropriately labeled food products. First, only a few weeks after school was dismissed for the summer season, nearly 50 different varieties of pre-packaged sandwiches have been recalled from almost 40 different school districts after reports surfaced that the sandwiches may be contaminated with Listeria monocytogenes. The company that makes the sandwiches, Let’s Do Lunch, attempted to describe the event as a minor threat due to the summer holiday, stating that any residual product can simply be discarded. The outbreak came to light after the USDA inspected the facility where the sandwiches were packaged, and tests from the inspection came back positive for Listeriosis.

The affected school districts cover 29 states across the nation and many major cities, including Sacramento, Houston, Portland, Albuquerque, and Indianapolis. The FDA initiated a recall of the affected products, which includes a complete list of the affected states and school districts. The company has expressed its intention to work closely with the school districts to ensure that any potentially affected products are pulled from distribution and not served to students.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

In some cases, the cause of an injury is clear. But in certain cases, especially when people have a long, complicated medical history, the cause of the injury can be a major point of conflict in the case. In a recent case, the defendant argued that it was not liable because a man’s preexisting conditions were the actual cause of his injury. In that case, a man tripped and fell over an unsecured metal plate in front of a grocery cart corral. He suffered injuries on his knee, arm, neck, shoulder, and face. As a result, he had to receive extensive medical care, including two spinal surgeries. The man sued the grocery store for negligence.

The store retained a medical expert. He did not examine the plaintiff before formulating an opinion and preparing his report, but he did review the man’s medical records. Based on the medical records, the defendant’s expert determined that the man had a preexisting spinal condition that existed before the fall, and an MRI he had taken after the fall did not show an “acute injury.” The store then requested that the man undergo a physical examination by the store’s expert.

The trial court denied the request, but the state’s supreme court reversed. Since the man’s physical health and the extent of the injuries he sustained at the store were directly at issue, his condition and its cause were relevant. Thus, the physical examination was directly related to the condition in controversy, and the information could not be obtained through other means. Accordingly, the man was required to submit to a physical examination by the defendant’s expert in order to consider his past physical health as well as his present and future condition and the extent of his damages.

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