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

REQUEST FREE CONSULTATION
Published on:

By

Earlier this month, a federal district court judge entered an order reducing a jury’s verdict awarding a plaintiff $500 million in damages in a product liability lawsuit involving DePuy Orthopedics, a subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson, to $151 million. The jury’s verdict was returned in March 2016 and reflected compensation for five different plaintiffs who claimed they suffered injuries as a result of receiving a Pinnacle metal-on-metal hip implant device.

The trial lasted for two months and concluded with the jury determining that the metal-on-metal devices were designed in an unreasonably dangerous manner and that the manufacturer failed to provide appropriate warnings about the risks of the products. The jury’s verdict included $130 million in compensatory damages for the plaintiffs and $360 million in punitive damages. Punitive damages are intended to punish defendants who engage in willful, reckless, or malicious conduct and to deter other companies from engaging in similar conduct. The judge who reduced the verdict stated that according to Texas state law, punitive damages must be calculated according to a specific formula.

In related news, the same judge denied DePuy’s motion asking the court to stay the third bellwether trial in the Pinnacle MDL proceeding from going forward until the company could appeal the $500 million verdict, stating that it would create potentially adverse results and result in a waste of judicial resources to allow the third trial to proceed while the company appealed the results of the second bellwether trial. In October 2014, DePuy won the first bellwether trial.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

The Centers for Disease Control estimates that about one in six people get sick from food-borne illnesses each year in the United States. Of these, around 3,000 people die as a result. In recent years, E. Coli outbreaks have become familiar to Americans as they continue to come up in the news, at times causing serious effects for victims.

E. Coli is a bacterium that can be transmitted by consuming contaminated food, including unwashed raw produce, undercooked beef, unpasteurized juice, and raw milk. The consumption of contaminated food can result in symptoms, the most common of which is diarrhea. However, in more serious cases, it can cause anemia or kidney failure, which can lead to death.

E. Coli generally lives in cattle, but it can also be found in other livestock. If meat containing E. Coli bacteria is not cooked to 160 degrees, E. Coli bacteria can survive and infect those who consume it. In addition, the meat can affect other food that comes into contact with the infected raw meat. Raw meat is the most likely cause for infection, but it can be transmitted through raw fruits and vegetables, or through raw milk or other dairy products.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

Toxic chemicals can leak into the ground, water, and air, causing devastating injuries and illnesses to our communities. In a recent case, the jury awarded a man $5 million for his injuries and $500,000 in punitive damages against the company for its bad behavior after it dumped a toxic chemical into the river.

Damages: Compensatory vs. Punitive

Compensatory damages are awarded to the plaintiff to compensate the plaintiff for the injuries suffered. These damages often include compensation for medical expenses and lost wages, and they can also include intangible damages, such as emotional distress. Punitive damages may be awarded in addition to actual damages in some cases. Punitive damages are meant to punish the defendant for harmful behavior and to deter wrongdoing in the future.

Punitive Damages in Illinois

Illinois views punitive damages as punishment in order to serve three purposes:  (1) for retribution; (2) to deter similar conduct by the defendant in the future; and (3) to deter others from similar conduct. In Illinois, in state law claims, punitive damages are limited to three times the economic damages. Illinois allows punitive damages only when the defendant’s conduct was “with an evil motive or with a reckless indifference to the rights of others.” In the DuPont case, the jury was required to find “malice” in order to award punitive damages.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

Some products pose obvious dangers to our well-being, like kitchen appliances, cars, and sporting equipment. When seemingly harmless objects cause serious injuries to us or our loved ones, it can be quite alarming. Recently, international furniture and home goods retailer IKEA initiated a recall of 29 million chests and dressers that have been linked to at least six child deaths that date all the way back to 1989, as well as at least 36 injuries. Based in Sweden, IKEA is the largest retailer of furniture in the world. The accidents occur when the dressers’ drawers are pulled out and children climb on the drawers like a staircase. The weight of the child tips the dresser or chest over and crushes them beneath it.

The chairman of the Consumer Product Safety Commission, Elliot F. Kaye, stated that the furniture is simply too dangerous to keep in your household if you do not properly anchor it to the wall, particularly if you have young kids in the house. Lars Petersson, the president and CEO of IKEA USA, issued a statement saying that the furniture was never intended to be used without the anchoring equipment, which secures the dressers and chests to the walls against which they are placed. In a recent interview, Petersson said, “If you are assembling correctly, the product is actually a very safe product.”

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

Moll Law Group has filed its first lawsuit against Johnson & Johnson, seeking damages on behalf of a 39-year-old woman who was diagnosed with ovarian cancer following her use of the company’s talcum powder-based products. In the lawsuit, which is captioned Barbara Ross v. Johnson & Johnson, et al., the plaintiff was diagnosed in 2014. She used Johnson & Johnson’s products for feminine hygiene purposes as part of her daily shower routine for 23 years, including Baby Powder and Shower to Shower.

In the complaint, the plaintiff alleges that her continuous use of these products directly resulted in her developing ovarian cancer and suffering other devastating and potentially fatal injuries in addition to infertility and serious mental and emotional suffering. Some sources suggest that the major international pharmaceutical and household product maker knew about the potential risks associated with talcum-based products for several years but failed to provide adequate warnings to consumers.

Talcum powder is derived from a mineral substance that has known similarities to asbestos, which is a known carcinogen. According to a group of researchers at Harvard University who conducted a study, women who used talcum powder-based hygiene products had a 36 percent higher risk of developing ovarian cancer compared to women who did not use talcum-based products.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

Parties often believe that a case is over when the trial ends. However, there are a number of avenues for relief for parties who are not satisfied with the result of their trial. Those avenues may result in granting a new trial altogether or even reversing the jury’s decision.

In a recent case, a man was in a car accident and filed a complaint against the defendant, alleging that he suffered injuries to his neck, back, and knee as a result, for which he sought compensation. The defendant admitted that he was at fault for the accident but argued that the accident was not the cause of the man’s knee injuries nor did it require him to undergo knee surgery. The defendant argued that the man had preexisting conditions that were the actual cause of his knee injuries.

The case proceeded to trial, and the jury found in favor of the plaintiff and awarded him $9,620 in past medical expenses for neck and back injuries. However, the plaintiff moved for a new trial because he argued that his knee injuries were also caused by the accident, and a reasonable jury could not have found otherwise based on the evidence presented. The judge granted the plaintiff his request for a new trial, but that state’s supreme court reversed the decision. It held that the jury’s verdict was supported by evidence that his knee injuries were preexisting and that the court should not have granted a new trial. Accordingly, the jury’s verdict was reinstated.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

Following the court’s rules and orders can be as important as the case itself. In a recent case, a claim was dismissed after the man and his attorney failed to attend a scheduled hearing. The man filed a complaint against a defendant after he sustained injuries during a fight at the defendant’s nightclub. However, in the complaint, the man stated the wrong date of the incident, and the incorrect date signified that the three-year statute of limitations had expired. Thus, the defendant moved to dismiss the claim based on the statute of limitations. A motion hearing was scheduled, but the plaintiff failed to appear at the hearing, despite having been properly informed of the hearing according to court rules. As a result, the case was dismissed.

Soon afterward, the plaintiff argued that the dismissal should be vacated because his attorney did not receive notice of the hearing. The court denied the motion to vacate the dismissal, and the plaintiff appealed. That state’s supreme court held that there were no extenuating circumstances that excused the plaintiff’s failure to attend the hearing, and the dismissal was upheld.

Illinois Court Rules and Consequences

When litigating a medical malpractice or personal injury case in Illinois, all parties and attorneys are required to comply with the Illinois Court Rules. Illinois Supreme Court Rule 219 details the consequences for refusing to comply with the rules or a judge’s order.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

Based in Chicago and representing clients across the United States, Moll Law Group is preparing to file lawsuits on behalf of women who have been diagnosed with ovarian cancer as the result of using Johnson & Johnson talcum powder products, including Baby Powder and Shower to Shower. The international pharmaceutical giant has already faced a number of lawsuits involving similar claims about the negative and devastating consequences of the long-term use of its talcum powder products.

Talcum powder is a mineral that has many similarities to asbestos, which is a carcinogenic agent. Prior to the 1970s, products that contained talcum powder frequently also contained asbestos. According to medical researchers, when talcum powder enters the vagina, it can travel to the ovaries, where it can lead to inflammation and an increased risk of developing ovarian cancer. Harvard researchers even concluded in a study comparing the rates of ovarian cancer in women who used talcum powder products to women who did not that there is a 36 percent increased risk of developing the deadly condition in women who do use the products.

In 2014, two class action lawsuits were filed just one year after a plaintiff in South Dakota prevailed against Johnson & Johnson. The woman in that lawsuit alleged that the company was negligent for failing to warn her about the risk of developing ovarian cancer as the result of using talcum powder products. The plaintiff was diagnosed with ovarian cancer in 2006. In May 2016, a jury in St. Louis, Missouri, returned a verdict awarding a plaintiff in a similar lawsuit $55 million in damages. The plaintiff in that case had used Johnson & Johnson’s Baby Powder product for four decades. Three months prior to that, another St. Louis jury awarded $72 million in compensatory damages to the family of a woman who lost her life as the result of ovarian cancer, which physicians linked to her use of the company’s talcum powder-based products.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

The U.S. Food & Drug Administration has recently issued a new warning instructing consumers to avoid eating raw cookie dough or any other batter, even if it does not contain eggs. The agency first expressed its concern about consumers’ tendency to chew on raw dough before cooking it in 2009, when an E. coli outbreak affected raw dough products. The investigation following the outbreak revealed that a number of consumers were not aware of the dangers that can result from consuming uncooked dough products.

Now, the main event prompting the FDA’s new warning involves the recent recall of 10 million pounds of flour produced by major international food product manufacturer General Mills. Sold under the brand names of Signature Kitchens, Gold Medal, and Gold Medal Wondra, these flours may contain the Shiga toxin-producing E. coli (STEC) O121 virus. At least 42 individuals have become ill across 21 different states as a result of consuming the contaminated flour products. There have been at least 11 hospitalizations, but there have not been any reports of individuals developing hemolytic uremic syndrome, which is a common kidney-related condition that results from E. coli infections.

The FDA first discovered the presence of the potentially deadly bacterium in the flour products in late June 2016, when it collected samples from homes of ill patients located in Oklahoma and Arizona. Although E. coli O121 can be neutralized and killed through heat treatments like sauteing, boiling, frying, or baking, it can still contaminate individuals if it is transferred to countertops, utensils, or other cooking implements. Early signs of contamination include fever, headaches, nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea. Although the infection can be treated in most cases, it is particularly life-threatening in vulnerable populations like children, the elderly, and individuals who have a weakened immune system.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

In a recent case, a man filed a medical malpractice claim for an allegedly negligent surgery after the procedure left him with a fractured ankle. The man broke his ankle while repairing his truck and had to undergo surgery as a result. Soon afterward, the man underwent an additional surgery, allegedly because the initial surgery failed to properly attach the fractured pieces. The patient filed a claim against the initial surgeon, alleging that the surgeon negligently performed the surgery and the post-surgical care.

Under that state’s law, expert witnesses are required to be board-certified to provide testimony in a medical malpractice claim. The plaintiff sought to present an expert witness who was board-certified at the time of the alleged malpractice. However, the expert witness’ certification had since expired, and the defendant argued that an expert witness must be board-certified at the time he testifies to be qualified. That state’s supreme court found that a witness’ board certification is based on the board certification status at the time of the alleged malpractice rather than at the time of testimony. Therefore, the testimony was permissible.

Expert Testimony in Medical Malpractice Cases

Medical malpractice claims arise when a patient receives negligent medical care. In general, the plaintiff has to show that the provider failed to conform to an established standard of care by providing expert testimony. The use of expert testimony is required because jurors normally are not skilled in the practice of medicine, and it usually is not clear to a layperson whether or not the professional breached the standard of care. Notwithstanding this requirement, expert testimony may not be required if the negligent conduct or treatment is so obvious that even a layperson can recognize it.

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