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

REQUEST FREE CONSULTATION
Published on:

By

Normally, the only people liable for an abused elder’s injuries are those who engaged in the abuse or were responsible for his or her care. However, a recent case found that even those who were not responsible for the patient’s care but failed to report suspected abuse could still be held liable.

In 2009, an elderly woman died in an adult family home from morphine intoxication. Her death was ruled a homicide, and her estate brought a claim against several people who took part in taking care of her. In addition, they sued two nurses who were not involved in her care but failed to report the suspected abuse.

Evidently, two of the home’s nurses were alleged to have observed signs of abuse and physical assault, which should have been reported to the Department of Social and Health Services and to the police. One of the nurses heard a thud in the patient’s room and saw the patient lying on the floor. She was told by the patient’s caregiver that she “falls a lot” and that she would call the home’s owner. The other nurse was told by another person that the patient’s caregiver was giving her morphine, which she had not been prescribed.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

Pennsylvania- and Germany-based company B. Braun Medical has agreed to pay nearly $8 million after being accused of selling saline syringes fraught with contamination. Braun purchased the syringes from Am2Pat, a manufacturing company, even though it had acquired information prior to the purchase indicating that the syringes suffered from manufacturing issues at the plant in North Carolina where they were produced. Two months after Braun purchased the syringes, it initiated a recall based on information indicating that the radiation sterilization process used caused the saline to develop particulates.

Following the recall, Am2Pat stated that it had not provided correct information to Braun before the sale of the syringes. According to this information, the manufacturing company had installed new equipment at its plant without first ensuring that the equipment was in good working order following the move. Despite this provision of information, Braun started purchasing saline syringes from Am2Pat again and did not conduct its own independent inspection of the manufacturing facility prior to doing so.

Roughly one month later, the syringes were found to contain a dangerous bacteria called Serratia marcescens. Patients in New York, Texas, California, and Nebraska reported experiencing illness and contamination as a result of using the syringes. A second recall of this batch of syringes was also initiated.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

Employers can be held liable for their employees’ actions under the theory of respondeat superior. This theory generally holds that an employer is vicariously liable for the acts of its employees. In addition, employers can also be held liable for negligent hiring, retention, or entrustment involving their employees.

Negligent Hiring

A claim based on negligent hiring is based on the fact that an employer negligently hired or retained an employee. A lawsuit resulting from negligent hiring can arise if an employer hires an employee whom the employer knew or should have known was not fit for the position. That is, the employee was placed in a job that would likely have posed a danger to others. An employer must take reasonable efforts to investigate a potential employee. This depends on the facts and circumstances of each case, but an example might be an employer that hires an individual who has been convicted several times of violent crimes for an armed security guard position.

A negligent hiring claim may be successful even if the act committed by the employee is outside the scope of the employment, which is one aspect that distinguishes it from a general negligence claim. This is because the focus is on whether or not the hiring or retention of the employee was negligent. However, there still must be a causal connection between the employer’s negligence and the injuries that occurred.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

The United States Supreme Court recently handed down an opinion that may have broad implications for class action lawsuits. In Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, the defendant maintained a search engine that allowed users to search specifically for people through its database. Employers could use the site to gain information about job applicants before deciding whether to hire them. The plaintiff discovered that the profile Spokeo provided for him contained numerous mistakes and other improper information. He brought a federal class action lawsuit against Spokeo, stating that it did not comply with the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act.

The lower court dismissed the lawsuit, stating that he had not adequately pleaded that he had suffered an actual injury as a result of the incorrect information in his profile. According to federal pleading standards, a plaintiff must establish that he or she has suffered a cognizable injury before being deemed entitled to compensation. This is known as the injury in fact requirement.

On appeal to the Ninth Circuit, the court reversed, finding that the plaintiff and other class members had an interest in how Spokeo handled their credit information. This was sufficient to establish an injury in fact, the court concluded.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

In a recent case, a plaintiff filed a medical malpractice claim, alleging that the defendant negligently failed to obtain informed consent. The plaintiff suffered a lower back injury and subsequently underwent a lumbar spine surgery. Prior to the surgery, the plaintiff and the doctor talked about the risks and consequences involved in the surgery. According to the plaintiff, the doctor told him that the surgery had a 99% chance of success, that he would not have any more pain, and that he would recover in three days. The doctor denied having made these statements. The plaintiff also signed a consent form before surgery. The form he signed included an acknowledgement that he had been informed of significant risks, and it listed several potential consequences. It also stated that no result or cure had been promised.

After the surgery, the plaintiff’s lower back pain increased, and he also experienced additional symptoms, including numbness and shaking in his leg, as well as mental health issues. He also found out after the surgery from another doctor that the success rate of the surgery he underwent was actually 50% or less. He then sued his doctor for failure to obtain informed consent because he did not understand the potential consequences.

Under the state’s law, the plaintiff had to show that the risks that he suffered, particularly a worsened condition and increased pain, were material risks of the procedure. The defendant argued that the plaintiff failed to provide an expert on the issue of materiality, but the court found that an expert was not required. The treating doctor in this case testified that he discusses the risks with every patient because patients can experience further pain after this surgery. Thus, the doctor’s own statements indicated that increased pain and a worsened condition were material risks. For that reason, the court allowed the case to continue.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration is taking new steps to tighten the regulations on e-cigarette products, which have recently become popular based on claims that they pose less of a health risk to users than traditional tobacco products. According to the federal agency, e-cigarettes, as well as pipe tobacco, cigars, and hookah tobacco, will now be regulated according to the existing rules for smokeless tobacco, cigarettes, and roll-your-own smoking products. The new regulations will take effect 90 days from the date the new rule was enacted, which is August 3, 2016.

Under the new rules, tobacco companies will be required to submit information about their e-cigarette and tobacco products to the agency for pre-approval, including a list of the ingredients included in the product. They will also need to apply certain warnings on the products’ packaging and advertisements before they can begin marketing the products.

E-cigarettes consist of a handheld electronic device that vaporizes nicotine fluid held within a compartment in the device. It is also commonly referred to as vaping. E-cigarettes have been especially popular among the younger crowd.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

Everyone has heard stories about a doctor operating on the wrong leg or giving someone the wrong dosage of a drug. These are just some examples of medical errors that occur every day in this country. Those types of mistakes can be the basis for a medical malpractice claim.

Medical Errors May Be Third-Leading Cause of Death in United States

Doctors have known for a long time that medical errors are prevalent. However, it is not a popular topic of discussion in the medical community, and no one knew how often they actually occurred. A recent study looked into the issue and found that medical errors might now be the third-leading cause of death in the United States.

The study estimated that if medical errors were accurately documented, they would account for 251,000 deaths per year. That comes out to 700 deaths per day, or about 9.5% of all deaths annually in the United States. This would put medical errors below only heart disease and cancer, and account for more deaths than those resulting from respiratory disease, accidents, and stroke.

The prevalence of medical errors had not been apparent for a long time because of the way deaths are recorded. The Centers for Disease Control uses a coding system that does not record common medical errors like communication breakdowns and diagnostic errors. The coding system counts only the “underlying cause of death,” which is the condition that led the person to seek medical treatment. However, the growing awareness in the medical community pushed researchers to find out more. Researchers noted that some errors result from careless medical providers, but others result from communication breakdowns, which can occur when a patient gets transferred from one facility to another.

 

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

A new study released earlier this month concluded that potentially hazardous nanoparticles were identified in powdered baby formula products made by Gerber, Enfamil, Similac, and Well Beginnings. According to the results, six out of six of the products that were tested contained unlabeled nanotechnologies. These nano-sized particles and structures included nano-hydroxyapatite in both non-needle and needle-like forms, nano titanium dioxide, and nano silicon dioxide.

According to the researchers, nanotechnologies are accelerating at such a quick pace that the regulatory authorities cannot keep up with ensuring that these new products are incorporated into our food system safely. This is particularly essential for infants, babies, and toddlers who are still developing and highly susceptible to toxins and other dangerous foods.

The companies that manufacture these brands include Nestle, Mead Johnson, Abbot Laboratories, and Walgreens. The researchers issued letters to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, asking them to remove the formulas containing the nanomaterials and to impose a cessation on the incorporation of these nanoparticles in baby formula until their safety has been assessed properly. They also call for stricter oversight of nanotechnologies in food products and call for a labeling program to be established.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

On TV, every case seems to go to trial. However, in the real world, most cases settle. The parties come to an agreement, and the defendant pays an agreed-upon amount to the plaintiff. There are a number of reasons parties agree to settle a case, including a faster resolution, a guaranteed amount of money, and avoiding the high cost of a trial.

But just as an experienced attorney is essential during a trial, an experienced attorney is also essential during settlement negotiations. An experienced attorney will investigate a client’s case to see how strong the claim is and advise his client about how much the claim may be worth. There are a number of factors to consider, including the strengths and weaknesses of available evidence, the outcomes of similar cases, policy limits, statutory limits, and the defendant’s resources.

In calculating damages, verdicts and settlements can also consider the value of the plaintiff’s present and future lost earnings, profits, or salaries. In Illinois, the Illinois Supreme Court has stated that expert testimony is not required to establish loss of future earning ability, so a plaintiff may be able to provide testimony about future earning ability on their own. In cases involving celebrities, damages based on a person’s future earnings can run very high.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

Johnson & Johnson, a manufacturer of controversial talc products, has stated that it intends to appeal a $55 million verdict against it awarded by a Missouri jury. The jury concluded that the product maker was liable for injuries the plaintiff sustained after using its talcum powder products, including ovarian cancer. According to the plaintiff, she used Johnson & Johnson’s talc products for several decades on her genital region. She was eventually diagnosed with ovarian cancer, requiring a hysterectomy and other related surgical procedures.

According to a statement released by Johnson & Johnson following the recent jury verdict, the manufacturer believes that the jury’s conclusion contravenes roughly 30 years of scientific studies from researchers around the world, concluding that cosmetic talc does not pose health and safety risks.

This litigation marks the second verdict against the health care company. Earlier, another jury in Missouri returned a $72 million verdict against the company in a case involving a woman who developed ovarian cancer and died after using Johnson & Johnson’s Baby Powder and Shower to Shower products for multiple decades. In 2013, a South Dakota jury returned a mixed verdict in another case involving allegations of cancer-related injuries after using the company’s talcum-based products. Although the jury concluded that Johnson & Johnson was negligent, it did not award any damages to the plaintiff because her cancer had gone into remission when the trial commenced.

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