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

REQUEST FREE CONSULTATION
Published on:

By

Moll Law Group and Bayer have entered into a settlement agreement under which Moll Law Group agreed to dismiss with prejudice the pending litigation on behalf of its client in The United States District Court of and for the Southern District of Illinois. Pursuant to the terms of the settlement, Bayer agrees to pay the Plaintiff $1.5M and holds no admission of liability or wrongdoing of any position whatsoever in connection with any matters relating to Plaintiff’s alleged use of Ocella or otherwise.

The case involves a young woman who consumed the birth control pill, Ocella, manufactured by Bayer. In 2011, the young woman was 23-years and was a first time birth control user. Within weeks of her Ocella use, Plaintiff began experiencing problems that led to surgeries and partial loss of vision. The complaint, filed in 2013, states that the Plaintiff was prescribed Ocella and suffered injury including, but not limited to, loss of vision, blood clotting and various brain traumas that required continuous surgery.

Ocella is an oral birth control medication with a combination of 2 hormones: an estrogen (ethinyl estradiol) and a progestin (drospirenone). The complaint cites studies that suggest drospirenone is a diuretic that can cause an increase in potassium levels in the blood. This can lead to a condition known as hyperkalemia (elevated blood potassium levels). Hyperkalemia can cause heart rhythm disturbances, such as extra systolies, pauses or bradycardia. If left untreated, hyperkalemia can be fatal. If hyperkalemia disrupts the normal heart rhythms, the flow of blood through the heart can be slowed to the point that it permits blood clots to form. Blood clots in the heart can lead to heart attacks, or the clots can break off and travel to the lungs where they can cause pulmonary embolism, or can travel to the legs where it can cause deep vein thrombosis, or it can travel to the brain causing a stroke.

Continue reading →
Published on:

By

Medical technology has led to some incredible breakthroughs and has allowed doctors to heal certain injuries and conditions that were previously next to impossible to address. For all their benefits, however, there are some instances in which medical devices do more harm than good. One current example involves surgical robots like the Da Vinci robotic surgical system.

In a recent case, Zarick v.1 Intuitive Surgical, Inc., a 44-year-old woman has alleged that the Da Vinci robot caused her to suffer serious injuries when it malfunctioned during her hysterectomy procedure in 2013. The woman underwent the hysterectomy procedure to address a number of cysts growing in her pelvic region.

The malfunction resulted in the plaintiff’s intestines prolapsing through her vagina. The plaintiff required a second surgery to address the physical damage, but the malfunction was so severe that the plaintiff was left with permanent injuries that prevented the plaintiff from engaging in sexual intercourse with her husband, among other injuries.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

Moll Law Group is dedicated to promoting education as well as injury prevention. By offering a semi-annual $1,000 scholarship award to the student who submits the best injury prevention essay, Moll Law Group wishes to help students alleviate the cost of college expenses. The following are the recipients of the Spring 2016 Moll Law Group Scholarship Award:

$1,000 – Winner – Evan Kaufmann

$100 – Finalist – Brittany Larsen

$100 – Finalist – Nathanial Kern

$100 – Finalist – Dwan Cowan

$100 – Finalist – Vanessa Infante

The Spring 2016 Scholarship application submissions were received from several different states across the nation. Only five finalists were chosen and ultimately only one winner was awarded the grand prize. As a consolation prize to the runner-up finalists who dedicated much time and effort to their entry, Moll Law Group awarded each a $100 award to be used towards college tuition and related expenses. Continue reading →

Published on:

By

CHICAGO, 18 de Abril, 2016: Un bufete de abogados de Chicago hoy afirmó que está investigando la interposición de demandas en todo el país en contra de AstraZeneca, los fabricantes de Prilosec y Nexium. Moll Law Group ha sido contactado y actualmente está investigando reclamos de enfermedad renal crónica, lesión renal aguda, nefritis intersticial aguda, insuficiencia renal, y ataque al corazón. Nexium y Prilosec son inhibidores de tipo bomba de protones (conocidos como PPI, por sus siglas en inglés) que se utilizan para disminuir la cantidad de ácido producido en el estómago.

Los inhibidores PPI se utilizan comúnmente para tratar la enfermedad por reflujo gastroesofágico (GERD, por sus siglas en inglés) y la enfermedad de la úlcera péptica (PUD). Prilosec, originalmente aprobado como Losec en 1988, fue el primer medicamento categorizado como PPI. Por su parte, Nexium es un PPI de segunda generación que se dice es una mejora en relación a Prilosec. Ambos son fabricados por AstraZeneca.

La edición de febrero de 2016 del Diario de la Asociación Americana de Medicina (conocido como JAMA, por sus siglas en inglés), publicó los resultados de un nuevo estudio que mostró un mayor riesgo de enfermedad renal crónica en pacientes que usan inhibidores de tipo bomba de protones tales como Nexium (esomeprazol), Prilosec (omeprazol) y medicamentos—recetados o de venta libre—similares. Los resultados mostraron que el riesgo de enfermedad renal crónica era mayor con el uso prolongado.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

CHICAGO, April 18, 2016: A Chicago law firm stated today that it is investigating the filing of lawsuits nationwide against AstraZeneca, the makers of Prilosec and Nexium. Moll Law Group has been contacted and is currently investigating claims of chronic kidney disease, acute kidney injury, acute interstitial nephritis, renal failure, kidney failure, and heart attack. Nexium and Prilosec are Proton Pump Inhibitors (PPIs) that are used to decrease the amount of acid produced in the stomach.

Proton Pump Inhibitors are commonly used to treat gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) and peptic ulcer disease (PUD). Prilosec, originally approved as Losec in 1988, was the first member of the Proton Pump Inhibitor class of medications. Nexium is a second generation Proton Pump Inhibitor said to be an improvement on Prilosec. Both are manufactured by AstraZeneca.

A February, 2016 issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), published the results of a new study which showed a higher risk of chronic kidney disease in patients using Proton Pump Inhibitors like Nexium (esomeprazole), Prilosec (omeprazole), and similar prescription and over-the-counter medications. The results showed the risk of chronic kidney disease was higher with prolonged use. Continue reading →

Published on:

By

In a recent case, a commercial truck driver alleged that another driver engaged in road rage, causing him to crash. However, after the jury found in favor of the defendant, the decision was vacated due to the defendant’s concealment of past traffic tickets.

The truck driver argued that the defendant cut him off and slammed on his brakes. The truck driver then had to swerve to avoid him, and he crashed his truck and was injured as a result. The truck driver testified that the other driver “gave him the finger” before the accident. The other driver fled the scene but was tracked by a witness. He was cited for making an improper lane change and pleaded no contest to the citation. But at trial, the defendant argued that he did not cause the accident and that he was falsely accused.

The jury found that the plaintiff had failed to prove that the defendant negligently caused the accident. After trial, the plaintiff filed a motion to set aside the judgment because the defendant hid prior traffic citations during pre-trial discovery. The plaintiff argued that the defendant engaged in fraud, misrepresentations, or misconduct to get a favorable verdict. He said that the defendant hid evidence specifically requested in discovery and then presented evidence at trial contrary to the concealed evidence.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

The United States Supreme Court recently issued a key ruling involving class action litigation. In Tyson Foods, Inc. v. Bouaphakeo, the high court was asked to consider whether the plaintiffs could use the “representative evidence” method of proving predominance according to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3).

The plaintiffs were employees in Tyson’s Iowa-based pork slaughtering, cutting, and retrimming departments. Due to the nature of the work performed, the workers were required to don specific protective gear prior to beginning their work day. The type of equipment they needed to wear varied based on the department in which they were assigned to work on any given day. Based on an injunction issued by a federal court in prior years, Tyson was required to compensate each employee an additional four minutes of pay each day to reflect the amount of time required to don and doff the protective gear, which were referred to by the company as “K-code time.” Sometime in 2007, Tyson ceased making these payments to some of its employees while continuing to compensate others.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

Toxic substances can cause serious sicknesses with long-lasting effects. Toxic tort cases are a specific type of personal injury lawsuit in which the plaintiff claims that being exposed to chemicals caused the plaintiff injury. The cases usually require specialized, technical testimony from expert witnesses. Sometimes cases are brought against private companies, or against federal and state agencies that have failed to protect citizens. Individuals who have been exposed to toxic chemicals often need to recover damages to pay for expensive medical bills, as well as damages for pain and suffering.

Toxic tort cases can be caused by exposure to hazardous chemicals, wastes, hydrocarbons, or other harmful substances. Some common examples are exposure to asbestos, formaldehyde, and lead. These cases can arise in a number of different situations. They can arise from exposure in the workplace if workers are exposed to toxic chemicals. Many toxic chemicals are used in the workplace, and workers can be exposed regularly over many years, often to higher levels than the general population.

These cases can also be brought against pharmaceutical companies, drug manufacturers, distributors, or prescribing doctors if toxic substances are included in drugs. Cases can be brought resulting from exposure to consumer products, such as exposure to mold, formaldehyde, and pesticides in the home. They can also result from exposure to toxins in the air or in drinking water.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

Nestle Corporation is one of the biggest food manufacturers in the world, with many people associating the brand with the chocolates and other sweets it makes. It also produces a wide variety of frozen foods under a variety of labels, including Stouffer’s, Lean Cuisine, and DiGiorno pizza. The manufacturing process for frozen foods can be quite complex and typically involves many different steps, including everything from preparing the food and packaging it to freezing it.

Recent reports indicate that Nestle has recalled roughly three million units of its frozen food products that contain spinach over fears that the spinach contains glass. A wide variety of products are affected, including pizzas, pasta dishes, lasagnas, and other popular Nestle dishes. The company has released a list of production codes that customers can use to identify whether a particular unit is part of the recall. The production code is printed on the side of the DiGiorno, Lean Cuisine, and Stouffer’s packages.

To recover compensation after suffering injuries from a dangerous product, the plaintiff must show that the product was designed in an unreasonably dangerous manner or that the particular unit the plaintiff received suffered from a defect during the manufacturing process that rendered the unit unreasonably dangerous. A food item that contains a dangerous foreign object not originally designed to be part of the food item satisfies the latter prong of this test.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

Even when individuals have a valid claim, a lawyer’s missteps can have serious consequences for their clients. In a recent case, a judgment in favor of the defendant could not be revisited because the issue raised on appeal was not raised by the plaintiffs’ lawyer during the trial.

The Facts of the Case

A husband and wife filed a lawsuit against makers and distributors of microwave popcorn and butter flavoring. The husband ate microwave popcorn every day for 20 years. They alleged that the products caused him to develop the lung disease bronchiolitis obliterans.

At trial, the experts disagreed about what caused the husband’s sickness. Both the plaintiffs and the defendants had a number of expert witnesses who testified about his sickness and its likely cause. One of the defendant’s experts was a doctor who testified about articles that were not provided to the plaintiffs for review. The plaintiff’s lawyer objected, arguing that the witness could not testify about facts about which the plaintiffs did not have information. He argued that the plaintiffs could not adequately prepare for such testimony, and the testimony was unfair. The judge agreed, and the expert’s testimony was stricken. Accordingly, the judge instructed the jury to ignore the testimony they had heard from the expert. The trial continued, and the jury found in favor of the defendant.

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