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

REQUEST FREE CONSULTATION
Published on:

By

Today, there are thousands of lawsuits being brought against the makers of transvaginal mesh products, including Johnson & Johnson. This month, a jury in Georgia returned a verdict against Johnson & Johnson in favor of the plaintiff, finding that the manufacturer was responsible for injuries that the plaintiff sustained after being implanted with a Mentor ObTape transobturator vaginal sling. While the manufacturer of the device discontinued it in 2006, countless women received the device prior to this time.

Due to the incredible volume of cases involving health complications linked to the Mentor ObTape product, they have been organized into a multi-district litigation (MDL) proceeding centralized in the Middle District of Georgia. MDLs are similar to class actions in that common questions of fact and law are resolved on a broader basis, but they are different in that each plaintiff’s claim is evaluated individually and subject to a unique determination of whether damages are appropriate.

In her complaint, the plaintiff alleged that her doctors prescribed and implanted a ObTape device to treat her stress urinary incontinence. Shortly after the surgery, the plaintiff began experiencing severe pain, infections, and a worsening of her urinary incontinence. She also required multiple follow-up surgeries to address these symptoms and will need extensive continued medical care well into the future.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

Seemingly insignificant facts can sometimes have a huge effect on a case. In a recent case, a lawsuit against a bus driver transporting students to a football game was dismissed because the bus was bringing students to an extracurricular activity rather than to attend classes. This seemingly insignificant fact ended up actually being very important, since this meant that the school was not liable under the statute under which the plaintiff brought the lawsuit.

Often, cases are dismissed because a board of education and its employees are immune from certain lawsuits. However, a state statute created a waiver that allowed lawsuits against county and city boards of education for the negligent operation of “school buses” and “school transportation service vehicles” in certain circumstances.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

Fresenius Medical Care, a German medical company, has entered into a settlement agreement to resolve a landslide of cases brought against it involving its GranuFlo and NaturaLyte products used in dialysis treatments. Both of these products are dialysates and were used in thousands of dialysis clinics across the United States to treat patients experiencing kidney disease and kidney failures. Roughly one in every 500 Americans suffers from some illness that affects the kidneys and must undergo dialysis on a regular basis. Dialysis is a process that cleanses blood and eliminates toxins and wastes before returning it into the patient’s blood.

GranuFlo is a powder concentrate, and NaturaLyte is a liquid version of the same substance. The chemicals are used in dialysis machines to help neutralize the increased production of acid that can occur during the dialysis process.

In 2012, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration issued a Class I recall of both products after determining that the products posed severe threats to patients. Class I recalls are the most serious level of recall that the FDA can initiate and are appropriate when the product in question poses a substantial risk to patients, including the possibility of death.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

In a recent case, a plaintiff filed suit against a doctor and a prenatal care center after her baby sustained an injury during birth. However, the case was dismissed because the statute of limitations had passed, and the court rejected the plaintiff’s “equitable tolling” argument.

The plaintiff, an Illinois resident, was pregnant and went to a health center for prenatal care. She attended 12 visits at the Will County Community Health Center in Joliet, Illinois. In September 2008, the plaintiff sought treatment at an emergency room after experiencing abdominal pain. The emergency room doctor decided to induce labor, and the plaintiff began to give birth. During the birth, the plaintiff’s daughter became stuck and sustained an injury to her arm. After birth, the baby was diagnosed with Erb’s Palsy, a condition involving weakness of the arm due to an injury of the brachial plexus, a nerve cluster located in the shoulder. At the hospital, the baby’s arm was put in a sling due to the injury.

In May 2011, the plaintiff filed suit under the Federal Tort Claims Act against the health center and the emergency room doctor. Under the Act, a claim must be filed within two years after it accrues. The court found that the claims against the emergency room doctor and the health center accrued sometime in September 2008, shortly after the birth. Since the mother experienced a difficult delivery, and the baby was diagnosed with Erb’s Palsy, she had enough information to look into whether they caused the baby’s injury. Thus, the statute of limitations expired two years later, in September 2010.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

The news has been full of reports recently regarding a number of manufacturers’ vaginal mesh products. One of the largest manufacturers of these devices is Johnson & Johnson, which is facing numerous lawsuits in a multi-district litigation. The devices are intended to treat pelvic organ prolapse and urinary stress incontinence, but thousands of women reported experiencing severe complications after receiving the devices. These injuries included minor issues involving pain and very serious conditions that required additional surgeries and treatment.

A plaintiff who experiences severe injuries and damages as the result of a medical device may bring a product liability lawsuit to recover compensation. In a product liability case, the plaintiff may pursue three different theories of recovery. First, the plaintiff can show that the defendant designed the device in an unreasonably unsafe manner. Second, the plaintiff can establish that the specific unit that the defendant received suffered from a defect during the manufacturing process. Finally, the plaintiff can show that the defendant failed to provide sufficient warnings or adequate instructions regarding the device’s use and potential dangers. The plaintiff is not limited to one of these theories and may seek to establish all three.

Recently, a Philadelphia jury rendered a decision in the second lawsuit concerning Johnson & Johnson transvaginal mesh devices. In her complaint, the plaintiff alleged that she suffered severe pain and injuries after the mesh device eroded and that she was required to undergo three revision operations to remove the device.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

Surgeries carry high risks, even those considered “routine” procedures. Patients trust their surgeons to provide them with the necessary care. However, even surgeons can make mistakes. Some mistakes have minor consequences, while others are fatal.

In order to demonstrate a medical malpractice claim arising from an alleged surgical error, the plaintiff must show that the treating medical provider’s conduct fell below the applicable standard of care. Under Illinois law, doctors and other medical providers must provide treatment that meets the accepted level of care of other similarly situated medical providers under the circumstances. An individual must also have suffered an injury that was the result of the medical provider’s error. Finally, the plaintiff must prove that their injury was the result of the physician’s negligent conduct.

Surgical errors can occur for a number of reasons. The surgeon may be inexperienced, unprepared, careless, fatigued, or under the influence, or may fail to communicate necessary information to the patient. Errors made during surgery can result in physical injuries, as well as emotional pain, including depression and anxiety.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

For many of us, pharmaceuticals can offer a life-saving alternative to suffering from terrible conditions and injuries. In some unfortunate situations, however, certain pharmaceutical companies fail to appropriately design, manufacture, and market their drug products. One such example is Xarelto, a drug that is designed as a blood thinner. Now, thousands of lawsuits alleging health problems associated with taking Xarelto are pending in a multi-district litigation proceeding in the Eastern District of Louisiana.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) approved the drug for administration to patients who underwent knee or hip replacements to help reduce blood clots and associated risks. In the fall of 2011, the FDA broadened the approval of Xarelto to help treat patients who experience an irregular heartbeat, also known as atrial fibrillation. It is currently believed that millions of individuals have been prescribed Xarelto since it first hit the market.

Some patients taking Xarelto have reported suffering severe health consequences associated with the drug. Blood thinners can cause unwanted gastrointestinal bleeding and other conditions of a hemorrhaging nature. In response to these issues, the FDA issued two black box warnings. This is the strictest warning that the FDA can impose on a pharmaceutical product. To assign a black box warning, the FDA must find reasonable evidence that the drug is associated with a serious hazard.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

Medical malpractice cases often rely on experts who can testify about what a reasonable medical provider would have done in similar circumstances. In fact, this is often the most hotly contested issue in many cases. In a recently decided case, the plaintiff brought a medical malpractice suit against an emergency room doctor after the doctor allegedly misdiagnosed her.

The plaintiff, a 15-year-old girl, fell from a large structure and was brought to the emergency room after demonstrating signs of a stroke. After performing some basic tests, the doctor believed that she had suffered a concussion and discharged her. The plaintiff went to another emergency room the following day after continuing to experience symptoms, where she was discovered to have suffered a stroke overnight.

The plaintiff alleged that her doctor was negligent by failing to diagnose her with a carotid artery dissection, a condition in which the layers of an individual’s arteries separate, often causing a stroke. She also alleged that the misdiagnosis delayed her treatment, which ultimately resulted in permanent neurological damage.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

Food recalls and food safety have been a major issue for consumers across the United States lately. When we purchase food or order food at a restaurant, we are relying on countless individuals involved in the food processing and preparation chain to use reasonable care and to ensure against contaminants. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) is the federal agency responsible for regulating food safety, and it provides information to consumers about recalls and other emerging events that may put consumers’ health at risk.

Consumers who suffer illnesses as the result of contaminated foods can bring a claim against the parties that may be responsible for the illness. To recover compensation from a defendant, the plaintiff needs to prove a number of things. First, the plaintiff must show that the defendant grew or produced the food and shipped it.

Next, the plaintiff must prove that he or she consumed the food and experienced illnesses diagnosed by a medical physician. The plaintiff must also show that the physician linked the illnesses to the contaminated food. The plaintiff must also illustrate that he or she consumed the food in close proximity to when the symptoms manifested. Finally, the plaintiff must show that the contamination was a direct cause of the defendant’s actions and that the defendant failed to exercise reasonable care to protect against contamination.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

Many individuals sign releases or waivers without reading the fine print. However, the terms of the policy matter, since signing a release waiver may give up someone’s right to sue if they are injured.

In a recent case, Ketler v. PFPA, LLC, a gym member brought suit against Planet Fitness. In April 2013, the man was injured while using exercise equipment at a Planet Fitness facility. A cable broke on a seated rowing machine that he was using, injuring him. He alleged that the injuries were the result of Planet Fitness’ negligence in maintaining its equipment. However, Planet Fitness argued that his claim was barred because he signed a waiver when he signed up for the gym.

The waiver that he signed stated, “I understand and expressly agree that my use of this Planet Fitness facility . . . involves the risk of injury to me or my guest whether caused by me or not. I understand that these risks can range from minor injuries to major injuries including death.” It also stated, “I understand and voluntarily accept this risk and agree that Planet Fitness . . . will not be liable for any injury . . . resulting from the negligence of Planet Fitness . . . whether related to exercise or not.”

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