Illinois Injury and Mass Tort Lawyer Blog

Published on: December 14, 2015

When Food Poisoning Strikes, Compensation May Be Available

When families go out to eat, whether for Sunday brunch or a birthday dinner, they expect their food to not only taste good but also be safely prepared. This is true for the fanciest restaurants as well as the fast food restaurant on the corner. It is also true for food purchased at the grocery store or served via home delivery.

Unfortunately, however, food is not always as safe as it should be. Sometimes this results in an upset stomach that resolves itself after a couple of days and that a customer may not even attribute to food he or she recently ate. But sometimes food poisoning can cause serious health problems or even death.

One of the more common and well known sources of food contamination is the E. coli bacteria, which lives in the intestines of certain animals. The most common symptoms of E. coli are diarrhea, abdominal cramping, nausea, and vomiting. In more serious cases, kidney failure may occur. This most commonly occurs in children and those with compromised immune systems, like the elderly.

Continue reading →

Published on: December 12, 2015

Boston Scientific Issues Class I Recall for Chariot Guided Sheath Medical Device

By Moll Law Group

Earlier this month, medical device manufacturer Boston Scientific announced that it has initiated a voluntary recall of its Chariot Guiding Sheath devices (CGS). The CGS devices were designed and manufactured to be used in peripheral vascular procedures. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration, which is responsible for overseeing the approval and safety of medical devices, among other things, has labeled the recall a Class I, the highest and most serious level of recall that the agency issues. The agency’s website defines a Class I recall as “a situation in which there is a reasonable probability that the use of or exposure to a violative product will cause serious adverse health consequences or death.”

According to the recall, Boston Scientific has received reports that at least 14 of the CGS devices experienced shaft separation issues and other related issues that created complications in patients who were implanted with the CGS device. According to its statement announcing the recall, separation of the shaft can lead to life-threatening injuries like embolisms, blood flow obstruction, and emergency surgery to remove the device or its fragments.

Continue reading →

Published on: December 11, 2015

Former Football Players May Be Entitled to Compensation for Head Injuries

By Moll Law Group

For years, many former professional football players struggled with a constellation of neurological and mental health symptoms of unknown etiology. Many players believed that their symptoms were the result of their days on the gridiron, but clear explanations were rarely forthcoming.

More recently, the base of evidence has grown to indicate that repeated blows to the head, especially those involving concussions, can cause severe neurological impairments and a condition called Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy (CTE). While symptoms may be mild at first, retired players may ultimately be plagued by Alzheimer’s disease, Parkinson’s disease, Lou Gehrig’s disease (ALS), and severe dementia as a result of their playing days. CTE is also associated with extreme depression and even suicide.

As a result of their debilitating conditions, more than 5,000 former players sued the National Football League (NFL) for failing to warn them of the dangers of repeated concussions, and even concealing those dangers. These lawsuits were ultimately consolidated into a class action lawsuit, which also alleged that the NFL knew or should have known of the risks associated with frequent blows to the head.

Continue reading →

Published on: December 10, 2015

Mississippi Court Dismisses Medical Device Action Against Foreign Manufacturer

By Moll Law Group

In Arnoult v. CL Med. Sarl, a product liability case, the plaintiff filed suit against the manufacturer of a mid-urethral sling intended to treat stress urinary incontinence. The device, called an I-STOP, was manufactured by a company based in France called CLMS, which sold the device in the United States. The device was distributed by another company called Uroplasty, which the plaintiff also sued in her product liability action.

In her complaint, the plaintiff alleged claims of design and warning defects pursuant to Mississippi’s Products Liability Act, in addition to actions based on negligence, breach of express and implied warranties, fraud by concealment, fraud, negligent infliction of emotional distress, negligent misrepresentation, and loss of consortium.

Continue reading →

Published on: December 9, 2015

FDA Approves First Genetically Engineered Animal for Human Consumption

By Moll Law Group

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) made major headlines this week when it granted approval for the first genetically engineered animal intended for human consumption. Dubbed AquAvantage salmon, the fish are designed to reach harvest maturity much faster than their non-genetically modified counterparts.

The approval has many consumers leery of genetically modified foods concerned because the FDA did not require the maker of the salmon, AquaBounty, to label the fish as genetically modified. Instead, the fish can be marketed and sold under the name “Atlantic Salmon.” FDA approval for genetically modified foods involves a determination of whether the altered food item in question is materially different from its non-genetically altered counterparts.

Stated differently, the FDA does not require a genetically modified food to be labeled as such unless the genetically engineered food is found to materially differ from its non-genetically engineered counterpart.

Continue reading →

Published on: December 8, 2015

Child Birth Injuries and Medical Malpractice Claims

By Moll Law Group

Everybody hopes for a healthy baby. Nowadays, pregnant mothers are tested and retested for dangerous genetic conditions that can cause a baby to be born with severe impairments, and multiple ultrasounds of a baby in utero are not uncommon even during healthy pregnancies.

Despite these precautions, sometimes medical errors are made during a mother’s pregnancy or at the time of birth that cause a child to be born with significant impairments or even die during childbirth. In Illinois, these errors may amount to negligence, or what is called medical malpractice. Medical malpractice occurs in childbirth cases when a doctor or hospital employee fails to provide the same level of care that other obstetric healthcare providers would provide under similar circumstances, and this failure, or breach, causes an injury to a baby.

Birth injuries come in many forms. Sometimes, the injuries are physical, and a baby’s shoulders or arms possess limited function as a result of a doctor’s malpractice. Other times, the injuries are to a baby’s brain. Perhaps a doctor made an improper use of a birthing tool or failed to provide a timely Cesarean section procedure, and the error resulted in a baby having severe brain damage that may last a lifetime or may even result in death.

Continue reading →

Published on: December 7, 2015

Emergency Room Errors May Amount to Medical Malpractice

By Moll Law Group

There are very few people who have not visited an emergency room at some point in their lives. Even the most cautious person can slip and fall, or cut their finger with a kitchen knife, and end up being taken to the emergency room. In addition to emergency rooms, urgent care centers are becoming more and more common as an alternative to traditional hospital emergency rooms. For some patients, urgent care centers are more convenient than a trip to the doctor’s office or a crowded emergency room.

No matter the venue, when a patient is in need of immediate medical care, the doctors charged with providing that care must provide the same level of care that other physicians, practicing urgent or emergency medicine, would provide under similar circumstances, taking into account a patient’s age and medical history. If they don’t, and their failure to meet these standards results in an injury or death to a patient, they may be liable for medical malpractice. Another name for medical malpractice is medical “negligence.”

For many patients, the worst part of an emergency room visit is the long wait before being seen. Hours after arriving at the emergency room doors, they are sent home with stitches, medication, or both. Usually, they return home tired but relatively healthy.

Continue reading →

Published on: December 5, 2015

Medical Device Manufacturers Are Subject to Strict Liability in Illinois

By Moll Law Group

With advances in medical technology, many medical procedures that used to be daunting are now routine. Patients often arrive at a hospital or surgical center early in the morning and leave by mid-afternoon with few after-effects from the procedure or anesthesia. Many are able to even return to work the next day.

For doctors, medical procedures are an effective way of monitoring for certain conditions or diagnosing a new illness. Procedures are also lucrative medical treatments, and the more procedures a doctor squeezes in during a day, the more money the practice or hospital is reimbursed by insurance companies.

Companies that design and manufacture medical devices also stand to profit significantly from the widespread use of one of their devices. In some cases, the race to bring new products to the market results in great innovations, with patients benefiting from less invasive but equally effective procedures. In other cases, however, the drive for profits may cause a company to overlook faulty equipment and rush a product to market. Companies may also provide doctors with inadequate instructions on how to use or clean a device.

Continue reading →

Published on: December 4, 2015

Multiple Foodborne Illness Outbreaks Hit the United States

By Moll Law Group

Food producers have a duty to ensure that the food products they provide to the public are free of contamination and safe for human consumption. Recently, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has adopted a new set of rules and regulations designed to improve safety controls and prevent harmful and even deadly foodborne illness outbreaks from making people sick.

When a producer or company fails to safely prepare or process food products, and a consumer becomes sick as a result, the producer may be strictly liable for the consumer’s damages. The most difficult aspect of a food contamination case is proving causation. Most of us eat a wide variety of foods and products throughout the day, or even week, and many people fail to remember exactly what they consumed, or where and when they consumed it.

When an outbreak occurs, state public health officials and the national Centers for Disease Control (CDC) typically get involved to help trace the particular strain that caused the illness back to a specific source, like a restaurant, factory, or farm. In many cases, the reports and evidence created during these investigations can be used to show causation in a lawsuit.

Continue reading →

Published on: December 2, 2015

Federal Court Remands Case to State Court for Failure to Prove Amount in Controversy Under CAFA

By Moll Law Group

In a recent case filed in the Northern District of California, Gyorke-Takatri v. Nestle USA, Inc., the court concluded that a party to a class action case who seeks removal to a federal court must offer sufficient admissible evidence to show that there is an adequate jurisdictional basis for removal. The underlying case involved a plaintiff’s allegations about the defendant’s Gerber Graduates Puffs product, which bears a label depicting a variety of fruit and vegetables. The plaintiffs sought to represent a class of in-state consumers who claim that these images were misleading by leading consumers to believe the products were healthier than they actually are. Ultimately, based on its conclusion, the Northern District of California granted the plaintiff’s motion to remand.

In their motion for remand, the plaintiffs alleged that the defendant failed to meet its burden, which required it to show by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy in the case exceeded five million dollars. This requirement is part of the federal Class Action Fairness Act (“CAFA”), 28 U.S.C. 1332(d). In order to prove that the amount in controversy requirement under CAFA has been satisfied, the party must show that the total amount of damages sought in the lawsuit, exclusive of attorneys’ fees, costs, and interest, exceeds five million dollars.

Continue reading →