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

REQUEST FREE CONSULTATION
Published on:

By

Last month, the Ohio State Court handed down a decision holding that courts cannot certify proposed class actions that include members who have not suffered any injuries. In Felix v. Ganley Chevrolet, Inc., the trial court granted class certification to a proposed class defined as including all consumers who purchased vehicles from a specific dealership subject to a contract including an arbitration provision that was unenforceable.

At the time the trial court granted the motion for class certification, there was no evidence that any of the class members, besides the representative, had an actual dispute with the defendant dealership or even suffered injuries as a result. Ultimately, the trial court awarded each class member $200 as damages.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

In a recent case in front of an Illinois appellate court, a woman lost her right to recover for injuries that she claimed were due to negligent treatment by her attending physician. In the case, McDonald v. Lipov, the court determined that the “certificate of merit” requirement is strictly enforced in medical malpractice cases, and it may also be enforced in medical battery claims, depending on the surrounding facts.

According to the court’s written opinion, the plaintiff filed suit against her treating physician pro se, meaning without the assistance of an attorney. The court granted her ample time to comply with the procedural requirements of § 2-622, which mandates that a certificate of merit be obtained from a qualified medical expert. The plaintiff failed to do so, and the case was dismissed.

The plaintiff then refiled the action, rephrasing several of the same claims. Rather than bringing the claims as “medical malpractice” claims, the plaintiff phrased them as “medical battery” claims, in hopes of avoiding the requirements of the statute.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

On October 14, 2015, the United States Food and Drug Administration released a document providing draft guidance for animal studies used in medical device development and testing. In many lawsuits regarding defective medical devices, studies and guidance documents of this nature are used by the parties’ experts to testify about certain aspects of a party’s legal theory or to rebut testimony from another expert.

These studies will frequently provide evidence regarding the purported safety of a drug or device based on how the drug or device affected animals used in studies. As a result of this precarious situation, there are strict regulatory and industry standards associated with how these studies can be performed.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

An Illinois Appeals Court recently confirmed that some plaintiffs in medical battery claims are required to include a certificate of merit at the same time that they file the initial lawsuit. According to one news source, this was the second appeals court to require the certificate in this type of case.

Under Illinois law, when a plaintiff files suit against a medical professional alleging negligence, the plaintiff is required to attach a sworn statement, or affidavit, to the complaint indicating that the claim is reasonable and that there is merit to the case. The statement must be based on the plaintiff’s consultation with a medical professional about the circumstances of the case. Medical negligence is also called medical malpractice.

In the recent case, one of the plaintiff’s claims was for medical battery in addition to medical malpractice. In a medical battery action, a plaintiff claims that the treating doctor touched or operated on a part of his or her body without the plaintiff’s consent during a medical procedure. In the first medical battery case that the court addressed, a surgeon cut the patient’s tendons during surgery, even though the surgery did not require that the tendons be severed, and the patient had not authorized that the tendons be cut.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

In many class action cases, the defendant will attempt to render the action moot by offering a settlement to the lead plaintiff. Last month, the First Circuit Court of Appeals rejected one such attempt to moot in Bais Yaakov of Spring Valle v. ACT, Inc. In this case, the plaintiffs alleged that the defendants sent unsolicited faxes informing the plaintiffs and the proposed class of testing deadlines and test locations in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”) and analogous New York state laws.

After the suit was filed, the defendant made an offer for judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 68. The defendant then moved to dismiss the lawsuit, claiming that the Rule 68 offer that it sent, which the plaintiffs did not accept and the defendant later withdrew, fully resolved the parties’ case or controversy, rendering the plaintiffs’ claims moot.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

Earlier this year, an Illinois appellate court decided a case holding that the time of accrual for a wrongful death action based on the legal theory of medical malpractice is the time of death, rather than the time the alleged negligence was discovered. In the case, Moon v. Rhode, the plaintiff was the son of a woman who died while in the care of the defendant doctors.

According to the court’s written opinion, the plaintiff’s mother was in the care of the defendant doctors for 11 days preceding her death. At some point in that period, a CT scan was conducted and the results examined by one of the defendant doctors. Action was not taken after reviewing the results, and several days later the woman passed.

The plaintiff obtained medical records one year after his mother’s death. Three years after that, he contacted a medical expert, who opined that any “reasonably, well-qualified radiologist and physician would have identified” a breakdown in anastomosis, which ultimately contributed to the death of his mother. The plaintiff then filed suit against several treating physicians, claiming that his mother’s death was a result of the allegedly negligent medical care provided by the defendants.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

A local woman sued a surgeon recently after undergoing surgery to improve a condition involving her upper, or cervical, spine. The cervical spine is the portion of the spine located closest to the neck. The patient initially sought treatment from the doctor due to ongoing neck pain.

According to the lawsuit, the surgeon performing the surgery was negligent in his use of a surgical retractor. A retractor is a surgical instrument used for holding skin or other tissue out of the way during a surgical procedure.

As a result of the doctor’s negligence, the lawsuit alleges that the patient suffered nerve and vascular injuries. Vascular injuries are injuries to a person’s arteries or veins. In addition, the patient claims that the doctor’s negligence caused her to suffer from continued neck pain. The pain then caused the patient to suffer from significant emotional problems.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

Earlier this year, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a lower court’s dismissal of a proposed class action based on the plaintiffs’ failure to meet a number of the four required elements of class certification.

In Karhu v. Vital Pharm, Inc., the defendant manufactured and marketed a dietary supplement intended to help users lose weight. The defendant marketed the product for this purpose. The plaintiffs’ class action lawsuit alleged that the product did not in fact aid with weight loss as the defendant claimed. The plaintiffs sought to certify a class of product users nationwide.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

The automaker Hyundai recently announced that it is recalling a large number of midsize and compact cars sold in the United States. In total, the recall affects nearly 28,000 cars, including Elantras manufactured in 2010 and 2011, and Sonatas manufactured in 2009 and 2010. Hyundai’s Elantra and Sonata are two of the automaker’s top-selling cars in the United States.

The recall was issued because of defective front coil springs installed in the Elantras and Sonatas. According to the U.S. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, road salt can cause the coils to corrode and fracture. Road salt is typically applied to improve driving conditions when roads are covered in snow or ice, but if a coil corrodes and breaks, one of the front tires could puncture. The result would be an increased risk of an accident.

To date, no injuries or accidents have been reported as a result of the defective coils. Accidents from defects often occur and are not reported. Hyundai plans to notify dealers and car owners living in the so-called “salt belt” that new coils will be installed free of charge in the cars affected by the recall. The salt belt includes many of the Mid-Atlantic, Northeast, and Midwestern states, including Illinois.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

In Saavedra v. Eli Lilly & Co., the plaintiffs brought suit against the manufacturer of the anti-depressant drug Cymbalta, alleging not that they overpaid for the product but that they were harmed because they received a product that had less value than what they expected to receive. The plaintiffs sought to certify four classes under consumer fraud protection statutes in four jurisdictions:  California, Massachusetts, New York, and Missouri. Initially, the trial court rejected these classes, stating that the plaintiffs had asserted an “unusual” theory of recovery. More specifically, the plaintiffs omitted any allegations indicating how they suffered or experienced the withdrawal symptoms.

Instead, the plaintiffs contended that they received a product that had less utility, which they defined as the benefit they believed they would receive from using the product. The trial court rejected this theory, noting that it focused only on the refund associated with users’ out-of-pocket costs. In reality, the prescription drug market’s price and value relationship is severed due to the nature of how prescription drugs are marketed and sold.

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.

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