Los Angeles Personal Injury Lawyer - Toxic Substances - Most Commented

Tilting At Windmills

Michael Eyerly — Fri, 20 Oct 2006 19:30:56 GMT

Judge throws out environmental group's unfair competition challenge against alternative energy generators based on lack of standing

Who owns California's natural environment: the air and water, the trees and wild animals? Nobody - at least according to a recent Alameda County Superior Court decision. Judge Bonnie Sabraw threw out a suit brought by the environmental group, Center for Biological Diversity. The group challenged the business practices of energy generators who operate windmills in the Altamont Pass area, near San Francisco, claiming these windmills kill significant numbers of eagles, hawks and other birds.

Now, perhaps one environmental group out to save bird life doesn't resonate all that deeply with you. However, the propriety of the particular relief sought by the parties in this specific case is not the point of this article. Indeed, the stakes are much higher.

Grover Cleveland once said: "Corporations, which should be the carefully restrained creatures of the law and the servants of the people, are fast becoming the people's masters." He was right. And, on November 2, 2004, passage of Proposition 64 effectively freed Big Business from the restraints of California's Unfair Business Competition Law ("UCL"). Enacted to protect Californians from all varieties of unfair, illegal and fraudulent business practices, the UCL was consumers' biggest tool for corporate restraint. It allowed anyone to bring a civil action to stop corporate wrongdoing, and the UCL was used extensively by environmental and consumer groups. When government agencies either would not or could not prevent injustice, Californians could bring suit to prevent corporations, for example, from dumping toxins into our groundwater, or advertising dangerous products, such as cigarettes, to our children.

As you might expect, for years corporate interests lobbied lawmakers in Sacramento to pass legislation recasting the UCL. However, lobbying efforts and legislative attempts to reform these consumer protection laws failed. But, on November 2, 2004, what they could not do in the Legislature, pro-business interests accomplished by ballot initiative. Proponents of Proposition 64 spent enormous sums of money marketing the ballot initiative, and telling voters how the greedy and evil trial lawyers just love the UCL. Money came from the likes of Bank of America, Blue Cross of California, General Motors, Microsoft and State Farm Insurance Company, to name just a few.

Those opposing Proposition 64 tried to warn voters that it would gut the UCL and lessen corporate accountability. Consumer and environmental groups warned that under Proposition 64, suits brought to protect public health or the environment will cease to exist where the unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business practice threatens societal harm, but no one plaintiff has yet suffered a loss of money or property.

The pro-Proposition 64 groups dramatically outspent the pro-consumer groups, and on November 2, 2004, voters passed Proposition 64, limiting UCL suits to those who have "suffered injury in fact and have lost money or property as a result of such unfair competition."

Now back to the windmill case. Judge Sabraw threw the case out because the environmental group could not point to any single plaintiff who had lost property or money. The group did not own the eagles and hawks being killed by the defendants. The judge held:

"While this requirement of actual loss of money or property may well dramatically restrict the private enforcement of statutes intended to protect the public, that is the effect of Proposition 64, and this court 'must take the statutory language as it finds it,'" Sabraw wrote, quoting the Pfizer decision. "After Proposition 64, enforcement of such statutes in legitimate cases is increasingly the responsibility of vigilant state agencies."

Isn't that reassuring.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Michael Eyerly

Santa Susana Rocketdyne Facility Continues to Plague Surrounding Community

Helen Zukin — Mon, 09 Oct 2006 03:00:00 GMT

Toxic exposures from Rocketdyne facility continue to cause concern. Radioactive release causes excess cancer deaths.

A scientific panel released its long awaited report on Thursday, concluding that the 1959 nuclear reactor meltdown at the Rocketdyne facility was responsible for hundreds of excess cancer deaths. For almost fifty years, the Rocketdyne Santa Susana Field Lab conducted its nuclear research and government contracts for both NASA and The Department of Energy in total secrecy. Only in the last decade have residents of the surrounding communities, such as Simi Valley, North Hills, Bell Canyon, Chatsworth and Moorpark, come to learn of the toxic substances which the Field Lab released into the ground, water and air.

As recent as two months ago, the Boeing Company, the current owner of the Rocketdyne facility, disclosed for the first time that napalm, dioxin, mercury and other highly toxic materials had been dumped in open-air burn pits. In August, the Department of Toxic Substances Control received 184 pages of documents from the Boeing Company which revealed that over the years the burn pits had been the dump site of hundreds of thousands of pounds of toxic liquids and gases.

The residents of the surrounding communities have long speculated that the high cancer rates and other diseases which appear to plague the area could be the result of decades of toxic exposures emanating from the Rocketdyne facility. The report released on Thursday adds further concern as to what health effects may have resulted from Rocketdyne activities.

"What's critical here is that people have been exposed here unwillingly and without their knowledge," said Steven Wing, University of North Carolina associate professor of epidemiology and co-chairman of the Santa Susana Field Lab Advisory Panel, which commissioned the studies. "To reduce people's anxiety we need more information. We need more forthcomingness."

Kiesel Boucher Larson has detailed information regarding the Rocketdyne facility and has handled numerous Rocketdyne toxic exposure cases.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Helen Zukin

Debate Over Alleged Dangers of BPA Ramps Up

Miriam Schimmel — Fri, 02 May 2008 20:07:56 GMT

The latest environmental hot button is the bisphenol A (BPA), a chemical contained in polycarbonate plastics. While BPA has existed since its creation in 1890 and the first evidence of toxicity became known in the 1930s, it jumped to the forefront of health and environmental news when popular outdoor sporting good store, REI, pulled the very popular Nalgene plastic drinking bottles from its stores several months ago. Since then, debate has swirled around the presence of BPA in plastics and its alleged links to endocrine problems such as infertility, lower sperm counts, enlarged prostrate glands, pre-cancerous lesions in breast and prostate tissue, and other symptoms of hormone disruption. Other companies have followed suit. In April, WalMart stopped selling baby bottles that contained BPA and Target is now doing market testing for selling glass baby bottles.

What’s more, BPA is found not only in plastics, but it is also in the linings of metal food and drink cans, and the more acidic the food or drink, the greater the danger since the acid promotes leaching of the chemical into the food product. For example, foods like tomatoes, citrus fruits, soda, and even infant formula, are believed to cause greater leaching of BPA into the product.

How do you know if the bottle you’re drinking from polycarbonate plastic? Simple: look at the bottom of the bottle and check the number in the little recycling triangle. The bottles deemed safer and without the presence of BPA are noted with either a “5” (polypropylene) or “2” (polyethylene).

In animal studies, BPA has been shown to be an endocrine disruptor which mimics the female hormone, estrogen, and is allegedly associated with the above abnormalities, as well as with obesity, insulin resistance, and even behavioral changes in animals. But these are animal studies, and many question their applicability to humans. As stated by Rich Kassel in his December 2007 article on the Gotham Gazette: “Although we can't say with certainty that BPA causes the same problems in humans as it does in the laboratory animals, the weight of scientific evidence should prompt us to err on the side of caution and avoid BPA exposures where possible.” Mr. Kassel is a senior attorney at the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC). But the danger – or extent of the danger – is still not known. As recently as last month, the National Toxicology Program of the NIH indicated potential risks BPA may have on human development, therefore raising greater concern over its use and potential harm to infants, children, and pregnant women. USA Today reported on April 27, 2008, that the FDA, while not yet raising its safety standards have initiated a review of the safety of baby bottles, formula cans and other products made with BPA.

Despite many who seem to discount the alleged health dangers, Frederick vom Saal, Ph.D., a developmental biologist at the University of Missouri, believes that studies showing BPA is safe are "profoundly flawed and in some cases exhibit outright fraud." In fact, vom Saal published a paper showing that all 11 of the industry-funded studies found no harmful effects from BPA, but 90 percent of the 104 government-funded low-dose studies did find harmful effects.

Human studies might prove the only way to settle the controversy over BPA. However, to date they have been too limited to draw conclusions one way or the other. The National Toxicology Program published a report in February 2007, and is now planning a future evaluation of BPA.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Miriam Schimmel

$7 Million Awarded to Mesothelioma Victim

Miriam Schimmel — Thu, 13 Mar 2008 14:22:09 GMT

Asbestos manufacturer, Georgia Pacific Corp., was ordered by a San Francisco jury to pay in excess of $7 million to plaintiffs, Joan and Daniel Mahoney. Plaintiffs sued Georgia Pacific claiming that Mrs. Mahoney developed terminal cancer from exposure to asbestos fibers released during her work in a home remodeling business with her husband.

Her husband testified that she was exposed to the asbestos fibers from using Georgia Pacific joint compound to fill cracks in sheetrock while working their part-time remodeling business in the late 1960s. Mrs. Mahoney was diagnosed with mesothelioma, which is a type of lung cancer believed to be caused primarily by exposure to asbestos fibers.

Plaintiffs asserted that Georgia Pacific continued to manufacture the joint compound well after they knew that asbestos could cause cancer and after other companies had found substitutes.

Defendant's lawyers argued that Mrs. Mahoney's frequency of use and amount of exposure, as well as the type of asbestos fibers in the subject joint compound, were not sufficient to have caused her illness or injuries.

Mrs. Mahoney is living in pain from the disease while also caring for her husband who suffered a stroke last year.

The $7million award represents only Georgia Pacific's assigned responsibility - i.e., 30% of the total $20 million award, which is one of the largest verdicts in an asbestos case. The rest of the award will likely go unpaid.

Georgia Pacific intends to appeal.

Kiesel, Boucher & Larson, LLP has a demonstrated history of success representing individuals who developed mesothelioma due to asbestos exposure.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Miriam Schimmel

British Petroleum to be Fined for Explosion

Lance Rubin — Tue, 19 Feb 2008 17:23:16 GMT

The 2005 explosion at British Petroleum's Texas City plant killed 15 people and injured more than 170 others. Civil suits filed by the injured people and the families of those killed have been mostly resolved, but BP is being fined for its wrongdoing.

The explosion at the Texas City plant about 40 miles southeast of Houston occurred after a piece of equipment called a blowdown drum overfilled with highly flammable liquid hydrocarbons.
The excess liquid and vapor hydrocarbons then were vented from the drum and ignited as the isomerization unit -- a device that boosts the octane in gasoline -- started up. Alarms and gauges that were supposed to warn of the overfilled equipment did not work properly.

Though the fines that BP must pay could be up to $3.2 billion dollars, BP and prosecutors are trying to cut a deal whereby BP would only pay $50 million in fines. That sounds like a lot, but not when you compare it to the billions of dollars in profit BP makes every year. This sweetheart deal benefits nobody but BP.

Over 4,000 suits were filed against BP for injuries that occurred after the explosion. About half have been resolved to date.

After a refinery explosion or burst pipe, it's not only those who were directly injured that may have claims. Toxic chemicals are often released in a "plume" of hazardous gasses that can affect those who were near the refinery at the time. People who inhale these toxic fumes often develop lung or other respiratory problems, asthma, headaches, watery eyes and other symptoms.

Kiesel Boucher Larson has experience suing refineries for personal injuries that occur after explosions or pipe ruptures. The firm was successful in bringing claims for hundreds of injured people against ARCO, Tosco and Unocal.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Lance Rubin

CA Consumers May Sue Grocery Stores to Enforce State Labeling Laws

Shehnaz Bhujwala — Tue, 19 Feb 2008 11:19:25 GMT

Last week, California's Supreme Court unanimously ruled that a federal food labeling law does not preclude California citizens from using state consumer laws to enforce an identical state labeling law. The High Court's ruling means consumers may sue grocery store chains to enforce a state law requiring labeling of dyes added to farm-raised salmon.

Do you recall a time in the not-too distant past when salmon was touted by experts as a superfood? With its high Omega-3 fatty acid content and myriad benefits for the heart, brain function and cellular renewal, salmon was the veritable darling of restaurants in the early 2000s, with US restaurants reporting record sales of salmon entrees by customers.

Then came a few cautionary reports about farm-raised salmon, raising public concern over the toxins and dyes found within the fish. Environmental groups also warned about overfishing of wild species and its effects on the environment. More recently, consumers have learned about the excessive mercury levels in many different types of seafood, including salmon; the NRDC and other respected organizations have issued advisories to consumers, asking us to limit our consumption of certain types of seafood, including salmon.

Navigating seafood options has truly become an extraordinary feat, but as always, our choices are better and a little easier with the right information. The U.S. Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act and California's Sherman Food, Drug and Cosmetic Law both require labeling of artificial dyes used in food. This is fantastic consumer protection in theory, but what about practice? Many grocery store chains allegedly fail to label farm-raised salmon to inform consumers of the dyes added to the fish. Clearly, these laws must be adhered to and enforced in order to be effective!

Thankfully, a recent Supreme Court ruling will enable California consumers to sue grocery store chains to enforce compliance under California law. The High Court issued its ruling in San Francisco last week in a case consolidating lawsuits filed by individual consumers in Los Angeles, Alameda and Monterey counties to require grocery chains to label farm-raised salmon as containing dyes. The lawsuits allege that two petrochemical-based dyes, astaxanthin and canthaxanthin, are added to farm-raised salmon to make it appear the same pink color as wild salmon. Without the dyes, plaintiffs' have alleged, the farm-raised salmon would be grayish in color. The lack of pink coloring in farm-raised salmon may also indicate lowered Omega 3 fatty acid content.

The decision overturns prior rulings in which a Los Angeles Superior Court trial judge and the state Court of Appeal in Los Angeles declared the lawsuits violated federal preemption laws. In the opinion, Justice Carlos Moreno wrote that the federal labeling measure explicitly allows states to pass identical state laws. He said there is no indication in the U.S. law that Congress "intended to limit the scope of remedies states might choose to provide for violations of those laws."

Kevin Golden, a lawyer with the Center for Food Safety in San Francisco, told CBS News: "[T]he decision means citizens have a right to know what's in their food and sends a strong message that California citizens can enforce state food safety laws as a matter of state law." The food safety group filed a friend-of-the-court brief supporting plaintiffs in the case. Craig Spiegel, a lawyer for the consumer plaintiffs, said his clients don't want to ingest the chemical dyes and said, "People have the right to determine whether to put artificial dyes in their bodies."

Another friend-of-the-court brief supporting the consumer plaintiffs was filed by the Los Angeles city attorney and the district attorneys of 12 counties, including Alameda, Marin, Monterey, Napa, San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Santa Cruz, Solano and Sonoma counties.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Shehnaz Bhujwala

Potential New Threat to Children?

Miriam Schimmel — Fri, 08 Feb 2008 16:56:28 GMT

Phthalates are chemicals which are used to stabilize fragrances and make plastics flexible. They are typically found in many products including cosmetics, toys, vinyl flooring and medical supplies.

A recent study suggests their presence in baby shampoos, lotions and powders may expose infants to chemicals that have been linked with possible reproductive problems.

The study, which is published in the February issue of the journal Pediatrics, revealed elevated levels of phthalates in the urine of babies who'd been recently shampooed, powdered or lotioned with baby products. Researchers studied 163 babies, between 2 months to 28 months old, in California, Minnesota and Missouri and measured levels of several phthalates in urine from diapers. Information about the babies' mothers' use of various baby products in the preceding 24 hours was obtained, and the results revealed detectable levels of at least one phthalate. Most had levels of several more, and the highest levels were linked with shampoos, lotions and powders and were most prevalent in babies younger than 8 months.

However, there is currently no direct evidence from human studies to show that harm.

While experts are currently undecided as to what dangers these chemicals may pose, if any, there are environmental advocacy groups which believe they do pose a danger. Further, although there are no restrictions or regulations of phthalates by the federal government, California does limit their use. In October 2007, Governor Schwarzenegger signed Assembly Bill AB 1108 which restricted use of certain phthalates and banned others in infant and children's products as of January 1, 2009.

The slight catch to the legislation, however, is that these chemicals often don't appear on product labels because there is no requirement to list individual ingredients of fragrances, which are a common phthalate source. One suggestion is to seek products which are labeled "phthalate-free," or check labels for common phthalates, including DEP and DEHP.

Industry researchers and advocates agree more research is needed, but at the very least, parents should be made aware of the issue so that they can decide whether or not to take protective action on behalf of their children.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Miriam Schimmel

Los Angeles to Drain Two Reservoirs Due to Cancer Risk

Jenny Albano — Mon, 17 Dec 2007 15:39:05 GMT

Two reservoirs in Los Angeles that supply drinking water to residents had to be shut down after officials found the water to be contaminated with high levels of a cancer causing chemical, bromate.

The Los Angeles Department of Water and Power intend to drain 600 million gallons of water from Elysian and Silver Lake reservoirs early next year, a process that will leave them out of action for three to four months amid drought conditions, the department said in a statement.

City officials stated that because they are in the middle of a drought, they would try and use the water for non-consumption purposes, such as irrigation. But the rest of the water will be dumped into the Los Angeles River, which flows into the Pacific Ocean.

According to DWP spokesman Joseph Ramallo, the bromate "formed unexpectedly when the water in the reservoir, combined with groundwater, was treated with chlorine and exposed to sunlight." He also stated that there is no immediate health risk to citizens.

For more information on this subject, please refer to our section on Toxic and Hazardous Substances.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Jenny Albano

Slow Response for Mercury Spill on Los Angeles Subway

Shannon Weidemann — Mon, 26 Feb 2007 11:39:10 GMT

Los Angeles's subway stations are unattended and monitored only by closed circuit television cameras. In December a man spilled mercury on the platform at one of the stations and contacted the Metro Transit Authority on what he had done. It took 8 hours before anything was done to clean up the spill. In the meantime several passengers of the subway came in contact with the hazardous substance.

There is growing discussion among MTA board members and other local officials about a major overhaul of how the stations work -- adding barriers and possibly gate attendants as well as more security officers. Some officials say the mercury incident proves that the agency's reliance on closed-circuit cameras to show what's going on underground is inadequate.
"If we go to gates, we would have a station attendant there all the time," said Roger Snoble, the agency's chief executive officer, who plans to present a report on the issue in the coming weeks. "They would be there to help keep an eye on things."

MTA is weighing the costly proposal to decide if the costs outweigh the benefits. If they hire 500 workers to staff the subway stations it will cost $24 million annually.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Shannon Weidemann

California Schools Fail the Pesticide Test

Paul Kiesel — Mon, 29 Jan 2007 03:00:00 GMT

Schools get an F on pesticide use.
Parents, teachers and students must work to eliminate the highly dangerous presence of pesticides in our schools.

Throughout the country young children are being exposed to highly toxic pesticides in their schools. The use of dangerous chemicals contained in pesticides is a serious threat to our children's health. The National Academy of Sciences has stated that children are highly susceptible to the effects of toxic chemicals. A child's developing body is particularly vulnerable to chemicals due to tissue growth and organ development. In addition, children in close proximity to pesticides often receive higher exposures than adults because of their behavior; i.e. playing on the ground, touching surfaces and putting their hands in their mouths and eyes.

Unfortunately, California schools use large quantities of pesticides to kill weeds on athletic fields and destroy ants and other insects attracted to dropped food and trash. Many of the pesticides commonly used in schools have been linked to serious diseases such as cancer and neurological disorders.

California school districts should recognize the serious hazard pesticides pose for students and staff alike. It is time for schools to use less toxic methods to eliminate pests. Not only is the chemical free approach effective but usually found to be lower in cost than the use of pesticides. Parents must make themselves heard and demand safer alternative approaches than those currently used by California school administrations. A number of states are required to notify parents and staff before applying pesticides in schools. Although the state requires that farmers document their use of toxic pesticides there is no such requirement for schools.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Paul Kiesel