Toxic Torts

Chevron’s claim process from Richmond Fire does not appear to adequately compensate victims

August 13, 2012 | Gregory J. Brod

Chevron is accepting claims for people who have been injured as a result of the fire at its Richmond, California facility on August 6, 2012. According to Chevron, victims will be compensated for “out-of-pocket medical expenses related to the fire” Furthermore, Chevron is requiring victims to have received initial medical treatment by August 17, 2012 in order to be considered in their claims process.

First, in California, there is a two-year statute of limitations in which a person must file a lawsuit for personal injuries or wrongful death. California Code of Civil Procedure § 335.1. Victims of this event need to be aware of their legal rights, despite what Chevron says, or what artificial timeline Chevron attempts to create regarding compensating its victims. Based upon Chevron’s statement that it will pay for out-of-pocket medical expenses only, it appears that Chevron has no intention of compensating victims for what they are fully entitled to under California law.

Under California law, an injured person is entitled to seek economic damages, as well as non-economic damages. CACI (Judicial Council of California Civil Jury Instructions) Jury Instruction 3902. Items of economic damages can include past and future medical expenses, the cost of medical monitoring in the case of toxic exposure, past and future lost earnings. CACI 3903A, 3903B, 3903C. In addition, the items of non-economic damage an injured person is entitled to be compensated for include physical pain, mental distress, emotional distress, fright, anxiety and worry. CACI 3905A. Chevron appears to be offering some victims the cost of past medical expenses, only. Plus, Chevron apparently expects all medical treatment to be complete within two weeks of the fire incident. This is completely inadequate. Many of the victims of the Chevron fire in Richmond will need future medical care, and though they would be entitled to recover damages for those expenses under California law, Chevron is not recognizing future medical costs in their current claims process. Most importantly, Chevron does not appear to recognize the right of its victims to recover for non-economic damages, the value of which may easily exceed to cost of medical expenses.

The Complex Relationship Between a City and a Company

August 13, 2012 | Gregory J. Brod

Last week’s Richmond refinery accident brought to the forefront the often complex relationship that can exist between a large industrial corporation and the community surrounding it. As a law firm dedicated to serving the citizens of Northern California, we know that companies like Chevron are vital to our area’s economy. We also believe that all companies, especially those in the oil and gas industry, take seriously the responsibility to protect the health and well-being of our communities and should work to prevent toxic accidents. The issue is by no means unique to this company and this town – corporate responsibility is a topic of national concern and it is important that the legal system help hold companies accountable for their impact on the environment and the public health consequences of toxic chemicals.

This weekend, The San Francisco Chronicle carried an interesting report focused on the relationship between Richmond and the Chevron refinery. The relationship has long-standing roots with the plant actually pre-dating the 1905 founding of the city by three years. In past years, a previously tight relationship has grown increasingly strained with a number of fires adding to the tension. Some residents believe that day-to-day pollution from the refinery is responsible for a number of health problems. One 2011 study found that nearly one of every three Richmond children suffer from asthma, compared to about one in ten nationwide. After last week’s fire released a thick cloud of black smoke over the city, many residents attended a community meeting with plant management and some called for the refinery to shut down.

However, both residents and city officials recognize the plant is vital to the local economy. Approximately twenty percent of Northern California’s gasoline comes from Chevron’s Richmond refinery. At peak capacity, the plant can process 257,000 barrels of crude per day. The refinery is the largest employer in Richmond, accounting for approximately 2,700 jobs including those at the neighboring Chevron Technology Center (although only seven percent reside in the city itself). As with any large employer, the plant also helps generate other business including restaurant traffic and short-term contract work. The refinery is also the biggest source of taxes for the city, with approximately one-third of the city’s general fund budget coming from taxes and fees related to the Chevron operation. Still, the company and the city have long fought over tax matters. City officials have accused the company of nickel-and-diming them, with Chevron firing back with claims that the city is hostile to business.

Recycling Company Facing Environmental Charges

July 11, 2012 | Gregory J. Brod

Many of us make the effort to recycle in order to help protect our environment. Recycling is generally thought of as a positive effort, making it particularly upsetting when we hear about allegations of environmental misdeeds at a local recycling company. Our Sacramento environmental damage law firm knows that violations of environmental laws can harm the planet, cause significant losses to property owners, and also create an unfair market for businesses that invest in following environmental requirements.

recycle According to a report in The Sacramento Bee, River City Waste Recyclers is facing both criminal charges and a civil suit filed by the Sacramento County District Attorney. River City has five locations in the county including in Elk Grove, Galt, and downtown Sacramento. The company faces 71 alleged violations with maximum penalties of $25,000 per day, dating back at least a year.

Environmental allegations against River City include charges that the firm stored hazardous materials without necessary permits, improperly disposed of auto parts allowing oil to drain into the ground, and failed to take basic precautions against fires. At least one significant fire at the company’s dump on North B Street, a blaze that sent three firefighters to the hospital, has been tied to improperly stored waste. Neighbors of River City’s Galt location have reported five instances of spontaneous combustion stemming from wood chip piles that were, according to the charges, oversized and poorly spaced. Environmental claims also relate to the company’s alleged failure to “prevent the escape of fugitive dust.” Additional charges involve the failure to properly train employees, inadequate recordkeeping, and zoning violations. The DA has asked the judge to declare River City a public nuisance and to issue an injunction to force the company to comply with all applicable laws.

Disputes Continue After 2008 Sewage Spill

June 25, 2012 | Gregory J. Brod

Environmental accidents can occur in moments but often take years to resolve. An article published in this weekend’s Oakland Tribune, by a reporter for the Contra Costa Times, details the dispute that started with a sewage malfunction in 2008 and continues with a lawsuit filed this month in Contra Costa Superior Court. The San Francisco sewage accident attorney at The Brod Law Firm is monitoring developments so that our team can better serve victims of toxic accidents in San Francisco and throughout Northern California.

On July 18, 2008, a malfunction led 94,000 gallons of raw sewage being released into a lake located in the Lakeshore subdivision in the town of Discovery Bay. Amazingly, the entire incident started with a wayward bird. The bird flew into the power grid, landing on a power line and sparking a power failure. Pumps failed to turn back on after the power interruption, forcing sewage to back up into a storm drain that then fed into the community lake. Concerns about the environmental contamination were worsened because fountains in the lake were not shut off. Instead, the fountains remained on for a week after the sewage spill and potentially adding to the spread of contamination and raising additional concerns about illness.

State fines and penalties also followed the incident. Shortly after the incident, an escrow account was opened including funds from both the town and SouthWest Water Co., the town’s wastewater collections operator. However, state staffing cuts and other matters resulted in the issue dragging on for years. Southwest’s escrow company has now refused to open the account to make any payments. Just last month, Discovery Bay paid $241,000 in fines to the state’s regional water quality control board, based on the spill detailed above and three other spills that occurred in 2008.

Governor Brown Calls For Reduction in Use of Toxic Fire Retardant Chemicals

June 20, 2012 | Gregory J. Brod

Sometimes safety decisions are much more complicated than they appear at first glance. In theory, everyone would be in favor of the use of flame retardant materials. Home fires can be devastating financially and we hear all too often of lives lost in residential fires. However, some of the materials used to create flame retardant items, including furniture, pose significant health risks and the toxicity may mean the products pose more dangers than they prevent. As a Northern California toxic tort law firm, our team is following the debate closely so that we can be prepared to help residents of our region who are injured due to dangerous chemicals in their homes or workplaces.

As reported in The Sacramento Bee, Governor Jerry Brown is urging state regulators to reduce the use of flame retardant chemicals in household furniture manufactured, sold and used in California. Gov. Brown is part of a growing group that believes the chemicals are toxic and pose a threat to public health and the environment. His statement, delivered on Monday, addresses chemicals that are used in a wide-range of household items, including couches and high chairs. The directive urges regulators to reduce and eliminate the use of toxic chemical flame retardants and asks industry groups to find safer ways to meet fire safety standards.

This is not a new issue. Last year, the state legislature voted down a bill that would have allowed furniture manufacturers to avoid the use of these chemical flame retardants by creating an alternative test for fulfilling state fire prevention requirements. The Citizens for Fire Safety Institute, a group backed by the chemical industry, and other opponents said last year’s bill would raise the risk of fires. Furthermore, opposition groups suggested the bill would weaken California’s safety standards, a regime they praised as among the strongest in the nation.

The Danger & The Law of Toxic Mold in Northern California

June 11, 2012 | Gregory J. Brod

When we think about mold, most of us recall having to toss out bread, cheese, or other food items that have lingered in our kitchen for too long. However, sufferers who have fallen sick due to toxic mold in San Francisco, Oakland, or other Northern California communities have a very different response. For them, mold inhaled at home or on the workplace is the source of long-term illness and a great deal of struggle.

The vast majority of mold we encounter on a regular basis, such as the mold that might appear on a shower curtain, is harmless. However, some types of mold can cause serious illness. One particularly dangerous type of mold is stachybotrys chartarum, a greenish-black mold that can be found in chronically moist or wet environments, particularly where materials have a high cellulose content including drywall, paper, wood, and certain ceiling materials. Toxic mold gives off spores or mycotoxins that can be inhaled by an unsuspecting individual.

Initial or short-term exposure to toxic mold can cause symptoms that resemble a cold or allergy attack such as sneezing, headache, watery/itchy eyes, and skin irritation including itchy feeling. If exposure to a dangerous strain of mold continues, a person may experience constant headaches, vomiting, diarrhea, weight loss, hair loss, persistent fatigue, short-term memory loss, rashes or sores on the skin, and respiratory ailments such as repeated bouts of bronchitis, sinus infections, and even coughing that brings up blood. Individuals who continue to inhale mold for a longer period can get even sicker and can suffer permanent health ailments such as long-term memory loss, brain damage, blindness, bleeding in the lungs, cancer, and even death.

Federal Lawsuit Claims Illnesses Due to Toxins at Prison-Bureau-Run Electronics Recycling Plant

May 28, 2012 | Gregory J. Brod

The San Francisco chemical exposure lawyer at The Brod Law Firm represents people harmed due to exposure to dangerous substances throughout Northern California. In order to best serve our clients, our team keeps informed about toxic chemical lawsuits in California and also throughout the nation.

One interesting lawsuit that may have implications locally is currently pending in Northern Florida. Current and former employees and their family members are claiming that they have suffered serious health consequences from exposure to toxins at the electronic waste recycling facility at the Marianna Federal Corrections Institution, a medium security facility located sixty-five miles west of Tallahassee. More than 160 individuals have joined the case filed against the federal prison agency, citing health problems including joint pain, sores, memory decline, internal bleeding and problems in the respiratory, thyroid, and reproductive systems. The complaint places the blame on toxins such as beryllium, lead, and cadmium that were in the air at the plant and often appeared as a pollen-like dust on employee’s clothing. Complainants assert that they were not provided with any protective apparel to limit exposure to the toxins. Current and former inmates who claim to have suffered similar illnesses due to exposure at the plant are not part of the current lawsuits because a separate, complex federal process governs claims by prisoners.

Beginning in 1994, the Federal Bureau of Prisons started a program using low-paid inmate labor in plants that recycled computers and other electronic equipment. These recycling plants would extract useful materials, including gold, from the waste products. Worker duties included using hammers to break open television picture tubes and glass computer screens that contained toxic materials. The program began with the Marianna facility but expanded in the next three years to include facilities in seven other states, including here in California.

Captain Blamed in 2007 Cosco Busan Oil Spill Seeking Renewed Mariner’s License

May 23, 2012 | Gregory J. Brod

One of our specialties at The Brod Law Firm is handling cases involving the oil industry. Whether it is a refinery accident in Richmond or an oil spill in San Francisco Bay, our firm is equipped to handle toxic tort lawsuits in Northern California, including litigation arising out of the oil industry.

The Oakland Tribune is reporting on a development involving Captain John Cota, the individual blamed for crashing the cargo ship Cosco Busan into the Bay Bridge on November 7, 2007. The collision tore a 211 foot rip into the ship, resulting in the worst oil spill in Bay waters since the rupture of a Martinez Shell refinery tank in 1988. The Cosco Busan incident caused 53,000 gallons of oil to spill into San Francisco Bay, oiling sixty-nine miles of shoreline, killing over 2,500 birds, and closing area fisheries. A civil lawsuit against Regal Stone Ltd., the ship’s owner, and its operator, Fleet Management Ltd, settled last year with the defendants agreeing to pay $44 million.

Investigators blamed the Costa Busan collision on John Cota’s diminished capacity due to the use of prescription medication. They also cited his failure to heed safety precautions and the decision to travel too fast despite heavy fog conditions as factors in the collision. Cota, age 64, pled guilty and served ten months in prison on water-pollution charges. Additionally, NTSB officials criticized the Coast Guard for failing to warn Cota of the impending collision and cited their failure to properly evaluate Cota’s medical status before renewing his license.

Northern California Disaster Law Firm Continues to Follow Claims Stemming from 2010 BP Oil Spill

May 17, 2012 | Gregory J. Brod

At The Brod Law Firm, we serve those impacted by environmental disasters in San Francisco and throughout Northern California. Our San Francisco class action attorney can handle cases in both federal and state courts in the state. We keep informed about important cases throughout the nation so that we can better serve our local communities when similar issues arise in our jurisdiction.

One of the biggest environmental disasters in recent years was the 2010 Deepwater Horizon Oil spill. On April 20, 2010, an explosion rocked at a nine year old offshore drilling unit that was being leased and operated by BP. Within a couple of days, an oil slick appeared near the rig, confirming fears that the explosion had caused a leak. Before the leak was stemmed, approximately 4.9 million barrels of oil leaked into the Gulf of Mexico waters. Industries and individuals in several states suffered significant economic losses as a result of the spill and the clean-up effort. Health concerns remain an issue for Gulf coast residents.

The oil spill resulted in multiple lawsuits, including individual and class claims against BP. The filing deadline for the existing Quick Payment program has recently been extended from May 7 to June 11. Pursuant to the program, individual claimants are eligible for a $5,000 payment and businesses can receive $25,000. By filing a claim and receiving a payment pursuant to the Quick Payment program, claimants waive the right to any future claims stemming from the 2010 disaster with the exception of those related to injury or death.

Proposed Gas Storage Field Raises Safety Concerns

May 9, 2012 | Gregory J. Brod

Safety is always foremost in the mind of our Sacramento natural gas accident attorney and our entire legal team. The Brod Law Firm is proud to support victims of utility accidents in Sacramento and to represent both individuals and class action groups in Sacramento toxic tort lawsuits. We also support efforts to ensure that utility companies operate in a safe manner that helps to prevent tragic accidents that can end or forever alter the lives of our fellow Californians.

Commissioner Florio of the California Public Utilities Commission (“PUC”) is working to block a local utility company from storing natural gas in a sandstone formation 3,800 feet below Avondale Glen Elder, a neighborhood in Sacramento. Florio is opposing the request by Sacramento National Gas Storage LLC to undertake the $70 million project and store 7.5 billion cubic feet of natural gas. The site is the former Florin Gas Field, a depleted natural gas reservoir, located underneath a 379 acre parcel of land containing more than 700 homes. If the PUC approves the request, the company would then need to seek a permit from the city for the project. Ultimately, the company would seek contracts with utility companies looking to store gas at the location. Company officials say they already have a commitment from the Sacramento Municipal Utility District that would use at least half of the field’s capacity.

In his statement opposing the project, Florio cited three significant impacts that, per the environmental impact report, could not meet the requirement of being mitigated to less than significant levels. The three areas are: 1) Potential hazard of a gas leak following gas field re-pressurization for storage; 2) Potential impact on the quality of groundwater due to operations and maintenance of the gas field; and 3) Temporary elevation of noise levels due to construction at the wellhead site. Florio notes that some of the potential for leaks is low but that the impact could be catastrophic and long-lasting.