Toxic Torts

Controversial Pesticide Pulled By Manufacturer From California Market

March 23, 2012 | Gregory J. Brod

As your San Francisco dangerous chemicals law firm, the team at The Brod Law Firm believes that it is vital for both companies and regulatory officials to prioritize consumer safety. We are prepared to help victims of chemical exposure file San Francisco products liability lawsuits and other related claims to help residents recover when dangerous chemicals cause illness or injury. We fundamentally believe, however, that preventing the community from being exposed to harmful chemicals upfront is always preferable to dealing with illness and injury in the aftermath of exposure.

The San Francisco Chronicle reported this week on a positive move towards safety in California’s agricultural arena. Manufacturers of methyl iodide, a pesticide used in growing strawberries, have announced that the product will be pulled from the market in California and throughout the United States. Arysta LifeScience Corporation, a Japanese company, has cited economic factors in the decision to discontinue sales. The company has also voluntarily cancelled its registration permitting the sale of methyl iodide in California.

Although the company did not cite safety concerns in their statements, environmental groups have been lobbying against the product since it was first approved for use in our state. In 2007, federal authorities approved the use of methyl iodide as a temporary bridge between methyl bromide, a product known to contribute to the depletion of the ozone layer, and to-be-developed environmentally friendly options. In 2010, the pesticide was specifically approved by the state for use by California farms. Opponents to the product, including many in the public health arena, believe that the company is a possible carcinogen and that use of methyl iodide exposes residents who live or work near treated fields to fumes that might raise their cancer risk. Use of the pesticide has been limited, likely due to a high-profile campaign against the chemical

An Introduction To Class Actions

March 19, 2012 | Gregory J. Brod

When a man-made disaster impacts our state, our California class action attorney is prepared to help. In cases involving toxic torts, such as a California oil refinery accident, The Brod Law Firm is prepared to use the tool of either a federal or state class action to ease the burden on individual plaintiffs and allow an entire group of victims to prove their case collectively.

The most likely reason to bring a class action suit in federal court, instead of state court, is the diversity doctrine. This means that the suit involves at least one plaintiff who is a citizen of a different state than one or more of the defendants. For these purposes, companies are citizens of the state where they have their principle place of business. In order to file as a federal class, the plaintiffs must show four things: 1) Commonality (one or more issues is common to the whole class and, often, these common issues dominate over individual matters); 2) Adequacy (the selected representative can effectively protect the interests of all members of the class); 3) Numerosity (the class is large enough that individual lawsuits are not practical, making a class action a better method for resolving the matters); and 4) Typicality (the claim of the representative stems from a wrong to the class and is typical of the claims of the class members). These requirements aim to make sure that a class action is the best method for resolving a dispute and that a proper lead plaintiff is selected to represent the class in court.

Class actions can also be brought under state law. A few examples of the types of claims that might give rise to a class action in California are employment law violations, defective products claims, and consumer protection litigation. The rules governing class actions in California are a mix of guidance from statutes passed by the legislature and interpretations developed by state courts. Some of the basic requirements for a state class action mirror the requirements under federal law. California courts will also be more likely to grant certification of a class if doing so will serve a benefit to the class or to the citizens of the state as a whole and if the claims would be unlikely to be heard individually.

Alameda County Considers Drug Disposal Measure

March 14, 2012 | Gregory J. Brod

Medication saves lives. Our Oakland pharmaceutical lawyer knows we are lucky to live in an age where so many health ailments can be managed or cured through the use of medication. However, we also know that medications can be dangerous, especially when unused medicines are not properly disposed.

As your Oakland dangerous drugs law firm, The Brod Firm has been following developments in Alameda County regarding drug disposal. According to The Oakland Tribune, Alameda County supervisors have elected to delay passage of an ordinance that would have required pharmaceutical companies to take back unused products. The ordinance, which was expected to be approved, would have made the county the first local government to require such steps. The delay means the provision will not come to a vote until June, at the earliest.

Currently, there are 128 drop-off sites in the Bay Area at which residents can dispose of unwanted medications. In 2009, area residents used the sites to dispose of 60,000 pounds of pharmaceuticals. The Alameda proposal would have mandated that drug manufacturers create detailed plans to collect both prescription and over-the-counter medicines. The estimated cost of complying with the proposal is $200,000. Business representatives from pharmaceutical companies and trade associations argued that the proposal was premature and would have been ineffective. They suggested the proposal would increase costs and would also cause companies to halt business in the county.

The Importance of Healthy Workplaces: The Asbestos Example

March 12, 2012 | Gregory J. Brod

America is a land of opportunity where hard work should earn you a good life. Unfortunately, or San Francisco workplace injury lawyer knows that too many of our residents are subject to dangerous working conditions. These conditions include hazardous chemicals that can cause a myriad of health problems, some of which don’t appear until many years later.

One of the most publicized substances that has led to countless work-related sicknesses is asbestos. There are six major types of asbestos and the substance was widely used for many years because of its commercially beneficial properties. Asbestos fibers are resistant to heat and many chemicals, leading to use in a range of construction elements as well as textiles, cement, and protective coatings. Historians believe asbestos was used as far back as the first century A.D. and asbestos was a popular building material as recently as the 1970s and 1980s.

Many people have become ill as a result of asbestos exposure, including illnesses due to inhaling asbestos fibers at the workplace. Three major health problems associated with asbestos exposure are:

Local Authorities Move to Limit Dangerous Rodent Poisons

February 24, 2012 | Gregory J. Brod

Our Oakland product liability lawyer believes consumers should be protected from dangerous products in Northern California. We especially applaud efforts by our communities to protect children, a group that is particularly vulnerable to dangerous household goods.

The Oakland Tribune reported this week that Richmond is joining several area communities in attempting to protect our children and pets from dangerous rodent poisons. The Richmond City Council approved a measure, similar to those already in place in Albany and San Francisco, asking retailers to voluntarily stop sales of certain pest control products. Similar products have already been banned by the federal Environmental Protection Agency. The ban covers particularly toxic formulas as well as loose pellet poisons. In 2008, EPA officials requested that manufacturers re-tool their products so that the poisonous bait is in stations that are inaccessible to children and household pets. Manufacturers were asked to comply by June 2011 but not all makers have done so and the EPA is taking steps to remove the offending products. This process, however, takes time to accomplish and moves like that in Richmond attempt to control the ongoing problem.

The Tribune cites the American Association of Poison Control Centers, noting that between 12,000 and 15,000 cases of children being exposed to rodent poison are reported annually. Unreported cases make the actual number of children impacted significantly higher. The fact that rodent poisons are often placed on the floor makes young children especially vulnerable. Pets also frequently ingest the products, with one group noting that nearly half of all animals test positive for exposure to rodent poisons.

Hazardous Chemical Reaction at Monterey Hotel- Hazmat Situations in Everyday Circumstances

February 14, 2012 | Gregory J. Brod

Chem%20Rxn.jpg
As guests at a Monterey hotel found out, hazardous material incidents are not limited to refineries, dry cleaners, or factories. Hotel officials and the Monterey Fire Department completely evacuated hotel guests as a result of a dangerous chemical reaction that occurred in the laundry room at the Portola Hotel.

According to KTVU news, a hotel employee accidentally mixed acid and bleach, which led to a release of chlorine gas. The Monterey Herald reported that sixteen employees and one guest were taken to various hospitals complaining primarily of respiratory problems, while KTVU reported that thirty people were taken to the hospital. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) lists the side effects of inhaling chlorine gas as headaches, burning sensation of the eyes and nose, difficulty breathing, and possible vomiting. Inhaling chlorine may also exacerbate pre-existing asthma or bronchitis. Asthmatic persons are at a higher risk for side effects from contact with chlorine.

Bleach is a commonly used in laundering, and many other common cleaners contain acid. Mixing of the two chemicals releases chlorine gas into the air and the mix of bleach and ammonia releases chloramines. Both chemical reactions cause similar symptoms in those exposed. Industries of all types should have procedures for handling and storing chemicals and other hazardous materials. Hotels and other businesses should train employees on safety procedures for the use of hazardous substances and provide examples of potentially dangerous chemical reactions.

The U.S. Fire Administration (part of FEMA), states that, by law, hazardous materials must be stored in their original containers. The law serves to prevent dangerous chemicals and other materials from being stored in either unlabeled or mislabeled containers. Chemicals that are known to be reactive when mixed should not be stored next to each other. Safety locks on cabinets prevent kids and pets from accessing hazardous materials and from spills during natural disasters, such as earthquakes. Additionally, protective clothing is a good idea when handling corrosive agents.
Continue Reading ›

Toxic tort attorney addresses water contamination caused by fracking

February 4, 2012 | Gregory J. Brod

In the United States, we have a serious energy crisis, and natural gas is an important resource, and the cleanest of the fossil fuels. In recent years, exploration methods have enabled natural gas to be released from shale, a sedimentary rock. David Brooks wrote an article for the New York Times, entitled “The Shale Revolution”, reporting that natural gas from shale comprised of approximately 1% of all natural gas supply in the United States in the year 2000. By 2011, the amount of natural gas from shale in our country had reached 30% (though the Association of California Water Agencies suggests the number is 15%). “Fracking”, which I have wrote about in previous blog entries, is a method used to release natural gas from the shale by pumping water and chemicals into the subsurface, in an attempt to release the gas.

There has been no universal determination that the process of fracking is inherently dangerous, however there are instances where contamination can occur, particularly with regards to drinking water supply. The need to obtain precious natural resources must be balanced with the strongest concern for public safety. If your town, municipality, district or city is in a reasonable proximity from where fracking is taking place, and you have experienced water contamination, please do not hesitate to call us. Our attorneys fight for people who have been affected by toxic torts, including water contamination, and the initial consultation is always free.

California Consumers Should Be Wary About Poisons and Pesticides in the Home

February 3, 2012 | Gregory J. Brod

Spiders, cockroaches, ants, rats, and moths: invasions by household pests induce cringing and exclamatory yelps. Many people want to prevent unwanted encounters with such pests and the destruction they may cause by putting out pesticides meant to deter or kill rodents and bugs. Consumers are driven by costs, effectiveness, and a concern for safety when choosing a pest-control product. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) emphasizes the safe use and regulation of poisons and pesticides used in the home.

The Environmental Protection Agency requires all manufacturers of household pesticides to have an EPA registration number on the label. If a product does not have the registration on the label it may be an illegally imported product. Consumers should also be aware that some products are only meant for use by licensed commercial entities. Two illegal products that concern many poison control agencies are the so-called “Miraculous Chalk“, a pesticide originating in China, and “Tres Pasitos” a rat poison originating from Latin America. The insecticide chalk is troublesome because it is a cheap remedy that looks identical to the chalk used on blackboards, yet it is poisonous and poorly labeled. “Tres pasitos” is a made of aldicarb, an extremely toxic pesticide that has deleterious effects on humans through ingestion and even if absorbed through the skin. If handled improperly the products cause symptoms such as stomach pains, vomiting, and convulsions. Business are subject to penalties for each sale of an illegal pesticide.

Consumers should also follow directions on approved products very carefully. For instance, the use of mothballs, usually made of naphthalene, can be dangerous if the not utilized correctly. The National Pesticide Information Center at Oregon State University advises that mothballs should be sealed with clothing in an airtight container. Mothballs left out in the open let off toxic fumes that are potentially dangerous to humans. Moreover, mothballs may appear to be food to children or pets. Ingestion of moth balls by a small child will lead to a scary trip to the emergency room. Furthermore, some mothballs are distributed illegally because the production and labeling of the mothballs were not overseen by the Environmental Protection Agency.

The EPA and its Californian counterparts stress that it is illegal to use pesticides in a way other than specifically directed on the product label. This is especially of concern if a business is hired to apply insecticides to exterminate bugs. Commercial exterminators in California must be licensed by the California Department of Pesticide Regulation (CDPR). Consumers who are concerned with the methods or licensing of a commercial applicator of pesticides may file a complaint with the CDPR. The CDPR will investigate and work with a violating business to improve their procedures or, if necessary, take enforcement action against the business.
Continue Reading ›

Formaldehyde Exposure from Brazilian Blowout Hair Treatment Prompts Toxic Tort Lawsuits

January 6, 2012 | Gregory J. Brod

The product Brazilian Blowout has gained popularity in salons as a smoothing hair treatment. However, in August 2011, the Federal Drug Administration issued a warning letter to Mike Brady, CEO of Brazilian Blowout for having excessive amounts of formaldehyde in the Brazilian Blowout hair treatment. Furthermore, the warning letter admonishes Brazilian Blowout for misbranding its product label by declaring the hair product as “Formaldehyde Free”. The Federal Drug Administration found unsafe levels of formaldehyde when it tested samples of Brazilian Blowout. The tests of Brazilian Blowout confirmed the presence of methylene glycol, the liquid form of formaldehyde, at levels ranging from 8.7 to 10.4%.

The FDA warning letter prompted the Federal Occupational Safety & Health Administration (OSHA) to conduct its own investigation into formaldehyde exposure from the hair treatment. It took samples of formaldehyde levels at multiple salons while the hair treatment was being used and found that they exceeded safe levels, which OSHA defines for a fifteen minute time period as less than 2.0 parts of formaldehyde per million parts of air (ppm). In one test, the level of formaldehyde was 4.ppm and in another it was 10.12 ppm. In addition, at the state level Cal OSHA is conducting local investigations into complaints by salon workers who suffered injury as a result of using misbranded hair smoothing treatments. California regulations prohibit formaldehyde levels to exceed an average .75 ppm over an eight hour period. OSHA has released multiple hazard alerts for Brazilian Blowout, most recently of December 8, 2011.

Formaldehyde is a known carcinogen that can irritate skin, cause respiratory problems, blurry vision, and headaches, among other symptoms. Salon workers are most at risk and may inhale formaldehyde when it is released into the air during the application of heat to the product. Physical contact with the product itself can also lead to exposure. OSHA recommends that salon workers wear gloves while handling the product. It also advises that air ventilators be installed in salons that provide hair smoothing treatments as many contain various forms of formaldehyde.

The California Attorney General’s Office filed a lawsuit against Brazilian Blowout on November 5, 2010 for violating Proposition 65 which requires that products which contain ingredients known to cause cancer to be labeled accordingly. The Attorney General also alleges that Brazilian Blowout engages in deceptive advertising practices by labeling its product as “Formaldehyde Free”. The lawsuit is ongoing.
Continue Reading ›

Fracking in California and Causes of Water Contamination

November 6, 2011 | Gregory J. Brod

“Fracking” is a process used in the exploration of natural gas where water and chemicals are hydraulically pumped into rocks deep beneath the ground surface. Claims have been made that water supplies can become contaminated by fracking, and water can even become flammable, as natural gas and toxic chemicals are released from the shale rock underground. In 2005, the Bush Administration’s Energy Bill exempted companies from disclosing the chemicals they use in the “fracking” process, and exempted natural gas drilling from the Safe Water Drinking Act, which was established in 1974. In 2009, the FRAC Act (Fracturing Responsibility and Awareness to Chemical Act) was introduced by the U.S. House of Representatives in an attempt to require companies to disclose the chemicals used in fracking. The FRAC Act essentially repealed the exemption from restrictions on hydraulic fracking of fluids near drinking water sources previously granted to oil and gas exploration, and required oil and gas companies to disclose the chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing operations. While this is a start in environmental protection of clean water, it did not address the people and communities whose water supply may have become contaminated by this process.
Continue Reading ›