Free Case Review

Successful Appeals

Turner v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc., California Court of Appeal reverses defendant's judgment in Paraquat death case.

Hernandez v. Superior Court, 112 Cal.App.4th 285 (2003) [holding that courts may not require a toxic tort plaintiff to prove his case to the satisfaction of the court prior to completion of discovery, because such proof can only be made with the testimony of consulting medical experts, whose opinions are privileged from disclosure under the attorney work product doctrine until they are designated as expert trial witnesses and deposed.

Arnold v. The Dow Chemical Company, 91 Cal.App.4th 698, 110 Cal.Rptr.2d 722 (2001) [holding that the Federal Insecticide Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) does not preempt state law claims for design defect strict liability and breach of implied warranties, and that a plaintiff's claim that a pesticide did not perform as safely as a consumer would reasonably expect is viable under California's "consumer expectations" test of design defect strict liability]

Mandujano v. 3M,California Court of Appeal reverses dismissal of metalworker's pulmonary fibrosis case based on statute of limitations.

Ascon Properties, Inc. v. Mobil Oil Corp., 866 F.2d 1149 (9th Cir. 1989) [establishing pleading requirements for cost recovery actions under the federal Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act "CERCLA"]

Gil Tellez-Cordova vs. Campbell-Hausfeld/Scott Fetzger Company, California Court of Appeal Reverses Dismissal of Lamp Maker's Case for Lung Fibrosis Against Power Tool Manufacturers.

Bockrath v. Aldrich Chemical Co., 21 Cal.4th 71 (1999) [establishing pleading requirements in occupational cancer cases and holding that a plaintiff's discovery responses that he did not have personal knowledge of the precise mechanism by which exposure to toxins caused his cancer did not preclude a toxic tort action against manufacturers of the toxic chemical products]

Brock v. Air Products & Chemicals, Inc. 64 Cal.App.4th 247, (2nd Dist., 1998), (review granted and thereafter depublished) [holding that element of medical causation may be generally pled in a complaint alleging cancer caused by occupational exposure to carcinogens]

Till v. Ablestik Laboratories, No. 2 Civil B 113809 (unpublished opinion) [holding that allegation that chemical manufacturers fraudulently concealed toxic and carcinogenic hazards of their products equitably tolls running of the statute of limitations in case alleging occupational exposure to toxic chemicals caused cancer]

Toxic Injuries Corporation v. Safety-Kleen Corp., Contra Costa County Superior Court No. C89-2452 (Feb. 3, 1998) (unpublished opinion) [holding that order sealing court file in toxic injury case must be unsealed in public interest to prevent concealment of toxic hazards from public], appeal dismissed, First Appellate District No. AO 85096 (Feb. 18, 1999) (unpublished)

Toxic Injuries Corporation v. Safety-Kleen Corp., 57 F.Supp.2d 947 (C.D. Cal. 1999) [holding that federal courts lack subject matter jurisdiction over private attorney general actions alleging violations of California's Proposition 65 and the state's Unfair Business Practices Act, because such claims do not constitute cases or controversies under Article III of the Constitution]

Our Lawyers Can Help!

If you have questions about benzene poisoning or blood disorder symptoms and are concerned about possible occupational diseases and cancers, we are here to help. Toxic tort and injury laws are complex and confusing. The Metzger Law Group is here to help you. Call us today for a FREE evaluation to find out if you have a case or fill out our free evaluation forms to consult with a member of our caring staff.