Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) are a class of synthetic chemicals widely used in building materials until they were banned in 1979 due to their toxicity.
PCBs haven’t been used in new construction for decades but many schools across the country are contaminated with these pollutants, which are linked to cancer and other adverse health effects. Tens of thousands of school buildings in the United States may be contaminated with PCBs, potentially exposing millions of students and staff to dangerous toxins.
A single company—Monsanto—is responsible for virtually all the PCBs used in this country. With growing public awareness of PCB dangers, Monsanto is facing increased scrutiny and a wave of PCB contamination lawsuits.
Milberg is suing Monsanto for PCB exposure at Vermont schools and investigating PCBs at the North Carolina State University campus. The firm expects our cases and investigations against Monsanto to expand as the company’s decades of PCB deception gain wider recognition.
What are Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs)?
A type of “forever chemical,” PCB is a commercially produced chemical made with carbon, hydrogen, and chlorine. PCBs are chemically stable, non-flammable, and have a high boiling point and electrical insulating properties, making them popular for industrial and commercial applications.
Monsanto produced approximately 99% of the PCBs used by U.S. industry.
Produced as mixtures and sold under trade names such as Aroclor, Aceclor, Askarel, and Therminol, PCBs degrade slowly and persist in the environment for many years. They’ve been shown to travel long distances and bioaccumulate in human and animal tissue. High concentrations of PCBs were recently discovered almost five miles below the surface of the Pacific Ocean.
Why Did the EPA Ban PCBs?
PCBs were manufactured in the United States from 1929 until 1977. The Monsanto Chemical Company produced approximately 99% of the PCBs used by U.S. industry until the EPA halted their production in 1977 over evidence that they build up in the environment and may harm health. In 1979 the EPA issued regulations banning the use of PCBs.
What Are the Health Risks of PCB Products?
PCBs have been shown to adversely impact health in many ways. They’re linked to cancer as well as immune, reproductive, developmental, neurological, endocrine, hepatic (liver), cardiovascular, gastrointestinal, and musculoskeletal effects.
How Can Building Occupants Experience PCB Exposure?
As PCB-containing building materials age and degrade, they can produce vapors and dust that are released into the air. Students, teachers, and staff can then breathe them in. Occupants can also get dust containing PCBs on their hands and swallow it while eating or drinking, or their skin can contact materials with PCBs.
Once PCBs enter the body, they’re unlikely to leave. In fact, since PCBs are not eliminated entirely, they can build up in the body over time. While short-term exposure to PCBs can cause acute toxic effects, prolonged exposure is generally considered a more severe health concern.
Where Were PCBs Used?
Prior to their ban in 1979, PCBs were used in products and materials that include:
Adhesives and tapes
Cable insulation
Caulking
Electrical equipment such as transformers and capacitors
Floor finish
Fluorescent light ballasts
Oil-based paints
Old electrical devices or appliances with PCB capacitors
Plastics
Thermal insulation material such as felt, foam, fiberglass, and cork
How Many Schools Contain PCBs?
PCBs have been banned since 1979, but they still linger in older buildings built before PCB use was stopped.
According to a 2016 report, The ABCs of PCBs, schools built or renovated before 1980 are likely to contain PCBs in building materials like caulk, florescent light ballasts, adhesives, paints, and floor finish.
It’s difficult to determine exactly how many schools might have PCB hazards because there is no federal requirement for testing or inspection of schools for PCBs. However, a study from the Harvard School of Public Health estimates that the number of schools with PCBs in building caulk is between 13,000 and 26,000.
Around two-thirds of U.S. public schools were built between 1950 and 1984; half were built between 1950 and 1969.
Federal law has rules for removing building materials containing PCBs above a certain level, but the discovery of PCBs in schools often occurs by chance during renovation projects.
Vermont launched a first-of-its-kind initiative to test schools for PCBs following the closure of Burlington High School in 2020 when air testing discovered high PCB concentrations. Early results from several dozen Vermont schools found that at least one-third of them have PCB levels that warrant mitigation or remediationunder EPA guidelines.
The U.S. Department of Education says that approximately 65% of public schools nationwide were built between 1950 and 1984, and nearly half were built between 1950 and 1969.
Data from 2016 indicates that EPA has been made aware of hundreds of cases of potential PCB hazards that could affect thousands of school buildings.
For further perspective on PCB prevalence in older structures, a study about PCB contamination in Boston schools and other buildings found that one-third contained caulking materials with PCB content exceeding the EPA’s 50 parts per million (ppm) regulatory cut-off.
Another study of buildings renovated or constructed in San Francisco found that 88% of caulk samples taken were positive for PCBs, with concentrations ranging between 1 – 220,000 PPM.
What Do Monsanto PCB Contamination Lawsuits Allege?
PCB contamination lawsuits claim that Monsanto knew about the potential for harm caused by their PCBs but continued to market and sell them without any warnings.
The evidence presented in these cases includes internal company data and government data. It suggests that Monsanto was aware of scientific literature establishing the toxic effects of PCBs in humans as far back as the 1930s, and had confirmed their toxicity in the late 1960s.
As evidence of PCB-related health problems grew, Monsanto allegedly doubled down on denial, ignoring widespread PCB contamination from their products and the harm that exposure could cause.
Monsanto failed to warn customers and the public about the toxicity and hazards of its PCB products to protect their monopoly on PCB production in the United States and maximize profits, the lawsuits also claim.
Have any PCB Contamination Lawsuits Succeeded?
Plaintiffs have scored some victories against Monsanto in PCB contamination lawsuits. For example, New Hampshire reached a $25 million settlement with Monsanto in 2022 for PCB contamination of state-owned property. Similar, separate agreements were entered into with the Attorneys General of New Mexico, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Washington, and Washington D.C.
In 2023, a jury ordered Monsanto to pay $857 to a group of former students and parent volunteers who said the company’s PCBs sickened them at a Washington state school, causing brain damage, autoimmune disorders, and other health issues.
On its website, Bayer, which purchased Monsanto in 2018, states that it is facing two categories of PCB contamination litigation: environmental harm cases and personal injury and building cases. Monsanto references PCB injury litigation in the Seattle area and Vermont.
What is Milberg Doing to Hold Monsanto Accountable?
Milberg is filing Vermont PCB contamination lawsuits against Monsanto. We filed our first case in December on behalf of a woman who attended Twin Valley Elementary School in Wilmington and a second lawsuit in January based on PCB contamination at Burlington High School.
The firm is also investigating PCBs at N.C. State’s Poe Hall, where five rooms were found to have PCB contamination at levels up to 38 times higher than EPA standards. At least 100 cancer cases and more than a dozen reports of serious illness have been reported by people who spent time in Poe Hall.
In addition, Milberg is currently representing the City of East St. Louis, Illinois in an environmental PCB damage action.
I Was Exposed to PCBs. Can I File a PCB Contamination Lawsuit?
If you spent significant time in a school building known to contain PCBs, and have been diagnosed with an injury or illness that is attributable to PCB exposure, you may be eligible to file a PCB contamination lawsuit.
Monsanto is among the largest, wealthiest, and most influential corporations in the world. Holding them accountable requires a law firm with the necessary strength and resources.
Milberg’s Environmental & Toxic Torts Practice has a history of successfully taking on some of the planet’s biggest polluters. Since 1965, Milberg has been fighting to protect victims of corporate wrongdoing and has recovered over $50 billion for our clients.
For a PCB contamination lawsuit review, please contact us.
Milberg Filing VT School PCB Contamination Lawsuits Against Monsanto
Attorneys for Milberg Coleman Bryson Phillips Grossman (“Milberg”) are suing Monsanto for Polychlorinated Biphenyl (PCB) contamination at Vermont schools.
PCBs are highly toxic chemicals associated with a wide range of health problems. Milberg’s PCB lawsuits claim that Monsanto marketed and sold products containing PCBs despite knowing their dangers. The first lawsuit was filed in December 2023 on behalf of a former student at Twin Valley Elementary school in Wilmington, Vermont, with others to follow this year.
Act 74 and PCB Testing in Vermont
The Vermont legislature passed Act 74 in 2021, which requires all public schools built or renovated prior to 1980 to complete air indoor quality testing for PCBs. Testing began in spring 2022 and will be completed by 2025. More than 300 schools across the state are scheduled for testing. A complete list that includes test dates is available here.
Elevated Airborne PCBs Found at Twin Valley Elementary School
Testing at Twin Valley Elementary School in March 2023 found elevated airborne PCB levels in multiple classrooms, facilities, the library, and gymnasium.
The Vermont Agency of Natural Resources requires schools to act if PCB testing reveals airborne contamination levels above certain thresholds. Twin Valley’s results were nowhere near passable. Several areas had PCB levels that were double and even triple Vermont’s “immediate action levels” standards, while more than a dozen rooms and spaces tested above “action levels.”
Twin Valley reportedly paid more than $18,000 to install air filters in the affected areas, but to no avail: a second round of testing found even higher levels of PCBs in every room retested.
PCBs Pose Numerous Human Health Risks
According to the Vermont Department of Health, long-term PCB exposure can cause cancer and immune, reproductive, nervous, and endocrine system effects.
An EPA report found that PCB exposure is linked to cancers of the liver, gallbladder, biliary tract, brain, stomach, intestines, thyroid, plasma cells, lymphatic system, breasts, and skin. EPA classifies PCBs as probable human carcinogens.
The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) recently concluded that “There is sufficient evidence in humans for the carcinogenicity of polychlorinated biphenyls. PCBs cause malignant melanoma. Positive associations have been observed for non-Hodgkin lymphoma and cancer of the breast.” IARC classifies PCBs as carcinogenic to humans.
Lawsuit Claims Monsanto Knew of PCB Health Risks
Milberg’s lawsuit makes the case that Monsanto knew about the dangers of PCBs since the 1930s—when it began manufacturing the chemicals—but continued to produce and promote them as a construction material that was used in school facilities and buildings through the 1940s, 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s.
Evidence of PCB toxicity, including internal company data and government data, suggests that Monsanto knew its PCBs cause indoor air contamination, yet it concealed this information from the public.
The list of schools with PCB contamination will likely grow as testing is completed. We encourage all current and former students, parents, staff, and teachers to contact us and learn how they can hold Monsanto accountable.
Plaintiff Kristy Crawford, who attended Twin Valley Elementary from 1982 to 1990 and has been diagnosed with non-Hodgkin lymphoma and reproductive issues, developed health problems as a result of Monsanto’s “campaign of deception,” the lawsuit argues.
Crawford “suffered and continues to suffer the burdens of cancer, chemotherapy, and the high price tags associated with cancer treatment and monitoring” caused by exposure to PCBs, she says, because Monsanto “failed to issue any public warnings, notices, or information that PCBs are present in schoolhouses and are extremely toxic and threaten public health.”
She seeks economic, non-economic, and punitive damages from Monsanto in her lawsuit based on design defect, failure to warn, negligence, and misrepresentation claims.
More Monsanto PCB Lawsuits to Come
Since PCB testing began at Vermont schools, a wave of litigation has ensued. Vermont school districts, the state attorney general, and former educators are among those taking Monsanto to task for PCB contamination and its related health and environmental impacts.
Milberg’s lawsuit on behalf of Crawford is the first of many such cases the firm expects to file. Milberg attorneys are looking to represent those diagnosed with PCB injuries from Burlington High School, North Country Union High School (Newport), Green Mountain Union High School (Chester), Bellow Falls Union High School (Westminster), and Oak Grove School (Brattleboro).
At least one-third of the Vermont schools tested so far have actionable levels of PCBs. In a press release, Zachary Howard of Milberg said that, “The list of schools with PCB contamination will likely grow as testing is completed. We encourage all current and former students, parents, staff, and teachers to contact us and learn how they can hold Monsanto accountable.”
Milberg’s Environmental Litigation Practice
Milberg has a history of successfully taking on some of the planet’s biggest polluters. In addition to Vermont PCB lawsuits, we are currently engaged in litigating cases that involve climate change, PFAS, and dam collapse damage in Brazil.
Environmental bad actors like Monsanto are some of the largest, wealthiest, and most influential corporations in the world. Holding them accountable requires a law firm with the necessary strength and resources. Milberg has been fighting to protect victims’ rights since 1965 and has recovered over $50 billion for our clients.
Lawsuits Accuse Big Banks of Promoting Vale’s Environmental Damage in Brazil
Milberg has filed a pair of proposed class action lawsuits in New York federal court alleging that several large banks provided financing to mining company Vale, S.A. that promoted environmental degradation and exacerbated the risk of catastrophic dam collapses in the Brazilian state of Minas Gerais.
The plaintiffs in the cases, the City of Ouro Preto and the Antonio Pereira and Pasargada Associations, claim that, since 2011, Merrill Lynch, Barclays Capital, Citibank, Citigroup Global Markets, JPMorgan, and JPMorgan Securities LLC have lent $17.2 billion to Brazilian mining company Vale S.A., which has built high risk tailings dams in an area known as the “Iron Quadrangle.”
Without the defendants’ funding, the suits say, the construction and operation of Vale’s dams—and the harms they’ve caused to the environment and class members—would not have been possible.
The physical, financial, and emotional toll continues to mount, transforming what was once a thriving region into a landscape echoing with sirens, shrouded in dust, and etched with the worry lines of its people.
The financing enabled Vale to expand its mining operations in the Iron Quadrangle, resulting in significant air and noise pollution. In addition, the suits say, Vale’s tailing dams in Minas Gerais contain toxic waste from mining operations that are at risk of failure.
“The relentless threat of dam collapses in Minas Gerais casts a long, deep shadow over the municipalities and residents alike,” the complaints allege. “The physical, financial, and emotional toll continues to mount, transforming what was once a thriving region into a landscape echoing with sirens, shrouded in dust, and etched with the worry lines of its people.”
The plaintiffs’ concerns are well-founded. Vale is behind the largest environmental disaster in Brazil’s history—the collapse of the Fundão Dam in 2015. Another major collapse of a Vale-owned dam occurred in 2019. In both instances, Vale ignored warnings that the dams were at high risk of failure.
“This ever-present risk of injury, death, and destruction has, and continues to, damage the health, safety, and well-being of plaintiff,” the suits claim. “This creates adverse conditions for their social and economic activities by devaluing plaintiff’s property, community, health, welfare, and environment.”
Defendants could have demanded accountability from Vale by requiring it to assess the environmental risks of its mining operations, plaintiffs say. Instead, they “did absolutely nothing” and, “mesmerized by their profits,” went on unconditionally funding Vale’s Iron Quadrangle operations.
As defendants fund each dam, they enable Vale’s continuing malfeasance and the resulting harm and damages to plaintiff while they, as major investors in Vale, continue to garner huge profits.
Plaintiffs are suing under Brazil’s National Environmental Policy Act in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, citing the banks’ financial agreements with Vale that state the debt securities are to be governed by New York law. They further assert violations of their Brazilian constitutional rights to security, property, and social well-being.
Milberg’s lawsuits could not only provide relief for ongoing damages suffered by class members, but also ensure greater accountability moving forward. As the complaints note, Vale is constructing the Belo Monte dam in Amazonia that will displace 40,000 locals and has obtained a license for a new iron ore dam in Brucutu. Vale expects to products 36 to 40 million tons of iron ore in 2023 and 50 to 55 million tons in 2026.
“As defendants fund each dam, they enable Vale’s continuing malfeasance and the resulting harm and damages to plaintiff while they, as major investors in Vale, continue to garner huge profits from the increased stock values generated by Vale’s dangerous construction, maintenance, and improper storage practices that have injured plaintiff,” the suits conclude. “Their only hope is for the success of this litigation.”
Previously, Milberg worked to expand justice for victims of the 2015 Fundão Dam collapse in a class action lawsuit being pursued in UK courts. That case—like these cases—involves the issue of competing international jurisdictions.
In a globalized world, corporate polluters and the companies that finance them are not always local. Corporations that operate transnationally have expanded reach—and expanded ability to cause harm. To effectively check the power of corporations that operate in many countries, law firms today must be able to serve a broad range of clients across national borders.
Milberg’s Environmental and Toxic Torts Litigation practice is a global force for environmental justice that holds corporations accountable for harming natural resources and public health. As an internationally-recognized plaintiffs’ firm, Milberg has the strength, attorneys, and resources to represent clients seeking to enforce their environmental rights against well-financed corporations—wherever they operate.
PFAS Litigation
Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) are a group of manmade chemicals used in thousands of industrial and consumer products, from clothing and food packaging to personal care products, cookware, and fire extinguishing foam, since the 1940s. Also known as “forever chemicals” because they break down very slowly and can accumulate in the environment and our bodies, PFAS have been linked to numerous health effects, including cancer, altered immune and thyroid function, hormonal imbalances, kidney disease, and reproductive and developmental harms.
It is estimated that nearly half of the country’s drinking water contains PFAS. For decades, the corporations that manufacture PFAS contaminated drinking water supplies, forcing water districts and treatment plants to pay for remediation. But dozens of chemical companies are now facing thousands of lawsuits filed by water providers nationwide seeking to recoup the costs of cleaning and monitoring PFAS-polluted sites.
Milberg is representing people, families, and communities negatively affected by PFAS-polluted water. Corporate polluters need to be held responsible for contaminating water supplies, and we are helping to lead the legal fight in what could end up being one of the largest and most significant public health litigations since the Big Tobacco lawsuits of the 1990s.
What are PFAS?
PFAS have gotten a lot of attention lately for their potentially adverse health effects, but they’ve been around for nearly a century.
The first PFAS—polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE)—was accidentally discovered in 1938 by a DuPont scientist working with refrigerant gases. The discovery led to Teflon, which was registered in 1945 and sold commercially beginning in 1946.
These toxic chemicals are so pervasive and so long lasting in the environment that they’ve been found in food, soil, and water, even in the most remote corners of our planet.
3M began manufacturing two types of PFAS, PFOA and PFOS, in the 1950s. The U.S. Navy partnered with 3M in the 1960s to develop foam for extinguishing large petroleum fires on its ships. The Navy received a patent for aqueous film forming foam, or AFFF, in 1966. It was soon a requirement that all Navy facilities have AFFF on hand to fight fires. Airports, military bases, oil and gas facilities, chemical plants, storage-tank facilities, and municipal fire departments also began using PFAS-based firefighting foams.
Today there are more than 3,000 chemicals classified as PFAS. They’re used in industrial products like AFFF, as well as consumer products such as clothing, carpets, food packaging, and household products. These “forever chemicals” exist in more than 12,000 forms and avoiding them is nearly impossible.
A recent USGS study found PFAS in at least 45% of the country’s water. PFAS contaminates oceans, lakes, and streams, fall from the sky in raindrops, and have been detected in the blood of more than 98% of Americans. And because they don’t readily break down, they can persist in the environment for hundreds or thousands of years.
What are the Health Risks of PFAS?
Among the thousands of types of PFAS, two classes—PFOA and PFOS—have been studied extensively and linked to harmful health effects in animals and humans.
According to the EPA, scientific studies have shown that PFAS exposure can lead to:
Cancer risk
Developmental effects
Hormone interference
Increased cholesterol levels
Obesity risk
Reduced immune system response
Reproductive effects
EPA admits that additional health effects of PFAS are “difficult to determine” due to factors such as the many types and uses of PFAS, different exposure routes, and varying exposure levels. Certain industrial workers, children, and pregnant women may have greater exposure to PFAS. Children may also be more sensitive to PFAS.
But given what is known about how PFAS can harm human health, the EPA is taking a cautious approach. The agency has proposed a national PFAS drinking water standard that would regulate PFOA, PFOS, and other PFAS. EPA’s proposal, which could be finalized by the end of 2023, would cap PFOA and PFOS at 4 parts per trillion and require public water systems to monitor for PFOA, PFOS, PFNA, PFHxS, PFBS, and GenX Chemicals.
“These toxic chemicals are so pervasive and so long lasting in the environment that they’ve been found in food, soil, and water, even in the most remote corners of our planet,” said EPA Administrator Michael Regan. “We anticipate that when fully implemented, this rule will prevent thousands of deaths and reduce tens of thousands of serious PFAS-related illnesses.”
Why Are PFAS Lawsuits Being Filed?
The more we learn about the prevalence of PFAS and their health effects, the more industry groups, communities, and individuals are doing to avoid PFAS exposure. This is a difficult task, however, given how widespread the chemicals are and how long they persist in the environment. Mitigating PFAS health concerns is also made more challenging by decades of manufacturers not being honest about these chemicals.
3M, one of the main defendants in PFAS lawsuits, admitted in 2000 that PFOS were accumulating in the environment and showing up in humans and animals at concerning levels. But there is evidence that 3M knew as early as the 1950s, based on internal studies, that PFAS were toxic to humans and the environment, could migrate through groundwater, and bioaccumulate. By the 1960s, 3M was aware that PFAS do not naturally degrade in the environment and were contaminating well water. Throughout the 1970s 3M continued to research and confirm the dangers of PFAS but only shared its concerns with the EPA in the late 1990s, leading to a phaseout of PFOS in the early 2000s.
PFAS litigation could eclipse the Big Tobacco settlements of the 1990s.
As recently as 2018, 3M publicly denied that PFOS or PFOA are dangerous to humans. To this day, 3M continues to cast doubt on PFAS dangers, even as it has reached a tentative settlement to pay more than $10 billion to local water systems.
Water providers are suing 3M and fellow PFAS makers Chemours, Dupont, and Corteva for the costs of cleaning and filtering PFAS out of their wells and aquifers. The providers claim that the manufacturers failed to warn about the environmental hazards and toxic effects of PFAS.
3M reached a settlement in June 2023 to pay up to $10.3 billion to public water suppliers for cost related to PFAS testing and remediation. In a second settlement, DuPont, Chemours, and Corteva agreed to pay $1.185 billion to settle water provider PFAS lawsuits. The claims were part of AFFF multidistrict litigation in South Carolina Federal Court. As of October 2023, more than 6,000 cases are pending in the AFFF MDL.
How is Milberg Fighting Back Against PFAS Polluters?
With communities across the country facing PFAS cleanup and monitoring costs, the billions paid so far by chemical companies could just be the tip of the iceberg. Thousands of claims remain unsettled, and new claims and new defendants continue to be added to the docket. When PFAS lawsuits are all said and done, they could eclipse the $200+ billion Big Tobacco settlements.
Milberg’s environmental attorneys have been pursuing PFAS consumer product litigation for years. We are also engaged in AFFF PFAS lawsuits on behalf of municipalities, public and private water districts, state attorneys general, and individual personal injury plaintiffs.
In our proud tradition of effectuating change through litigation, Milberg stands with the communities that have been forced to bear the costs of PFAS pollution that should rightly fall to manufacturers. These chemicals may be “forever,” but the time of PFAS manufacturers avoiding accountability is over.
We are currently assessing potential claims from water/wastewater utilities that have had to pay for PFAS treatment and remediation. To speak with our Environmental Litigation team about a PFAS lawsuit, please contact us.
On January 31, 2022, Eastman Chemical Company’s Kingsport, Tennessee location caused a steam explosion. Asbestos and other toxic materials were sprayed into the air, threatening both the local environment and residents’ health.
By February 14, 2022, Milberg Coleman Bryson Phillips Grossman (“Milberg”) had already filed a class-action lawsuit, pursuing claims for public and private nuisance, trespass, negligence, and strict liability for ultra-hazardous activity.
What are the environmental and financial side effects of the explosion?
At a town hall meeting on Sunday, February 13, 2022, Milberg attorneys partnered with Dr. Angela Hind (a physician and environmental consultant), allowing residents to voice their concerns regarding the incident. Many locals reported a battle with headaches, nausea, and skin rashes following the explosion.
Sharon Weatherly, the lead plaintiff in this case, is a Kingsport homeowner who claims that she and her neighbors were not only exposed to the toxic contaminants released during the explosion, but they have also lost significant value in their homes. This will cause crucial monetary loss for Weatherly and others in her neighborhood.
Do you own a home in the affected area and are worried it may have lost value as a result of the Eastman explosion? Contact Milberg today.
Eastman’s reoccurring failure to follow protocol
Milberg Senior Partner Greg Coleman reveals that Eastman is known for habitually dodging protocol: “This is not the first instance like this committed by Eastman. Our attorneys are already working with the Kingsport community and surrounding communities to protect their legal rights. These innocent victims deserve justice. With this lawsuit, we hope to help them clean up their neighborhoods and force Eastman to clean up its act.”
Following the steam explosion, Eastman neglected to instantly inform the community of this incident. Offering no mass warning or signal to locals, they willingly put lives at risk of asbestos exposure. In fact, residents were not informed of the explosion until later that evening, damaging not only the air and surrounding properties but also the town’s reputation.
Do you own a business in or near the affected area and are concerned this explosion will threaten your business’ reputation? Milberg can help.
What is asbestos and what are the dangers of asbestos exposure?
The National Cancer Institute (NIH) describes asbestos as the six naturally occurring minerals within the environment that are interwoven into fibers, then threads, used by manufacturers and industrial plants to create materials.
Though asbestos was primed in the twentieth century, today’s experts have discovered the long-lasting damage caused to people who were exposed to the synthetic threading.
NIH further reveals that asbestos directly impacts the lungs, threatening a person’s ability to breathe. This causes consistent coughing and wheezing without a guarantee these side effects will ever subside. Cases of mesothelioma have also been traced back to asbestos exposure.
In addition, there are numerous toxic substances handled by Eastman that are associated with negative health effects.
Have you been exposed to debris from the Eastman explosion and have since experienced headaches, nausea, coughing, skin rashes, or other symptoms? Contact Milberg.
Milberg maintains its reputation of fighting for Kingsport, Tennessee
“After years fighting for cleanup workers devastated by the Kingston coal ash spill and other man-made environmental disasters victims around the country, we understand the terrible impact these events can have on the environment, wildlife, and people,” said Milberg Attorney Billy Ringger. “The impacts on businesses, homeowners, and their families are likely to be felt for years.”
In our proud tradition of effectuating meaningful change through litigation, Milberg is well-positioned to represent victims of environmental malfeasance. Milberg pursues remedies for those suffering economic losses such as diminished property values or loss of use and enjoyment. Our attorneys work together with academics, medical professionals, environmental advocacy groups, and regulatory bodies worldwide on behalf of clients seeking protection from environmental harm.
Milberg’s Environmental and Toxic Torts Litigation group has helped thousands of homeowners and businesses negatively impacted by similar man-made disasters, including the Kingston coal ash spill, the Exxon Valdez oil spill, the BP Deepwater Horizon oil spill, and the Huntington Beach oil spill. The firm seeks to represent all persons and businesses harmed by the Eastman steam pipe explosion.
Impacted by Eastman’s explosion? Milberg can pursue justice for you
Residents impacted by Eastman’s steam pipe explosion are encouraged to reach out to Milberg for a free legal consultation.
For additional information, contact the firm at 865-247-0080.
Demanda Paraquat – Paraquat y el Parkinson
El paraquat (también conocido como Gramoxone) es un herbicida tan tóxico para los seres humanos que un solo sorbo puede provocar la muerte. Asimismo está relacionado con el desarrollo de la enfermedad de Parkinson.
Las investigaciones indican que el paraquat puede aumentar el riesgo de Parkinson en un 150% o más. Sin embargo Syngenta- el principal productor del herbicida- niega el vínculo y arroja dudas sobre un creciente cuerpo de evidencia. Syngenta promueve ampliamente el paraquat tanto en países en desarrollo como en países industrializados, incluido los Estados Unidos, y se utiliza en más de cien cultivos en todo el mundo.
“Los trabajadores que aplican paraquat corren riesgo de exposición. No obstante, también es posible una exposición secundaria. El paraquat se puede esparcir o “desviar” del sitio de aplicación original, lo que resulta en exposición a las comunidades cercanas. Asimismo los alimentos y bebidas contaminados pueden causar exposición. Sumado a esto, se ha encontrado paraquat en algunos suministros de agua.”
Trabajadores agrícolas de todo el país han presentado demandas alegando que el paraquat les provocó Parkinson y que el fabricante no les había advertido sobre el riesgo de daño neurológico de la sustancia química.
Milberg está investigando el vínculo entre la exposición al paraquat y la enfermedad de Parkinson. Si le diagnosticaron Parkinson después de una exposición directa o indirecta al paraquat, puede calificar para una acción legal. Contáctenos para una evaluación gratuita de su caso si desea presentar una demanda contra el paraquat.
¿Qué es el paraquat?
Utilizado como herbicida desde principios de la década de 1960, el dicloruro de paraquat se aplica para controlar malezas y pastos. También se aplica como desecante antes de la cosecha. El paraquat se ha utilizado ampliamente en unos 130 países para el cultivo de maíz, huertos, soja, hortalizas, papas, arroz, algodón, manzanas, café y muchos otros cultivos importantes. Los usos de áreas no agrícolas incluyen bordes de caminos, márgenes de carreteras y alrededor de edificios comerciales, plantas de energía, patios de almacenamiento y avenidas.
El paraquat es el segundo herbicida más vendido a nivel mundial, solo por debajo del glifosato. En 2015, se aplicaron siete millones de libras en los Estados Unidos, en casi 15 millones de hectáreas.
¿Quién fabrica el paraquat?
Syngenta es el principal fabricante de paraquat con el nombre comercial de Gramoxone. ChemChina compró Syngenta en el 2017. El paraquat se produce en las instalaciones de Syngenta en el Reino Unido y China, aunque el herbicida está prohibido para su uso (no así para su exportación) en ambos países. Más de 60 países han prohibido el paraquat.
El paraquat, muy regulado pero no prohibido en Estados Unidos
El paraquat está registrado como herbicida en los Estados Unidos desde 1964. Debido a que es altamente tóxico, la Agencia de Protección Ambiental de los Estados Unidos (EPA) clasifica el paraquat como de “uso restringido”, lo que significa que solo está disponible para su uso por usuarios con licencia comercial.
“Pero a medida que más y más países prohíben el paraquat, la EPA ha hecho muy poco. El uso de paraquat en los campos agrícolas de Estados Unidos se ha duplicado durante la última década.”
Cada 15 años, la EPA revisa todos los herbicidas registrados según lo exige la ley federal. La EPA comenzó su revisión del paraquat en el 2017 y tiene hasta octubre del 2022 para realizar cambios en su uso futuro.
En febrero del 2019, la Fundación Michael J. Fox para la Investigación del Parkinson (MJFF) presentó una petición a la EPA con más de 100,000 signatarios, instando a la agencia a prohibir el paraquat. MJFF señala que el paraquat está asociado con un mayor riesgo de Parkinson en muchos estudios científicos.
Estudios científicos que relacionan el paraquat con el Parkinson
Los efectos tóxicos agudos del herbicida paraquat no se discuten. La EPA declara inequívocamente que “un sorbo puede provocar la muerte”. Se han producido muertes por ingestión accidental e intencional. En Corea del Sur, el paraquat se usa comúnmente en suicidios. La intoxicación por paraquat también puede provocar insuficiencia cardíaca, renal y hepática, cicatrización pulmonar, insuficiencia respiratoria, convulsiones y otros efectos secundarios graves.
Cada vez hay más información sobre los efectos de la exposición crónica al paraquat en dosis relativamente bajas, como las cantidades experimentadas por los trabajadores agrícolas y aquellos que consumen alimentos con residuos de paraquat.
“Existe una sólida evidencia científica que vincula el paraquat con la enfermedad de Parkinson. Una investigación publicada en el 2011 conocida como el Estudio de Evaluación de Agricultura y Movimiento (FAME en inglés) encontró que las personas que usan paraquat tienen dos veces y media o 250% más de probabilidades de desarrollar Parkinson.”
Otro estudio reveló que las personas expuestas al paraquat de adolescentes o jóvenes tuvieron un mayor riesgo de desarrollar Parkinson del 200 al 600%, dependiendo de cuántos años estuvieron expuestos.
El Dr. Samuel M. Goldman, epidemiólogo del sistema de salud de Asuntos de Veteranos de San Francisco, dijo que los datos que relacionan al paraquat y el Parkinson son “abrumadores”. Por otra parte, Freya Kamel- científica de los Institutos Nacionales de Salud- dijo que el cuerpo de la investigación es “tan convincente como puede llegar a ser”. La EPA concluyó que el paraquat no causa Parkinson cuando se usa de acuerdo con las instrucciones. En julio del 2019 se introdujo una legislación que busca una prohibición total de la EPA sobre el paraquat.
Syngenta disputa el vínculo de Paraquat-Parkinson
Syngenta afirma que no existe una prueba definitiva del vínculo causal entre el paraquat y el Parkinson. El libro de jugadas de la compañía es similar al utilizado por Big Tobacco para negar el vínculo entre el tabaquismo y el cáncer, usando su poder monetario para arrojar dudas sobre una relación de causa y efecto respaldada científicamente.
Anteriormente, Syngenta afirmó en su sitio web que el estudio FAME del 2011 en realidad demostró que los agricultores que usan paraquat tienen menos probabilidades de desarrollar Parkinson que la población general. Actualmente, la compañía dice que la investigación sobre el paraquat y la enfermedad de Parkinson tiene “debilidades en el diseño de su estudio” y proporciona una “imagen inconsistente” y resultados “no concluyentes”. El jefe de seguridad de productos de Syngenta calificó los estudios que conectan el paraquat con el Parkinson como “interesantes” y “vale la pena explorar”.
El paraquat es uno de los productos más importantes de Syngenta. Se espera que su uso aumente debido a malezas resistentes al glifosato y demandas relacionadas con este último.
¿Cómo causa el paraquat Parkinson?
Se desconoce la causa exacta del Parkinson, pero la enfermedad está altamente correlacionada con la industrialización. La contaminación del aire, la producción de metales, los productos químicos industriales y los pesticidas sintéticos están relacionados con el Parkinson. Desde 1990 al 2015, el número de personas que viven con la enfermedad se duplicó con creces de 2,6 millones a 6,3 millones. Se espera que el número se duplique nuevamente a casi 13 millones para el año 2040.
Un libro publicado en el 2020 llama al Parkinson “una pandemia provocada por el hombre”. Los autores señalan que “durante los últimos 25 años, las tasas de prevalencia de la enfermedad de Parkinson, ajustadas por edad, aumentaron en un 22% en el mundo, en un 30% en la India y en un 116% en China”. Los hombres que trabajan en industrias que- más probablemente- los exponen a productos como pesticidas, solventes y agentes desengrasantes, tienen un riesgo 40% mayor que las mujeres de desarrollar Parkinson.
Los pacientes con Parkinson experimentan una pérdida de las neuronas en el cerebro que producen dopamina, un mensajero químico. Se cree que ciertos productos químicos, incluido el paraquat, aumentan la producción de agentes oxidantes que dañan las neuronas de dopamina. La evidencia sugiere que algunas personas tienen una disposición genética que hace que sea más probable que la exposición al paraquat las lleve a desarrollar Parkinson.
Más recientemente, un estudio descubrió que respirar paraquat le da una vía directa al cerebro. El autor principal, Timothy Anderson, dijo que “la inhalación puede proporcionar una ruta directa de entrada al cerebro. Si inhalas algo y entra en la nariz, puede ingresar a las neuronas responsables del sentido del olfato y viajar al cerebro”.
Un estudio del 2010 encontró niveles significativamente más altos de paraquat en la orina de los trabajadores agrícolas que manipularon paraquat en comparación con los trabajadores agrícolas que no lo manipularon. Según los CDC, los aplicadores autorizados son el grupo de personas con mayor riesgo de exposición al herbicida. Por esta razón, los agricultores tienen un mayor riesgo de desarrollar Parkinson.
La exposición al paraquat, sin embargo, no se limita a los agricultores. Las personas que simplemente viven en áreas rurales tienen tasas elevadas de enfermedad de Parkinson. A continuación se muestran algunas de las formas en que la exposición puede ocurrir fuera de un entorno agrícola.
Esparcimiento
Cuando se aplica paraquat, el mismo puede esparcirse por el aire hacia las comunidades locales. Un estudio muestra que este esparcimiento enfermó a una comunidad cercana, y los residentes informaron síntomas consistentes con la exposición al paraquat. El estudio concluyó que el herbicida no debe rociarse cerca de comunidades residenciales.
Agua
El agua contaminada también puede influir en la enfermedad de Parkinson. No existe un estándar nacional de agua potable para los niveles de paraquat en los suministros públicos de agua, pero las pruebas en Texas encontraron el herbicida en 29 servicios públicos que prestan servicios a más de 1.2 millones de personas. Los pozos privados, que no están sujetos a las mismas regulaciones que los sistemas públicos, son otra fuente potencial de exposición al paraquat.
Residuos alimentarios
La población en general podría estar expuesta a residuos de paraquat en los alimentos. Syngenta dice que “no existen riesgos por los residuos en los alimentos”. La EPA establece límites de pesticidas permitidos y la FDA los hace cumplir. Pero, ¿puede haber realmente un nivel seguro de exposición a una sustancia química tóxica como el paraquat?
Fumar marihuana
En el pasado, se descubrió que parte de la marihuana en los Estados Unidos contenía paraquat. Fumar marihuana contaminada con el herbicida podría causar envenenamiento y daño pulmonar, así como también aumentar el riesgo de una persona de contraer Parkinson, especialmente dados los riesgos de inhalar paraquat.
Otros riesgos para la salud asociados con el uso del paraquat
El vínculo entre el paraquat y el Parkinson no es lo único que debe preocupar a los trabajadores agrícolas. El uso del herbicida también puede resultar en intoxicación por ingestión, inhalación y exposición de la piel.
“Los aplicadores autorizados corren el riesgo de intoxicación, que causa toxicidad en todo el cuerpo, principalmente en los pulmones, el hígado y los riñones. Los problemas de salud a largo plazo asociados con la intoxicación por dicloruro de paraquat incluyen cicatrices pulmonares, insuficiencia renal, insuficiencia cardíaca y cicatrización del esófago.”
Cuando ver a un doctor
Los síntomas de la enfermedad de Parkinson incluyen temblores, movimientos lentos, músculos rígidos, problemas de postura y equilibrio y cambios en el habla y la escritura. No existe una prueba específica para diagnosticar la enfermedad y es posible que el diagnóstico no sea inmediato. Si tiene síntomas, se recomienda programar una visita con un neurólogo. También es posible que desee hablar con un abogado sobre una demanda de paraquat.
Los costos de vivir con la enfermedad de Parkinson
Descubrir que tiene Parkinson puede ser chocante. Una vez que haya tenido tiempo de asimilar su diagnóstico, es posible que desee considerar sus opciones legales.
Vivir con Parkinson es muy caro. El costo de las consultas médicas, la hospitalización, los medicamentos y las terapias puede alcanzar fácilmente decenas de miles de dólares por año. Además de los gastos médicos, los pacientes y sus familias pueden tener otros costos como la pérdida de salario debido a la incapacidad para trabajar, la jubilación forzosa anticipada y el tiempo del cuidador familiar. Aquellos que no pueden trabajar debido al Parkinson pueden perder los beneficios de atención médica patrocinados por el empleador y tener dificultades para calificar para una cobertura privada debido a la enfermedad de Parkinson.
Las demandas de paraquat pueden ayudar a aliviar la carga financiera de vivir con Parkinson. Syngenta no advirtió que la exposición al herbicida podría causarle la enfermedad de Parkinson. Al presentar una demanda de paraquat, puede responsabilizar al fabricante y asegurarse de que reciba la mejor atención posible.
Averigüe si es elegible para una demanda de paraquat
Cuanto más se aprende sobre la exposición al paraquat y la enfermedad de Parkinson, más claro se vuelve el vínculo. Nuestros abogados continúan investigando esta preocupante asociación. Como parte de nuestra investigación de la demanda de paraquat, hablamos con pacientes con Parkinson que pueden haber estado expuestos al paraquat, ya sea en el trabajo o en su comunidad.
Nuestros abogados de Agravios Ambientales y Tóxicos tienen un sólido historial de responsabilizar a corporaciones poderosas por dañar el medio ambiente y la salud de los residentes. Tenemos décadas de experiencia en la presentación de demandas contra las corporaciones más grandes y poderosas del mundo, con miles de millones de dólares recuperados para nuestros clientes.
Si usted o un ser querido estuvo expuesto al paraquat y desarrolló Parkinson, es posible que tenga derecho a emprender acciones legales. Una revisión gratuita de la demanda de paraquat de Milberg es el primer paso del proceso. Contáctenos hoy para hablar con un abogado.
Paraquat Lawsuit – Paraquat and Parkinson’s Disease
Paraquat (also known as Gramoxone), an herbicide so toxic to humans that one sip can kill, is linked to the development of Parkinson’s disease.
Research indicates that paraquat can increase the risk of Parkinson’s by 150 percent or more. But Syngenta, the herbicide’s main producer, denies the link and casts doubt on a growing body of evidence. Paraquat is widely promoted by Syngenta in both developing and industrialized countries, including the United States, and is used on more than a hundred crops worldwide.
Workers who apply paraquat are at risk for exposure. Secondary exposure, though, is also possible. Paraquat can spread, or “drift,” from the original application site, resulting in exposure to nearby communities. Contaminated food and beverages can cause exposure as well. Paraquat has additionally been found in some water supplies.
Farm workers across the country have filed lawsuits claiming that paraquat caused their Parkinson’s disease, and that the manufacturer failed to warn about the chemical’s risk of neurological damage.
Milberg is investigating the link between exposure to paraquat and Parkinson’s disease. If you were diagnosed with Parkinson’s after direct or indirect exposure to paraquat, you may qualify for legal action. Contact us for a free paraquat lawsuit case evaluation.
What is Paraquat?
Used as an herbicide since the early 1960s, paraquat dichloride is applied to control weeds and grasses. It is also applied as a pre-harvest desiccant. Paraquat has been widely used in around 130 countries for maize, orchards, soybeans, vegetables, potatoes, rice, cotton, apples, coffee, and many other major crops. Noncrop area uses include roadsides, highway margins, and around commercial buildings, power plants, storage yards, and parkways.
Paraquat is the second highest-selling weed killer globally, trailing only glyphosate. In 2015, seven million pounds were applied in the U.S. on nearly 15 million acres.
Who Makes Paraquat?
Syngenta is the major manufacturer of paraquat under the trade name Gramoxone. ChemChina purchased Syngenta in 2017. Paraquat is produced at Syngenta facilities in the UK and China, although the herbicide is banned for use (but not export) in both countries. More than 60 countries have banned paraquat.
Paraquat Heavily Regulated But Not Banned in U.S.
Paraquat has been registered as an herbicide in the United States since 1964. Because it is highly toxic, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) classifies paraquat as “restricted use,” which means that it is only available for use by commercially licensed users.
But as more and more countries ban paraquat, the EPA has done little. Paraquat use on U.S. agricultural fields has doubled over the last decade.
Every 15 years, EPA reviews all registered herbicides as mandated by federal law. EPA began its review of paraquat in 2017 and has until October 2022 to make any changes to its future use.
In February 2019, The Michael J. Fox Foundation for Parkinson’s Research (MJFF) submitted a petition with more than 100,000 signatories to the EPA, urging the agency to ban paraquat. MJFF notes that paraquat is associated with increased Parkinson’s risk across many scientific studies.
Scientific Studies Linking Paraquat to Parkinson’s Disease
The acute toxic effects of the herbicide paraquat are not disputed. EPA states unequivocally that, “One Sip Can Kill.” Deaths have occurred from accidental and intentional ingestion. In South Korea, parqauat is commonly used to commit suicide. Paraquat poisoning can also lead to heart, kidney, and liver failure, lung scarring, respiratory failure, seizures, and other severe side effects.
More is being learned about the effects of chronic exposure to paraquat in relatively low doses, such as the amounts experienced by agriculture workers and those who eat food with paraquat residue.
There is strong scientific evidence linking paraquat to Parkinson’s disease. Research published in 2011 known as the Farming and Movement Evaluation (FAME) study found that people who use paraquat are two and a half times, or 250% more likely to develop Parkinson’s.
Another study found that people exposed to paraquat as a teen or young adult had an increased risk of Parkinson’s of 200 to 600 percent, depending on how many years they were exposed.
Dr. Samuel M. Goldman, an epidemiologist with the San Francisco Veterans Affairs health system, said the data linking paraquat and Parkinson’s disease is “overwhelming,” while Freya Kamel, a National Institutes of Health scientist, said the body of research is “about as persuasive as these things can get.” EPA concludes that paraquat does not cause Parkinson’s when used according to the label. Legislation was introduced in July 2019 seeking a total EPA ban on paraquat.
Syngenta Disputes Paraquat Parkinson’s Link
Syngenta claims there is no definitive proof of a paraquat-Parkinson’s causal link. The company’s playbook is similar to the one used by Big Tobacco to deny the link between smoking and cancer, using its deep pockets to cast doubt on a scientifically-supported cause-and-effect relationship.
Syngenta previously claimed on its website that the 2011 FAME study actually showed farmers who use paraquat are less likely to develop Parkinson’s than the general population. Currently, the company characterizes research on paraquat and Parkinson’s disease as having “weaknesses in their study design” and providing an “inconsistent picture,” and “inconclusive” results. Syngenta’s head of product safety called the studies connecting paraquat to Parkinson’s “interesting” and “worth exploring.”
Paraquat is one of Syngenta’s most important products. Its usage is expected to grow due to glyphosate-resistant weeds and glyphosate-related lawsuits.
How Does Paraquat Cause Parkinson’s Disease?
The exact cause of Parkinson’s disease is not known, but the disease is highly correlated with industrialization. Air pollution, metal production, industrial chemicals, and synthetic pesticides are all linked to Parkinson’s. From 1990 to 2015, the number of people living with the disease more than doubled from 2.6 million to 6.3 million. The number is expected to double again to nearly 13 million by 2040.
A book published in 2020 calls Parkinson’s “a man-made pandemic.” The authors point out that “Over the last 25 years, the prevalence rates for Parkinson’s disease, adjusted for age, increased by 22 percent for the world, by 30 percent for India, and by 116 percent for China.” Men, who are more likely to work in industries that expose them to products like pesticides, solvents, and degreasing agents, have a 40 percent greater risk than women of developing Parkinson’s disease.
Patients with Parkinson’s disease experience a loss of neurons in the brain that produce the chemical messenger dopamine. It is believed that certain chemicals, including paraquat, increase production of oxidizing agents (oxidants) that damage dopamine neurons. Evidence suggests some people have a genetic disposition that makes it more likely paraquat exposure will lead to them developing Parkinson’s disease.
Most recently, a study found that breathing paraquat gives it a direct pathway to the brain. Lead author Timothy Anderson said that, “Inhalation can provide a direct route of entry to the brain. If you inhale something and it goes into your nose, it can actually enter the neurons responsible for sense of smell, and travel into the brain.”
A 2010 study found significantly higher levels of paraquat in the urine of farm workers who handled paraquat versus farm workers who did not handle it. According to the CDC, licensed applicators are the group of people most at risk of being exposed to the herbicide. For this reason, farmers have an increased risk of developing Parkinson’s.
Paraquat exposure, however, is not limited to farmers. People simply living in rural areas have elevated rates of Parkinson’s disease. Below are some of the ways that exposure can occur outside of an agricultural setting.
Drift
When paraquat is applied, it can drift through the air into residential communities. One study shows drift sickened a nearby community, with residents reporting symptoms consistent with paraquat exposure. The study concluded that the herbicide should not be sprayed near residential communities.
Water
Contaminated water may also play a role in Parkinson’s disease. No national drinking water standard exists for paraquat levels in public water supplies, but testing in Texas found the herbicide in 29 utilities servicing more than 1.2 million people. Private wells, which are not subject to the same regulations as public systems, are another potential source of paraquat exposure.
Food Residue
The general population could be exposed to paraquat residue on foods. Syngenta says that there is “no risks from residues in food.” EPA sets allowable pesticide limits and the FDA enforces them. But can there really be a safe level of exposure to a toxic chemical like paraquat?
Smoking Marijuana
In the past, some marijuana in the United States has been found to contain paraquat. Smoking marijuana contaminated with the herbicide could cause poisoning and lung damage, as well as increase a person’s risk for Parkinson’s, especially given the risks of inhaling paraquat.
Other Health Risks Associated With Use of Paraquat
The link between paraquat and Parkinson’s Disease is not the only thing that agricultural workers should be concerned about. Use of the herbicide can also result in poisoning via ingestion, inhalation, and skin exposure.
Licensed applicators are at risk of poisoning, which causes toxicity throughout the body, primarily in the lungs, liver, and kidneys. Long-term health problems associated with paraquat dichloride poisoning include lung scarring, kidney failure, heart failure, and scarring of the esophagus.
When to See a Doctor
The symptoms of Parkinson’s disease include tremors, slowed movement, rigid muscles, posture and balance problems, and changes in speech and writing. There is no specific test to diagnose the disease, and diagnosis may not be immediate. If you are experiencing symptoms, it is recommended to schedule a visit with a neurologist. You may also want to speak with a lawyer about a paraquat lawsuit.
The Costs of Living With Parkinson’s
Finding out that you have Parkinson’s may come as a shock. Once you’ve had time to come to terms with your diagnosis, you may want to consider your legal options.
Living with Parkinson’s is very expensive. The cost of doctor consultations, hospitalization, medications, and therapies can easily reach tens of thousands of dollars per year. In addition to medical expenses, patients and their families can have costs such as lost wages due to an inability to work, early forced retirement, and family caregiver time. Those who cannot work due to Parkinson’s may lose employer-sponsored healthcare benefits and have difficulty qualifying for private coverage because of their Parkinson’s.
Paraquat lawsuits can help to ease the financial burden of living with Parkinson’s. Syngenta did not warn that being exposed to the herbicide could cause you to develop Parkinson’s disease. By filing a paraquat lawsuit, you can hold the manufacturer accountable and make sure that you receive the best care possible.
Find Out if You Are Eligible For a Paraquat Lawsuit
The more that’s learned about paraquat exposure and Parkinson’s disease, the clearer the link becomes. Our lawyers are continuing to research this troubling association. As part of our paraquat lawsuit investigation, we’re speaking to Parkinson’s patients who may have been exposed to paraquat, either occupationally or in their community.
Our Environmental and Toxic Torts attorneys have a strong track record of holding powerful corporations accountable for harming the environment and damaging the health of residents. We have decades of experience filing lawsuits against the largest and most powerful corporations in the world, with billions and billions of dollars recovered for our clients.
If you or a loved one were exposed to paraquat and developed Parkinson’s disease, you may have the right to take legal action. A free paraquat lawsuit review from Milberg is the first step in the process. Contact us today to talk to a lawyer.
