Attorneys Who Won Landmark Lead Paint Judgment and Cleanup Named Public Justice Trial Lawyer of the Year

The attorneys who successfully fought for lead paint cleanup in People of California v. Atlantic Fidelma Fitzpatrick Richfield were named Sunday as Public Justice’s 2014 Trial Lawyers of the Year. The 27 attorneys won a $1.15 billion judgment against paint manufacturers last year, successfully arguing that lead paint in homes is a public nuisance that creates a quantifiable risk of harm to children who reside in or visit those homes. Leading the team of attorneys were (in alphabetical order) Mary E. Alexander of Mary Alexander & Associates, P.C. in San Francisco, Joseph W. Cotchett and Nancy L. Fineman of Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy, LLP in Burlingame, Calif., Peter Earle of the Law Office of Peter Earle in Milwaukee, Wis., and Fidelma L. Fitzpatrick of the firm Motley Rice in Providence, R.I. “This is for the children of California,” Mary Alexander said upon accepting the award. Fidelma Fitzpatrick noted that her participation in People of California was the greatest privilege of her professional career. In California, tens of thousands of children each year have blood lead levels that exceed the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention threshold. There is virtual unanimity in the medical and scientific community that the primary cause of lead poisoning in children is the lead paint in their homes. It is also widely understood that the only way to prevent lead poisoning is to remove or remediate the paint in a child’s environment before a child gets poisoned. ...

[Click here to see the rest of this post]

Found on

Related articles

• Buffalo attorney had key role in lead-paint ruling (workers-compensation.blogspot.com)
• Lots of data to process for Calif. lead paint judge (workers-compensation.blogspot.com)
• How the Paint Industry Escapes Responsibility for Lead Poisoning (workers-compensation.blogspot.com)
• Plaintiffs' expert in lead paint trial says industry took responsibility for public health (workers-compensation.blogspot.com)
• Calif. judge denies Sherwin Williams motion in lead paint trial (workers-compensation.blogspot.com)
• Lead-Paint Decision: Providing A Safer Place for Children (workers-compensation.blogspot.com)
• Closing arguments in Calif. lead paint trial take place Monday (workers-compensation.blogspot.com)

Buffalo attorney had key role in lead-paint ruling

Fidelma Fitzpatrick is a seasoned trial attorney with the law firm of Motley Rice LLC. She is exceptionally skilled in both negotiated settlements and complex trial litigation. Fidelma assisted in crafted the historic multi-billion dollar  tobacco settlement agreement between the US State Attorney Generals and the tobacco industry. She has represented public entities in litigation against the lead paint industry including the multi-billion dollar Rhode Island trial. Fidelma Fitzpatrick is a nationally recognized advocate of children's and women's health issues. Today's post is shared from the buffalonews.com. A Buffalo attorney played a key role in a billion-dollar court decision last week in California. Three lead-paint makers were ordered by Santa Clara Superior Court Judge James P. Kleinberg to create the $1.1 billion fund to protect children against lead paint produced decades earlier, despite knowing it endangered human health, especially for children. Fidelma Fitzpatrick is a Nardin graduate. Fidelma Fitzpatrick is a Nardin graduate. Fidelma L. Fitzpatrick, a Nardin Academy and Canisius College graduate who lives with her family in Elmwood Village, was lead trial counsel representing 10 California municipalities, including Los Angeles County and the cities of San Diego and San Francisco. The verdict calls for the companies to put the money in a special health department fund dedicated to lead-poisoning prevention. The municipalities would then draw an allotted amount for use on lead inspections, repairs and removal effecting hundreds of thousands of homes. “From a public health standpoint, the decision is absolutely monumental. The good that this will bring to the children of California cannot be understated. Children today and future generations will be protected from lead poisoning because of it,” Fitzpatrick said. She has worked on the case for the South Carolina-based law firm Motley Rice for the past 13 years. In the bench trial, Kleinberg found Sherwin-Williams Co., NL Industries and ConAgra Grocery Products Co. guilty of creating a public nuisance by manufacturing and selling lead paint long after...

[Click here to see the rest of this post]

Found on

Related articles

• Judge Orders Companies to Pay $1.1 Billion for Lead Paint Removal (workers-compensation.blogspot.com)
• Stunning Loss for Lead Paint Makers in Lawsuit by California Cities and Counties (workers-compensation.blogspot.com)
• Calif. judge wants paint companies to cover cost of lead removal (workers-compensation.blogspot.com)
• Ruling in California case may prompt new lawsuits over lead paint (workers-compensation.blogspot.com)
• The Next Wave: N.H.L. Players Sue League Over Head Injuries (workers-compensation.blogspot.com)
• Self-Promotion Watch: Lead and Crime in Postwar America (workers-compensation.blogspot.com)
• OSHA proposes more than $460,000 in fines against Long Island, NY, contractor for repeat fall and scaffolding hazards (workers-compensation.blogspot.com)

Judge Orders Companies to Pay $1.1 Billion for Lead Paint Removal

Video Link: http://tinyurl.com/mwoqs3d On Monday, a judge ordered three paint companies to pay $1.1 billion to remove lead-based paint in California homes in several jurisdictions, including Oakland, San Francisco, Los Angeles and San Diego, marking the end to a case that took 13 years to litigate. According to the LA Times, Santa Clara County Superior Court Judge James P. Kleinberg ruled that ConAgra, NL Industries and Sherwin-Williams had exposed children to a known poison for decades when they sold lead-based paint for use in homes before it was outlawed in 1977 and created a “public nuisance” by their actions. Public health historians Gerald Markowitz and David Rosner mentioned the trial to Bill earlier this year on Moyers & Company noting that a decision against the companies would mark only the second time in history that the industry has been compelled to pay for clean-up. A similar decision in 2006 in Rhode Island was later overturned by that state’s Supreme Court. Markowitz and Rosner warned that, for young children, there’s no safe level of exposure to this dangerous toxin still lurking in millions of homes across the country. In the California ruling, the judge wrote, “The court is convinced there are thousands of California children in the Jurisdictions whose lives can be improved, if not saved through a lead abatement plan.” The LA Times reports that nearly 5 million homes in the 10 cities and counties that joined the lawsuit could require abatement. Many of...

[Click here to see the rest of this post]

Found on

Related articles

• Firms to pay $1.1-billion in long-running lead paint lawsuit (workers-compensation.blogspot.com)
• Stunning Loss for Lead Paint Makers in Lawsuit by California Cities and Counties (workers-compensation.blogspot.com)
• Judge again asks sides to settle in Calif. lead paint case (workers-compensation.blogspot.com)
• Calif. judge wants paint companies to cover cost of lead removal (workers-compensation.blogspot.com)

Ruling in California case may prompt new lawsuits over lead paint

The recent $1.1 Billion judgment against the lead paint  companies in California for creating a public nuisance may have widespread impact across the nation. Workers' hired to implement the remediation effort will have to be adequately educated concerning safety procedure to avoid lead poisoning. The today's post is share from kansascity.com  . Paint makers could face a surge of lawsuits after a California state court judge ordered three companies to pay $1.1 billion to help government agencies get rid of lead from an estimated 5 million homes in the state. The ruling, while preliminary, was a rare loss for an industry that had turned back some 50 lawsuits filed nationwide over the last 25 years by public agencies seeking billions of dollars to remove lead-based paint from homes built before the federal government banned the product from the U.S. market in 1987. "The California ruling is certainly a significant development," said David Logan, a class action expert and dean of Roger Williams University Law in Rhode Island. "If it gets upheld, it will open a new path to victory for public agencies." Lisa Rickard, president of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce's Institute for Legal Reform, predicted "a surge of frivolous lawsuits" because of Monday's ruling, which the industry plans to appeal. Exposure to lead is linked to learning disabilities and other health problems, especially among poor children living in older dwellings. The Centers for Disease Control...

[Click here to see the rest of this post]

Found on

Related articles

• Stunning Loss for Lead Paint Makers in Lawsuit by California Cities and Counties (workers-compensation.blogspot.com)
• Calif. judge wants paint companies to cover cost of lead removal (workers-compensation.blogspot.com)
• Three Known Causes of Death: Lead Paint, Asbestos, and PowerPoints! (workers-compensation.blogspot.com)
• The Next Wave: N.H.L. Players Sue League Over Head Injuries (workers-compensation.blogspot.com)
• Increase in miscarriages coincided with high levels of lead in D.C. water, study finds (workers-compensation.blogspot.com)

Calif. judge wants paint companies to cover cost of lead removal

Lead paint has been deemed a "public nuisance" and a Judge in California has directed several former lead paint companies to pay $1.1 Billion dollars to remove the lead. Lead has long known to be a toxic substance and has been banned in the US. Workers, children and the general public are at the risk of becoming ill to lead paint  still in place in older dwellings and buildings. Toady post is shared from youtube.com and the CBS Evening News.

A California judge ruled that three major paint companies should be held responsible for creating a "public nuisance" by selling lead paint prior to it being banned in 1978. The $1.1 billion fine levied against Sherwin-Williams, ConAgra and NL Industries will be used to help remove the paint from an estimated 4.7 million California homes. Ben Tracy reports.

Jon L. Gelman of Wayne NJ is the author NJ Workers’ Compensation Law (West-Thompson) and co-author of the national treatise, Modern Workers’ Compensation Law (West-Thompson). For over 4 decades the Law Offices of Jon L Gelman  1.973.696.7900  jon@gelmans.com  have been representing injured workers and their families who have suffered occupational accidents and illnesses.

Related articles

• Paint companies lose big Calif. case over lead paint (cbsnews.com)
• Stunning Loss for Lead Paint Makers in Lawsuit by California Cities and Counties (workers-compensation.blogspot.com)
• Firms to pay $1.1-billion in long-running lead paint lawsuit (workers-compensation.blogspot.com)
• Calif. judge denies Sherwin Williams motion in lead paint trial (workers-compensation.blogspot.com)

Stunning Loss for Lead Paint Makers in Lawsuit by California Cities and Counties

Lead paint manufacturers were held liable for creating a public nuisance. The Court ordered them to pay $1.1 Billion dollars in damages. The claim was prosecuted by a team of lawyers including those from Motley Rice LLC, Providence RI.  Today's post was shared by FairWarning and comes from www.fairwarning.org

Lead paint makers suffered a landmark defeat Monday when a state court judge in San Jose, Calif., ordered the industry to create a $1.1 billion fund to eliminate lead hazards to children in hundreds of thousands of homes in the state. The decision broke the industry’s perfect record of defending suits by public agencies seeking to extract money for removal of flaking lead paint from older homes and apartments. It marked a huge victory for 10 California municipalities — including Los Angeles County, and the cities of San Francisco and San Diego — that will be able to draw on the fund for home inspections and repairs if the ruling holds up. In the 114-page decision, Santa Clara Superior Court Judge James P. Kleinberg found three companies—Sherwin-Williams Co., NL Industries, Inc., and ConAgra Grocery Products Co.—guilty of creating a public nuisance by manufacturing and selling lead paint long after learning of its dangers. Kleinberg dismissed claims against two other defendants, ARCO and DuPont, finding there was insufficient evidence that they had sold lead paint for use in California homes. The ruling drew a scathing response from Sherwin-Williams, NL and ConAgra. “The decision violates the federal and state constitutions,” said spokeswoman Bonnie J. Campbell in a prepared statement. “It rewards scofflaw landlords who are responsible for the risk to children from poorly maintained lead paint.”...

[Click here to see the rest of this post]

Click here to read the complete Decision. People v. Atlantic Richfield Company, et al.
Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara
Case No. 1-00-CV-788657

Found on

Related articles

• Firms to pay $1.1-billion in long-running lead paint lawsuit (workers-compensation.blogspot.com)
• Calif. judge denies Sherwin Williams motion in lead paint trial (workers-compensation.blogspot.com)
• Sides rest in Calif. lead paint trial (workers-compensation.blogspot.com)
• Judge: Paint companies to pay Calif. cities $1.1B (heraldonline.com)
• Paint companies lose big Calif. case over lead paint (cbsnews.com)
• Judge: Paint companies to pay Calif. cities $1.1B (stltoday.com)

Firms to pay $1.1-billion in long-running lead paint lawsuit

In an historic ruling, a California Judge, held the lead paint pigment manufacturers liable for the damage they caused children by placing toxic lead pigment into paint. The companies will be held accountable for the remediation required to make homes and other buildings safe. The case was prosecuted by a team of lawyers, including nationally recognized lead litigation experts, Motley Rice, Providence, RI. This article is shared from the latimes.com

A Northern California judge Monday ordered three companies to pay $1.1 billion to remove lead-based paint from inside California homes, concluding a 13-year legal case.

Santa Clara County Superior Court Judge James P. Kleinberg ruled that ConAgra, NL Industries and Sherwin-Williams created a “public nuisance” by selling lead-based paint for decades before it was banned in 1978, finding them liable for exposing children to a known poison.

The opinion set aside $605 million, or 55% of the judgment, to pay for lead removal in Los Angeles County. The money will go into a fund administered by the state’s Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention Branch and will pay for inspections and lead abatement on the inside walls of tens of thousands of homes.

“The court is convinced there are thousands of California children in the Jurisdictions whose lives can be improved, if not saved through a lead abatement plan,” the judge’s ruling said.

Local governments sued major paint manufacturers in 2000,...


[Click here to see the rest of this post]
Click here to read the complete Decision. People v. Atlantic Richfield Company, et al.
Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara
Case No. 1-00-CV-788657

Found on

Related articles

• Plaintiffs' expert says lead paint abatement could cost $1.4 billion (workers-compensation.blogspot.com)
• Occupational exposure to lead paint
• Lots of data to process for Calif. lead paint judge (workers-compensation.blogspot.com)
• Judge again asks sides to settle in Calif. lead paint case (workers-compensation.blogspot.com)
• California cities seek $1 billion settlement for lead paint-related health care costs (publicintegrity.org)

Judge again asks sides to settle in Calif. lead paint case

Lead paint litigation is facing a sentinel decision that will set the direction for the future of environmental and occupation litigation. Today's post was shared by Legal Newsline and comes from legalnewsline.com

Santa Clara County Superior Court Judge James Kleinberg on Monday ended proceedings in a 13-year-old case against paint companies by admonishing both sides, again, to settle. Kleinberg made his remarks after closing arguments in The People of California v. Atlantic Richfield Co. et. al., which seeks to hold five defendant paint companies liable for an alleged lead paint public nuisance in 10 county and municipal jurisdictions in the state. “Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence,” Kleinberg said, quoting John Adams who defended British soldiers in the Boston Massacre trial of 1770. Kleinberg also recalled a one-word response made by a judge in a civil case he tried as a lawyer. The judge, he said, asked the plaintiff’s lawyer how his clients felt about their prospects, to which the lawyer responded “Very confident.” “Why,” asked the judge. Kleinberg said the case settled a few days later. Saying it is “never too late to settle,” Kleinberg encouraged the sides to bring an end to the litigation that has spanned more than a decade and could put the defendants – Atlantic Richfield Co., ConAgra, DuPont, NL Industries and Sherwin Williams – on the hook for more than $1.4 billion to abate lead paint in pre 1978-built homes. Kleinberg said it takes He said it...

[Click here to see the rest of this post]

Found on

Related articles

• Sides rest in Calif. lead paint trial (workers-compensation.blogspot.com)
• Lots of data to process for Calif. lead paint judge (workers-compensation.blogspot.com)
• Plaintiffs in Calif. lead paint case say companies' witnesses were 'not persuasive' (workers-compensation.blogspot.com)
• Calif. judge denies Sherwin Williams motion in lead paint trial (workers-compensation.blogspot.com)
• Plaintiffs' expert says lead paint abatement could cost $1.4 billion (workers-compensation.blogspot.com)
• Plaintiffs' expert in lead paint trial says industry took responsibility for public health (workers-compensation.blogspot.com)

Closing arguments in Calif. lead paint trial take place Monday

Lead poisoning and lead expose is widespread. A vast number of cases of lead exposure flow from the lead pigment that was placed by the paint industry into paint. The residuals of the lead paint remain in place in many public and private buildings exposing both workers' and children to lead exposure and  the resulting lead disease. Today's post was shared by Legal Newsline and comes from legalnewsline.com

In the high stakes lead paint public nuisance case culminating in Santa Clara County Superior Court, both sides will make closing arguments Monday before Judge James Kleinberg. The 10 city and county plaintiffs — Santa Clara County, San Francisco City, Alameda County, Los Angeles County, Monterey County, Oakland City, San Diego City, San Mateo County, Solano County and Ventura County — are expected to argue they have met a burden of proving their case by a preponderance of evidence. Among other things, a team of attorneys for the plaintiffs will argue that the five defendant companies knew or should have known about the hazards created by the use of lead paint in homes, but promoted it anyway. They seek abatement in approximately 500,000 pre-1978 built homes in the jurisdictions and estimate the cost at $1.6 billion for inspection and abatement if the public entities implement the program. Plaintiffs say it would cost $2.4 billion if implemented by the defendants. Their plan calls for the creation of a fund administered by the public entities. Defendant companies — Sherwin-Williams, NL Industries, ConAgra Grocery Products, DuPont and Atlantic Richfield Company — are expected to fiercely defend their position, saying plaintiffs did not meet a necessary test set forth by the state’s Sixth District Court of Appeal. The paint companies will argue that the Sixth District allowed the 13-year-old case...

[Click here to see the rest of this post]

Related articles

• Plaintiffs in Calif. lead paint case say companies' witnesses were 'not persuasive' (workers-compensation.blogspot.com)
• Sides rest in Calif. lead paint trial (workers-compensation.blogspot.com)
• Plaintiffs' expert in lead paint trial says industry took responsibility for public health (workers-compensation.blogspot.com)
• Lots of data to process for Calif. lead paint judge (workers-compensation.blogspot.com)
• Calif. judge denies Sherwin Williams motion in lead paint trial (workers-compensation.blogspot.com)
• Plaintiffs' expert says lead paint abatement could cost $1.4 billion (workers-compensation.blogspot.com)
• Lead paint manufacturers facing California challenge (workers-compensation.blogspot.com)

Found on

Lots of data to process for Calif. lead paint judge

Lead exposure in the workplace continues due to decaying lead based paint in place. The complications of this environmental hazard are serious. Attention is now focussed on the Court's anticipated decision in the Lead Paint Litigation trial flowing from lead paint as a "public nuisance" that needs remediation.  Today's post was shared by Legal Newsline and comes from legalnewsline.com

Judge Kleinberg A watershed decision expected before the end of the year may come down to how one individual processes volumes of complex analyses of complex data relating to the use, promotion and manufacture of lead paint in the last century and its impact on children today. In a case that took six weeks to try after 13 years of litigation, Santa Clara County Superior Court Judge James Kleinberg also will measure the credibility of expert witnesses and their theories in The People of California v. Atlantic Richfield, et al. Not only do the plaintiffs have to prove that a public nuisance exists in pre-1978 built private residences in the 10 California cities or counties seeking abatement costs of more than $1 billion, they have to prove that paint companies promoted the use of white lead pigments in residential paint during the first half of the last century knowing it would create today’s alleged public nuisance.