Agricultural workers who suffered permanent health damage from Phosdrin settle lawsuit

[Guest guest]

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/70906_pesticide17ww.shtml

Long-running pesticide lawsuit is settled

Friday, May 17, 2002

THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

SPOKANE -- A California chemical company and its insurance carrier will pay

about $750,000 to three agricultural workers sprayed with a toxic pesticide

near Mattawa, a Spokane newspaper reported Friday.

The settlement was reached shortly before the workers' lawsuit was set to go

to trial in U.S. District Court here in March. It was not disclosed until

Wednesday, when payment was made to attorneys representing

Ruiz-Guzman, ex and Farias.

The out-of-court settlement was reached after two days of mediation presided

over by U.S. Magistrate Judge Imbrogno. The parties agreed to keep

the exact settlement out of the public record, but those familiar with the

case said it was approximately $750,000, The Spokesman-Review reported.

The workers said they suffered permanent health damage after being splashed

with a concentrated pesticide while working in an apple orchard near Mattawa

in 1993.

The lawsuit was filed against Amvac Chemical Corp. of Newport Beach, Calif.,

which manufactures the pesticide Phosdrin for use controlling aphids in

apple orchards.

The pesticide, which is absorbed quickly through the skin, can cause blurred

vision, confusion, breathing difficulties, heart irregularities, twitching,

exhaustion, vomiting, diarrhea and unconsciousness.

Spokane attorneys Marcia Meade and Eymann, who represented the

plaintiffs, said the lawsuit exposed " outrageous conduct " by Amvac Chemical,

which started using Phosdrin in Washington in 1993 while California was

preparing to ban its use.

" The pesticide is so toxic that 10 drops of the concentrate on the skin can

kill a 150-pound person, " Meade said.

Amvac has withdrawn the chemical from domestic markets, but it is still used

in other countries.

After the lawsuit was filed, U.S. District Judge Frem Nielsen made rulings

favoring the chemical company. Those findings were appealed to the 9th

Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, which forwarded questions about state law to

the Washington State Supreme Court.

The plaintiffs contended the pesticide " was not reasonably safe as

designed, " and the state Supreme Court agreed.

But the state court also said that some products, including pesticides and

medicines, can be " unavoidably unsafe, " leaving their manufacturers free

from liability.

After those rulings in August 2000, the 9th Circuit sent the case back to

U.S. District Court in Spokane for trial. Nielsen ordered the parties to

mediation.

W. Bassett, a Seattle attorney who represented Amvac, said the

company disputed the plaintiffs' claims that exposure to the chemical caused

long-term health affects.

The Environmental Protection Agency, which approved use of the pesticide,

determined appropriate instructions and warnings, Bassett said.

" These were not followed by the plaintiffs, " Bassett said. " Witnesses said

they worked without their gloves or had defective face masks. "

" Unfortunately, Washington growers no longer have this product available to

them, but their competitors in Mexico, South America and overseas do, thus

making it harder for Washington growers to compete on the world market, "

Bassett said.