Author: MichaelEhline

Can Boeing 737 Fire Victims Legally Sue? – Passenger Rights Guide

Written by MichaelEhline on January 25, 2025. Posted in Piloting and Aviation Accident Blog.

Yes. But it’s sparking a new area of emotion-based injuries while flying on an American Airlines, Boeing 737. If your oxygen masks dropped in turbulence aboard an airplane, you likely know the terror felt when crashing. Imagine you’re buckled up in your seat, ready for takeoff, and suddenly, the unsettling scent of smoke dances through the cabin, or you see an engine in flames. This dreadful scenario is not just a product of an overactive imagination. Recently, passengers on a Boeing 737 had a firsthand encounter with this experience.

I am Michael Ehline, a Los Angeles airplane accident attorney. I have well over a decade of experience suing negligent airlines. In this article, I will uncover problems with Boeing and explain whether or not you can sue this sullied aircraft manufacturer for injuries if hurt by one of their airliners.

A chilling moment raises a crucial question, “Can passengers, including those flying on United Airlines and Southwest, sue in the event of such incidents?”

The law will never make men free; it is men who have got to make the law free. – Henry David Thoreau

Aviation Law 101

Let’s dive a little deeper. Many national and international regulations bind the aviation industry. Knowing your rights as a passenger may not always be straightforward due to the legal undertones involved. However, understanding the basics is an essential lifeline in dire circumstances.

“Airlines, in their ‘contract of carriage,’ often deny liability for damages due to an ‘Act of God,’ ‘Act of War,’ and ‘consequences of Weather Conditions.’ Interestingly, plane malfunctions are not included in this list.”

Now, given the scenario of a panic-stricken cabin and frantic cries due to a sudden fire outbreak, one can reasonably assume that the malfunctions and missteps of the aircraft are to be blamed. So what does this mean for you, as a passenger?

It signifies that the airline cannot shrug off responsibility.
You are entitled to compensation if evidence points to neglect or a malfunction.
Your safety should never be compromised due to an airline’s shortcomings.

What The National Transportation Safety Board Says

The NTSB found that most aviation accidents and deaths arise in general aviation aircraft and concluded that the general aviation accident rate of 1.31 fatal crashes per 100,000 flight hours presents a public safety problem.

Connection With Federal Aviation Administration

They urged the Federal Aviation Administration and the National Transportation Safety Board to act to address the problem. Aviation accident victims face daunting challenges in obtaining negligence damages for injuries. Federal law does not require general aviation pilots or mechanics to carry liability insurance, and many are effectively “judgment-proof” for that reason.

In short, the answer to “Can passengers on a Boeing 737 sue in the wake of such a fire incident?” is, without a doubt, yes. Getting justice won’t be easy. Victims will need experienced legal counsel and a thorough understanding of passenger rights.

What Can Passengers Sue For?

If you were in a plane crash, could you sue the airline? Not only can you sue the airline, but you can also sue the flight crew, the manufacturer, the engine maker, the government whose air traffic control you are under, the pilot, the pilot’s dog, and probably the person who cooked the food.

A combination of the following usually causes general aviation crashes:

Pilot error,
Aircraft or component failure due to design or manufacture defects,
Aircraft or component failure because of poor maintenance,
Errors by the FAA (e.g., air traffic control).

No matter who was at fault in a general aviation accident, a victim faces significant practical and legal challenges. a. Pilot and Maintenance Error Pilot error has always been a leading cause of general aviation accidents. 9 Pilots bear a heavy responsibility for the safe operation of their

Passenger Status and Venue?

However, international flights would depend on the International Convention a State has signed. Two Conventions deal with Passenger liability compensation—the Warsaw Convention 1929 & its amendments done at various points in time, and the Montreal Convention 1999. Montreal Convention 199 specifies 100,000 SDRs, adjusted for inflation, per passenger. That amount will be payable to the families of the dead air passengers by the insurance company that the airline has.

Air Traffic Control?

Maybe. The fact is, anyone who could have contributed at all to the crash can be sued. If you don’t, you could lose the right to sue them later, so typically, everyone involved is sued except the pilot’s dog.

After all these incidents and hearings, you may wonder whether passengers on a Boeing 737 MAX can potentially sue for a tangible danger like a fire incident. Well, the answer is complex and tied up in various legal contexts.

But No Physical Injury Took Place?

First, let’s clear up a common misperception. Passengers who were not physically injured may find it difficult to successfully sue for damages solely based on fear or emotional distress experienced during in-flight emergencies unless they can prove a physical manifestation of this stress.

That being said, passengers who have suffered physical injuries due to such incidents certainly have potential grounds for a lawsuit. Under international aviation law, airlines can be held responsible for any harm to passengers or their belongings in the case of accidents during flight or embarking or disembarking, be it due to a fire, system failure, or any other reason. As per the Montreal Convention, ratified by 136 countries, including the United States, the liability in passenger death or personal injury can reach up to 113,100 Special Drawing Rights (equivalent to around USD 157,000), irrespective of the circumstances.

Moreover, a lawsuit may take another shape entirely if it can be demonstrated that the manufacturer, Boeing, in this case, exhibited negligence in ensuring the safety of their product. This could include failures in design, manufacturing, and even providing adequate warnings or instructions regarding potential risks. Boeing could potentially be held liable under product liability law in these instances. However, proving negligence will need substantial evidence.

Additionally, passengers may sue the FAA if it comes to light that the FAA (Federal Aviation Administration) was lax in its oversight or failed to ensure proper safety standards.

Suing a governmental agency often requires a showing of systemic failure or misconduct.

The Flight Safety Foundation tracks accidents globally. It promotes aviation safety and effectiveness.
A hearing conducted by the Full Committee on December 11, 2019, scrutinized the FAA’s oversight of the Boeing 737 MAX’s certification.
Chairs DeFazio and Larsen have urged the FAA to conduct third-party reviews into the Boeing 737-MAX’s safety standards.
The Boeing Company is under intense scrutiny over multiple Boeing 737 Max jet incidents.
The State of Aviation Safety hearing on July 17, 2019, discussed various safety strategic changes in the aviation sector.
The Final Committee Report led to bipartisan legislation. This was designed to strengthen the FAA’s certification process and improve the general regulatory system.
Chairs DeFazio and Larsen have applauded a distinct FAA third-party review of the Boeing 737 Max.
Chairs DeFazio and Larsen requested the DOT (Department of Transportation) Inspector General to investigate the FAA’s certification of Boeing 737 MAX.
Several bills focused on strengthening aviation safety have been advanced by the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee during full committee markup.
Preliminary investigative findings on Boeing 737 MAX were issued by the House Transportation Committee nearly a year after initiating its investigation.

Buoyed by the situation’s urgency and the public’s interest, Chairs DeFazio and Larsen have consistently determined to get to the bottom of the certification concerns surrounding the Boeing 737 MAX. They have been instrumental in initiating a third-party review. It was necessary to examine how these planes were approved for mass use thoroughly.

Lawsuits Filed Over Airplane Door Failure

Plane passengers have already sued Boeing and Alaska Airlines for emotional distress in another matter. On January 5, a Boeing 737 MAX 9 door plug blew during an Alaska Airlines flight. This took place at 16,000 feet. It created a massive, gaping hole, leading to an emergency landing. Surprisingly, there were no serious bodily injuries. Still, four passengers filed suit for “intense fear, distress, anxiety, trauma, physical pain, and other injuries.”

Lawsuits Over Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System (“MCAS”)

Some Boeing employees and pilots have stated that Boeing failed to communicate flight-stabilizing MCAS features on its Max 8 properly. For example, back in March 2019, Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302, a Max 8, crashed after takeoff, killing all 157 aboard. Before this, a Lion Air Max 8 crash occurred. Then, another Max 8 crashed just six minutes after taking off from Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. This place was en route to Nairobi, Kenya, on March 10, 2019.

Indonesia’s National Transportation Safety Committee said the flight crew tried to pull the aircraft out of a dive caused by a glitching sensor. This caused the Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System (MCAS) to tilt the craft nose down. Usually, pilots can manually override these types of automated systems with ease. Not so with the Max 8s. In the case of a Max 8, the panicked crew would have been forced to follow a specific sequence of steps to retake control of the plane’s “angle of attack.”

Accordingly, the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) grounded the aircraft on March 13, 2019, reversing a Continued Airworthiness Notice issued two days prior. The FAA’s March 13, 2019, subsequent grounding of all Boeing 737 Max.

Post-Crash Investigations / Litigation

In addition to the fire, there are other lawsuits. With post-crash investigations, severe design defects in the 737 Max were uncovered. Boeing’s intentional refusal to provide proper pilot training and guidance to the airline industry over the MCAS nose-down stall-countering system. Boeing’s competition with Airbus seems to have played a role in ignoring the design risks of its 737 Max. The 737 Max evolution opened the door to at least 346 fatalities.

The U.S. Congressional House Committee on Transportation declared this was due to financial pressure that “resulted in extensive efforts to cut costs, [and] maintain the 737 Max program schedule …”.

Domestic and international post-crash investigations determined at least two crashes were caused by a weak U.S. Federal Aviation Administration airworthiness certification. Allegedly, Boeing relied too much on its airline manufacturer’s self-certification process; It also overrated the 737 Max’s new safety and design features.

Boeing placed profits over people in its haste to sell its redesigned 737 Max aircraft. Above all else, Boeing needed to preserve market share. The recent fire underscores just how potentially dangerous the Max 8 has been.

Financial Consequences for Boeing

The consequences for Boeing have been catastrophic. And this fire isn’t making things any easier. Its financial recovery will cost Boeing billions of dollars and reduce stock value. It faces canceled purchase agreements. Also, delayed orders can cause cancellations and late penalties. Boeing wants to renegotiate purchase agreements. Airlines are seeking loss of revenue compensation, too. Insurance companies refuse to cover business interruption losses. Aviation and property insurance policies have a language that says, “This policy does not insure against loss or damage caused directly or indirectly by loss of market.” Read Duane Reade v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance, 611 F.3d 384 (2d Cir. 2005) to learn more.

The Role of the Third-Party Review:

An outside review looks at the approval of the Boeing 737 MAX. Its goal is to help the FAA recover credibility in its certification process. This independent review is designed to be transparent.

An Amphitheatre for Stakeholder Perspectives:

A noteworthy initiative in these investigations was the Aviation Subcommittee hearing announced by DeFazio and Larsen. This provided a platform for stakeholders to be heard. From engineers and pilots to airline crew and passengers, each perspective is vital in understanding the implications of the base issue and, importantly, any potential compensatory measures.

Legislation Advances:

The urgency of constructing a safer aviation environment has been echoed through the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee halls. Several bills have been introduced during full committee markup to strengthen aviation safety. This highlights the collective consensus to prioritize aviation safety. It also acts as a strategic response to the Boeing 737 MAX.

Moving Forward:

While the fire and crash situation is layered and depends on several factors, including the jurisdiction, the passenger’s direct experience, and the provisions of the Montreal Convention, passenger claims could potentially chart a new course in aviation law. After all, safety is not just about physical well-being but mental and emotional peace of mind.

The emphasis here, however, is on ‘bodily.’ It scrapes over psychological trauma, not qualifying it as a stand-alone damage claim. Considering this, the agreement’s recognition of passengers’ emotional distress directly caused by plane incidents becomes crucial. Remember that aerophobic passenger from your last flight?

Imagine their terror in an emergency. Unquestionably, they’ll be left with psychological scarring. But can passengers be compensated? That’s where the ambiguity of the current aviation law lies, and it’s this ambiguity that passengers on the 737 Max may be able to challenge.

While suing based on emotional distress may be relatively uncharted territory in the legal world, there have been successful precedents. Air France Flight 358 survivors proved their claims and were compensated for their distress. Can that open doors for the Boeing 737 MAX screaming passengers? Possibly.

However, the challenge lies in substantiating such claims. Proving psychological damage could be a complex process and requires an in-depth understanding of legal procedure, along with strong supporting evidence. Plus, the jurisdiction you’re in would play a role in this. While some countries may be more supportive of such claims, others might call it a far stretch.

The first duty of society is justice. – Alexander Hamilton

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission has also investigated whether Boeing misled investors over safety practices.

Recent Whistleblower “Suicides”?

Two world-famous injury attorneys, Brian Knowles and Rob Turkewitz, represented several Boeing whistleblowers who committed “suicide.” According to new stories, “more than ten” more whistleblowers are out there. These whistleblowers consist of past and present employees. News reports say these people are “safe and sound.” Hopefully, they will survive.

Conclusion

In conclusion, passengers’ fire and smoke injuries can potentially cause Boeing and others to sue. It could be argued that the catastrophic failures and fires aboard the 737 MAX caused significant distress and trauma. But the legal landscape is still somewhat murky; local regulations, the Montreal Convention, and past legal precedents all come into play. It will be a pioneering lawsuit that could potentially make waves in the courtrooms and how the aviation industry views passenger safety and rights. If you wish to speak to airplane accident attorney Michael Ehline about your case, please call him at (213) 596-9642.

Top 4 Explanations Why Trains Derail

Written by MichaelEhline on January 25, 2025. Posted in Train Accidents Blog.

The massive size of the train, the number of people trains carry, and the high speeds at which the trains are moving to make trains highly deadly in the event of derailments or railroad crossing accidents.

Train Accidents Hurt Everyone

Ultimate Guide to Understanding Train Derailments

Train accidents are dangerous for the passengers inside the train and pedestrians, other vehicles, and property outside the train. Although most train systems are autonomous, human intervention still needs human intervention, which can lead to human errors, exponentially increasing the risk of fatal train accidents. The negligence of a single train driver or operator can be highly costly in terms of human lives and property damage.

There are chances for events to go wrong, no matter how accurate the systems are. A train carrying toxic material can be dangerous for the environment and the nearby residents in case of a derailment. In 2008 in Louisiana, a train carrying hydrochloric acid derailed, spilling more than 10,000 gallons of harmful chemicals into the area and displacing thousands of people as they vacated their homes for safer grounds.

At Ehline Law Firm, we not only empower our attorneys by mentoring and guiding them on the best legal practices, but we also refer injured victims seeking the best legal representation for their injuries to a trusted, experienced, and reputable attorney.

Train Accident Statistics

Train accidents, including derailments, collisions, and other train accidents, kill one person every 100 minutes. Train accidents can kill about 1,000 people annually in the United States. It’s unbelievable, but more than half of the train accidents occur at unprotected rail crossings in the country, and 80% of all rail crossings lack adequate warning devices. We’ve heard of multiple cases of semi-trucks, big rigs, and even passenger cars getting smashed by trains due to inadequate warning signs or unprotected crossings.

It’s also surprising that a freight train carrying hazardous chemicals or materials derails in this country every two weeks. This displaces nearby residents and has serious implications for the environment, especially causing groundwater pollution, which can further harm individuals depending on the source of water to live.

Train Derailments in the United States

The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) reported 9,240 train derailments in the county during the period from 2010 to 2016. In 2016, statistics showed 1,149 derailments, about 212 fewer than the previous year.

During the same period, California witnessed 444 train derailments, with 2016 statistics showing 59, 11 lower than the previous year.

Accidents can be catastrophic with the sheer size of the train and the speed at which it travels. In 2016, the FRA recorded 787 deaths from train accidents across the country, with 156 deaths alone in California.

The 1918 Devastating Train Wreck: The Worst Rail Accident in U.S. History

Dubbed the worst rail accident in U.S. history, the 1918 train wreck shook the nation as millions across the country heard about the aftermath of the passenger train accident on the radio and in the newspapers.

We’ve all heard about trains derailing and crashing into automobiles, but we’ve only witnessed head-on train collisions in movies. Unfortunately, on July 9, 1918, two trains collided head-on in N.C. & StL railway line while traveling at 60 mph. The collision occurred on a railroad section known as the “Dutchman’s Curve.”

On the morning of July 9, the No. 4 train departed Nashville for Memphis, while the No. 1 left Memphis for Nashville a half-hour behind schedule. Due to miscommunication between train operators and the towers, both the trains headed towards each other as they entered a single track on Dutchman’s Curve at the same time.

Around 7.30 am, the trains collided at a 60 mph head-on collision, causing the other cars to derail off the track. Since this was 1918, passenger cars were made from wood, and the accident’s impact destroyed them, instantly killing 101 people and seriously injuring 171.

The great train wreck of 1918 forced Americans to rethink train designs and safety devices. It was the last time train companies in America ever used wooden passenger cars.

Recent Train Derailment Accidents

The Deadly Montana Derailment

On September 26, 2021, passengers boarded the Amtrak train service from Chicago to Seattle when an unfortunate incident occurred at around 4 pm local time, causing injuries and loss of lives. A few of the passenger carriages derailed from the tracks near the small town of Joplin, Montana.

The derailment resulted in carriages tipping over on their sides, causing serious injuries to passengers inside the train. As media and authorities arrived to carry out rescue operations, they saw some carriages on their side with luggage thrown around. At the same time, those who did not suffer any injuries were trying their best to help those in trouble.

The train had a total of 144 passengers and 16 crew members. The Montana derailment killed three people and injured over a dozen passengers. Some passengers could save themselves from injuries by holding onto coffee tables and seats as the train derailed. But those sleeping on the train did not have enough time to secure themselves, resulting in injuries from the tip-over. The passengers explained that the accident felt like extreme turbulence on a plane.

The first responders started to help out the injured passengers, and the U.S. National Transportation Safety Board announced an investigation into the deadly Montana derailment.

The 2015 Philadelphia Disaster

On May 12, 2015, a train departing from Washington, D.C., to New York with 238 passengers and eight crew members derailed near Kensington in Philadelphia. The accident resulted in eight deaths and over 200 injuries, making it one of the deadliest train accidents in modern history.

Many passengers helped first responders by getting stuck, injured passengers out of the train for medical help. More than 200 injured passengers received treatment in five nearby hospitals, and the derailment disrupted train services for several days.

An investigation into the incident revealed that the train was touching speeds of 100 mph on a 50 mph corner. The National Transportation Safety Board identified the cause of the derailment as a distracted train driver. They stated that the driver was too distracted to pay attention to the radio transmissions, causing him to lose situational awareness.

The officials mentioned that the accident would’ve never happened if there had been positive train control, a system for monitoring train movement, and a computerized speed-limiting system that was implemented on other routes but, due to regulatory requirements, faced implementation delays on this particular route.

Unfortunately, the investigation also revealed that the track did not have an automatic train control (ATC), an older system used to control train speeds according to external inputs. If the ATC systems were already present on the northbound track, they would limit the train’s speed before the curve, helping prevent the accident from happening in the first place.

After the investigation, the law enforcement authorities arrested the 32-year-old train driver for negligence, and the court charged him with the following charges:

Eight counts of involuntary manslaughter
238 counts of reckless endangerment
One count of causing a catastrophe.

Spilled Fuel onto Tracks

On March 16, 2022, around 7.30 pm, the local River Falls police received a call of a train derailment resulting in 300 gallons of spilled diesel fuel onto the tracks. When the police arrived at the accident scene, they saw a train that had come off its tracks.

When the police inquired about the incident, the train driver stated that the train collided with a log that had fallen onto the tracks at a low speed. The record resulted in the train’s derailment, causing punctures in the 1,800-gallon diesel fuel tank.

There were no injuries, but Castro called upon an expert environmental clean-up company to remove the oil spill and clear the tracks for other trains. At the same time, the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection would be conducting groundwater tests to determine whether the oil spill affected the groundwater supply.

The Top 4 Causes of Train Derailment

The incidents mentioned are some of the few derailment incidents with injuries or more significant environmental impact than the many other train derailments that occur across the country. Train derailments are more common than you would like to believe, resulting in serious injuries and even deaths.

Here are the top 4 explanations for why trains derail.

Track Related Issues

According to train accident statistics, broken or cracked rails and welds contribute to more than half of the train derailment accidents in the country.

A traditional track structure consists of two pieces of track supported on transverse sleepers. However, some advanced track structures support the ways on concrete slabs. Train tracks can become weak over time, especially at points where the rails join together with the help of a weld.

Poor artistry, freezing weather, or improper stressing of continuously welded rails can cause the welds to break open, increasing the risk of a dangerous derailment.

The disturbances in the rail running surface due to a piece falling or getting lodged in an incorrect location can cause a train to derail. There are also chances of gauge corner cracking leading to metallurgical changes under fatigue loading.

The derailment also occurs when there is excessive gauge widening. Guage widening is a slow process; if not properly monitored, it can result in derailment. An extensive gauge requires one final failure, such as high speeds, rail misalignment, and extreme traction effects, to cause a derailment.

The guidance system for practical railway vehicles relies on physics, using steering effects on moderate curves. When a train moves around a corner, the vertical wheel load puts enough pressure on it to keep it on the tracks. Suppose the wheel experiences lateral force more significantly than the vertical wheel load towards the outside of the curve. In that case, it will cause the wheel to climb onto the railhead, causing the train to experience a flange climbing derailment.

Equipment Failure

Equipment failure is also one of the country’s leading causes of train derailments. These can include defective wheels, locomotive bearings, car bearings, suspension, and other car defects and failures. An accident can still happen if the train’s employees follow all the necessary safety procedures.

In the early 1900s, defective wheels were the most common historical failure mode, but with modern technologies, there is a reduction in the incidence of such failures. Due to insufficient lubrication, a train’s plain bearings may collapse, resulting in a derailment. Although mechanical failure is less common than other causes of accidents, it happens occasionally.

Trains are large moving machines that require constant support from towers and control rooms. Any small mechanical failure, like a loose bolt or a rail signal failure, can lead to a train accident.

Human Errors

Human error and negligence are also significant causes of train derailments in the country. Although these don’t occur that often, the unfortunate reality is that these accidents are preventable.

Human errors can include the following:

Speeding when there is a clear indication to slow down.
Failing to comply with safety signs, signals, and regulations.
Failing to communicate with the train operator properly.
Failing to comply with switches and mainline rules.
Forcing drivers to work long hours non-stop causes fatigue.

Sometimes a railroad accident occurs because of the train company’s fault for not following safety regulations, while train accidents occur because of employee negligence. Failure to operate the crossing arm properly or turn on the signal light are examples of railway negligence.

One major factor contributing to these types of human negligence is the use of old technology. Better railway technologies are already in place on certain tracks, but since these technologies require a hefty investment, adopting these safety features is often put on hold.

For example, Congress required class 1 mainlines, which are railway lines used to transport hazardous materials and passenger cars, to implement Positive Train Control (PTC), systems designed to prevent train collisions, speed derailments, and other types of accidents by monitoring the train’s movements.

However, more than 66% of the commuter railroads failed to implement PTC due to limited budgets.

Fatigue is also a significant concern, leading to human errors. Whether the train driver has substantial experience or is relatively new, fatigue is shared across all levels of expertise. Train companies often pressure their employees to operate the trains even if they’re exhausted. This is sheer negligence, as rules mention the maximum number of hours a train driver can use a train in a day.

Not all train accidents are because of human error on behalf of the company or the driver. Train accidents can also occur because of human error on the part of pedestrians and vehicle drivers. Train accidents can happen because drivers or pedestrians cross the track at the wrong time. It can also occur when vehicle drivers act recklessly by beating the train across a railroad crossing.

Environmental Factors

When looking at the sheer size of the train, we often believe that trains are not affected by environmental factors such as rain, storms, and snow, unlike cars. However, that is not the case. The train tracks in the United States not only move through the dense forest but also around mountains, into valleys, and across deserts. Extreme changes in weather conditions can increase the risk of system failure.

For example, extremely high heat during the day and cooler weather at night can cause the expansion and contraction of train tracks, resulting in damaged or broken rails. Higher winds or snowfall can cause trees to fall onto rail tracks and snow avalanches to bury the ways. Any contact with obstacles on the train track can increase the chances of derailment.

A conductor is often aware of the train’s surroundings, looking to identify broken rails or any obstacles in the path and pulling on the emergency brakes to prevent an accident. However, sometimes, a conductor may fail to see a barrier in time to avoid a collision.

Other Causes of Train Accidents

We’ve discussed the top four causes of train accidents: track-related issues, equipment failure, human error, and environmental factors. However, other causes of train accidents happen in the United States.

It’s unfortunate, but many people take their own lives by standing on the tracks and waiting for the train to run them over or jumping in front of a moving train. According to federal statistics, in 2017, there 266 people were killed due to stepping in front of trains.

When a train conductor spots a person at the last moment, they might pull on the emergency brakes to prevent running them down. If train brakes suddenly, it is hard on passengers, as braking at high speeds can cause passenger injuries. Emergency braking on an empty freight vehicle can momentarily lift the car, causing train derailment.

Sometimes it is not a train’s mechanical failure that causes an accident but an engine failure in another car, causing it to stall on the tracks. It’s rare to see a car stuck at railroad crossings, but when drivers slow down when crossing, a poorly tuned engine can cause the vehicle to stall. In such situations, there may not be enough time to push the car away. A moving train will usually make the vehicle out of its path or split it in half, but if the car goes under the train, it can cause it to derail.

Train Accident Liability

Under the Department of Transportation Act of 1966, the FRA is responsible for monitoring and taking safety measures to prevent train accidents. Railroad companies and commuter rail lines have the legal obligation to ensure the safety of all their passengers.

These parties must also install a black box on a train that continuously records information. This is useful when investigating a train accident to understand what happened so that they can take the necessary steps to prevent it from happening again.

Although the railway is responsible for ensuring the safety of all passengers, it may not always carry out its responsibility. But as we’ve already discussed, railway companies or their employees may not always be the cause of an accident. You must speak to a train accident attorney to determine the party at fault and help you recover compensation for your loss.

What Should I Do After a Train Derailment?

You must contact a personal injury lawyer if you or your loved ones suffer severe injuries due to a train derailment. You face a challenging and uncertain future with serious injuries impacting your life, but an attorney can help you recover compensation. Although compensation will not undo the accident or injuries or bring back your loved ones, it can help you rebuild a more stable future.

Under the law, injured victims, due to the negligent actions of others, may be eligible for compensation. However, it can be challenging to determine who the at-fault party is. It could be an employee or railway company’s negligence, the negligence of a government entity for misaligned tracks, or a manufacturer’s negligence for providing defective train products. An attorney can allocate resources to investigate the train accident and help determine who the negligent party is so that they can pursue legal action against them to recover compensation for your loss.

Why Hiring a California Ambulance Chaser is Bad for Your Health

Written by MichaelEhline on January 25, 2025. Posted in Torts, Examples, Explanations.

Coming on the heels of Tom Girardi and all the new State Bar IOLTA rules he forced on us honest lawyers, I felt this article focusing on unethical attorneys was appropriate. Having grown up on movies like The Rainmaker, I am very familiar with this topic as a blue-collar worker and now a white-collar personal injury attorney in Los Angeles. But sadly, this practice takes place in many states, according to the American Bar Association.

In a car accident or a personal injury event, you want a reliable personal injury lawyer by your side—someone who genuinely cares about accident victims with a goal to engage and represent their best interests cheerfully. However, in Southern California, the accident victim must be on the lookout for ambulance chasers after dollars, especially after a car accident.

This article by Los Angeles personal injury attorney Michael Ehline seeks to explore the ethical rules, professional conduct, and other issues with the state bar. In the end, this hyper-focused article will explain how to get a referral to seek compensation from bad lawyers who broke professional ethics rules to solicit business.

If you hire the wrong lawyer, the advice you obtain here will help you. Even if you live in another part of the world, reading this piece is in your best interest to help you decide your next steps and protect your legal rights as an accident victim.

What Is an Ambulance Chaser?

Definition: The term “ambulance chaser” is a derogatory word that refers to a personal injury attorney who solicits accident victims using low-class, pernicious methods that reduce public trust in the legal profession.
The Act: Ambulance chasing, also known as “barratry” or “unlawful solicitation,” involves the unethical and often illegal practice of lawyers or individuals contacting accident victims or their families shortly after an accident to encourage them to file a lawsuit or claim.

Sometimes, these lawyers “chase” ambulances to accident scenes. Their goal is to hand out business cards and offer legal services to stressed-out people who just got injured. They aim to capitalize on vulnerable victims and the ensuing chaos they face, making it easier to get a signature on the dotted line.

These vultures in eagle’s clothing may make enticements like a cash advance, huge settlements, or another false promise to get your signature on a retainer agreement.

Are Ambulance Chasers Bad?

Absolutely. Besides breaking the ethical rules, ambulance pursuit attorneys rarely deliver the individualized care and assistance you deserve in your case. These charlatans will often seek quick resolution but do not always negotiate an ideal outcome for their clients. They are also known for using their family members or friends with other companies to offer you high-interest case funding loans and cutting deals with doctors to inflate your medical bills, leaving you broke while they make a quick buck!

Legal Standpoint on Ambulance Chasers in California

California has codified a strict, punishing legal framework for bad actors chasing ambulances. Yet, this is still a common practice that has greatly harmed the reputation of the legal profession across the country.

Civil and Criminal Penalties for Ambulance Chasing in California

In California, both civil and criminal penalties can apply to those engaged in ambulance chasing:

Civil Penalties:

State Bar of California: The State Bar of California, which the lawyer community can take disciplinary actions against attorneys involved in ambulance chasing of new clients. Administrative penalties may include temporary or permanent suspension or even disbarment.
Victim Lawsuits: Victims of ambulance chasing may file civil lawsuits against the individuals or attorneys involved, seeking damages for any harm they have suffered. Damages can include compensation for emotional distress, legal fees, and other losses. Remember, a bad lawyer with poor expertise can cost you your case. One who breaks the ethics rules is more likely to cause problems.

Criminal Charges

In California, being a runner or capper can be considered a criminal offense, typically charged as a misdemeanor. Individuals engaged in unlawful solicitation may face penalties, including fines and possible imprisonment if convicted. The solicited party may also be entitled to criminal restitution from the evildoer.

State Laws

California has specific laws governing ambulance-chasing, including:

Business and Professions Code Section 6152: Over ten years ago, starting in 2011, the California Business and Professions Code Section 6152 spelled out the legislative scheme for punishing predatory runners, cappers, and solicitors at wreck sites. This section makes it illegal for attorneys to solicit clients who have been involved in accidents within 15 days of the accident. The repercussions for lawyers who get caught are severe, with potential $15,000 fines or a year or less in county jail.
California Business and Professions Code Section 6154: This section recognizes that, like fraudulent contracts, one obtained by unethical means is also void. So besides a potential jail sentence, under California Business and Professions Code Section 6154, any professional services contract your attorney obtained using a runner or capper is null and void as a matter of law. What Does This Signify for Clients? Annulling a contract suggests that any service fees you may have paid are eligible for a refund, offering safeguards for victims of such schemes.

Why It’s Best to Avoid Ambulance Chasers

In summary, pressuring someone dealing with the stress of an accident to hire a lawyer immediately is both unethical and illegal.

Apart from the legal concerns, here are more compelling reasons to steer clear of ambulance chaser lawyers in California:

Unsolicited Approaches: A significant red flag is when a lawyer or their representative approaches you shortly after an accident and tries to coerce you into signing papers you don’t understand.
High-Pressure Sales Tactics: If you feel pressured to hastily sign a retainer agreement, trust your instincts, take a step back, and start asking questions. Ambulance chaser lawyers frequently resort to high-pressure tactics to secure your quick agreement. Making a hasty decision when choosing a lawyer can lead to protracted legal battles, smaller settlements, or even losing a case that could have been won.
Promises of Quick Settlements: Be cautious of lawyers who promise swift settlements without thoroughly understanding the complexities of your case. Realistic and honest lawyers will acknowledge that unpredictable outcomes often take time.
Lack of Clear Communication: A reputable lawyer will provide transparent information regarding their fees, processes, and potential outcomes. If you encounter evasiveness or a lack of straightforwardness, reconsider your choice.
Negative Reviews or Disciplinary Actions: Conduct thorough research. If an attorney has numerous unfavorable reviews or a history of disciplinary actions, it’s a strong indication to seek representation elsewhere.
Unethical Conduct: Ambulance-chasing lawyers often operate in the gray area of ethical boundaries. In California, it is considered unprofessional for lawyers to approach potential clients without being solicited, raising doubts about their professional integrity and how they will handle your case.
Lack of Genuine Care: Personal injury cases necessitate understanding, empathy, and a sincere commitment to the client’s recovery. Ambulance-chasing lawyers, driven by aggressive tactics and the pursuit of swift settlements, may not provide the personal attention and care that your situation warrants.
Inadequate Representation: Ambulance chaser lawyers often prioritize fast settlements over achieving the best outcome for their clients. This rush can result in less thorough evidence gathering, weaker negotiation with the opposing party, or inadequate trial preparation.

The key issue with ambulance chasers is their desire to secure your commitment quickly, resolve your case promptly to collect their fees, and move on to the next client. The main problem is poor or mixed results based on past examples. Beware, while many exceptional attorneys in California are genuinely committed to helping clients, ambulance chaser lawyers rarely share the same intentions. We hope these tips make it easier for you to distinguish a promising lawyer over a crummy one. Knowing the warning signs makes it easy for clients to make an informed decision.

How Do “Ambulance Chasers” Obtain Accident Victims’ Information?

Some individuals may not be aware that the law permits access to information for those who have accessed their police records, such as a police report. Therefore, anyone who has been injured or involved in an automobile accident can request copies if they wish. Typically, your contact information and phone number are included, making it easy for a searcher to find you.

They may claim to understand your goals, but it’s important to note that this tactic doesn’t always succeed. Their aim is to leverage your accident to secure additional compensation from the insurance company for a personal injury case.

Other Tactics Used By Ambulance Chasing Lawyers

Untrustworthy law firm lawyers employ many tactics in their search to identify potential clients, as follows:

Tow truck drivers
Police scanners
First responders, nurses, or a doctor getting a cut
Shady police officers
Other lawyers who violate confidentiality rules or bad lawyers hang out in hospital lobbies
Hospital staff on the take
Bad judges making cash on the side
Direct solicitation of clients at the accident scene
Other personal injury victims getting a cut
Family members are seeking an illegal referral fee.

In some situations, individuals may pose as witnesses but are actually informants for their attorneys. These attorneys may search for accident victims through news stories, visiting them in the hospital or at home after their release, or making contact over the phone. In certain cases, it might not be a legitimate attorney seeking clients; some lawyers pay tow truck and ambulance drivers and emergency room personnel to distribute their business cards to accident victims, a covert practice that is considered a misdemeanor in California. Others engage in mass mailings to solicit clients, acting on a mass tort or incident. They do this, particularly in neighborhoods with instances of faulty home construction, and it may or may not be ethical. In certain cities, courier services scour police records and provide lawyers with potential client names for a fee as well.

What Other Practices Are Unethical?

This section provides an example of unprofessional behavior, but these aren’t exhaustive lists either. Whenever an attorney receives money from its clients, it must be kept in the same IOLTA account because it is the clients’ money. Some lawyers do not obey these guidelines. Also, lawyers often fail to check for conflicts of interest properly.

A lawyer should remain loyal. This means a lawyer soliciting cannot stand by defending his client if a client has conflicting views. This is especially true if the lawyer has already mishandled the client by being an ambulance chaser using cappers and runners.

Research Your Personal Injury Lawyer

Lawyers across the United States depend on the Martindale-Hubbell Directory for efficient, precise assessments and evaluations of attorneys. Martindale-Hubbell ranks lawyers based on reviews from their client list and peers they work with. Highly qualified lawyers may also hold distinctions like AV Preeminent, Distinguished, or Notable.

Another valuable resource for finding legal professionals for your legal research is your state or national bar association. In California, for instance, you can access the bar association’s website to search for attorneys with the necessary licenses and qualifications.

How Long Should I Wait Until I Retain An Attorney?

If you’ve been in a car accident, assessing your physical condition is important before hiring an attorney. When selecting an attorney, choosing someone with expertise in your specific type of practice area is in your best interest. An attorney who engages in unethical practices is unlikely to have your best interests at heart. If you’re still facing medical expenses after seeking medical care, it’s advisable to contact a qualified attorney without delay. Your health is a top priority, and following a medical evaluation, you should decide whether pursuing legal action is necessary. What if I sign a retainer with an ambulance chaser and then change my mind?

In general, in some states, a contract with the plaintiffs’ attorneys is not valid if they have been approached for legal assistance. It involves solicitations or visits from lawyers’ employees within the firm.

Contact Ehline Law Firm

The best way to find a non-ambulance-chasing lawyer is through referrals from friends, family, and other established lawyers in another practice area. A lawyer approaching you in the street after a crash is likely an ambulance chaser and dishonest. Did you or a loved one suffer injuries in a California personal injury accident? If so, contact Ehline Law and consult with our charismatic team. Discover how our representatives and investigators can help you using our years of experience, ethical conduct, and client-centric approach. We are ready to hear your story and have an honest discussion.

Attorney Michael Ehline has also represented insurance companies, so he understands how companies try to take advantage of accident victims throughout the complicated process. Our honest team fights for clients and keeps an eye out to make sure they receive adequate compensation for their injuries or death claims.

Contact Ehline Law for a free consultation today if you’re looking for a good lawyer with resources in California. We are ready to discuss your options. Our team has knowledge of the specific rules and can help wary clients sue their prior counsel for violating their legal rights after signing a retainer.

Johnson & Johnson Recalls Five of its Aerosol Sunscreens

Written by MichaelEhline on January 25, 2025. Posted in Products Defect Blog.

Johnson & Johnson has recalled five of its aerosol sunscreens distributed nationwide after discovering benzene, a carcinogen, in some samples designed for consumers sun protection measures. Johnson & Johnson announced consumers should stop using the affected canisters immediately and seek refunds where possible. This is not Johnson & Johnson’s first recall in their supply chain this year, as it also recalled children’s Tylenol products due to potential contamination with mold.

A human carcinogen is a substance that promotes the development of cancer. Some carcinogens are artificial, such as benzene, found in Johnson & Johnson’s specific aerosol sunscreen products.

Benzones are also considered carcinogenic because long-term exposure may lead to leukemia and other cancers like colorectal tumors. Johnson & Johnson’s recalls were prompted by trace amounts of benzene being detected through its quality control process.

Is This Johnson & Johnson’s First Recall?

No, Johnson & Johnson has a history of recalls. In November 2018, Johnson & Johnson recalled three products:

Tylenol Arthritis Pain Extra Strength Caplet bottle because the tablets may be chipped or broken and therefore difficult to swallow
Motrin Infant Drops because some bottles might have dropper tips that don’t work properly
Benadryl Allergy Relief Children’s Syrup due to reports from consumers who tasted metal in product samples.

What is Benzene?

Benzene is an organic compound with two benzene rings linked at one end (C^), and it is used as a solvent for other substances, including rubber, paint, ink, plastics, and textiles. Scientists discovered it by accident in 1825 when they distilled coal tar.

Benzene is an irritant that can be toxic if inhaled or swallowed because it enters the bloodstream directly from the lungs and intestines. It has been found to cause cancer of the bladder, bone marrow (leukemia), eye sockets, kidneys, liver, and skin in animals and people who regularly work with benzene.

What Are Neutrogena and Aveeno Products Included In Johnson & Johnson’s Sunscreen Recall?

Johnson & Johnson’s sunscreen affected products by the benzene recall are as follows:

Neutrogena Beach Defense Aerosol Sunscreen
Neutrogena Cool Dry Sport Aerosol Sunscreen
Neutrogena Invisible Daily Defense Aerosol Sunscreen
Neutrogena Ultra Sheer Aerosol Sunscreen
Aveeno Protect + Refresh Aerosol Sunscreen

What are the adverse health consequences of using Johnson Johnson Sunscreen Recall Products Containing Benzene?

Benzene is an organic compound found in the air due to incomplete combustion, such as cigarette smoke. It is also used to make other chemicals, including plastics, glues, or paints.

When benzene enters the body, it harms nearly every organ system – eyes (ocular), sockets, kidneys, liver, and skin- in animals and people who work with benzene regularly.

The effects include blood disorders, leukemia, or cancer of the lymphatic system; high levels may cause bone marrow death leading to aplastic anemia; lung damage from hypersensitivity pneumonitis or chemical pneumonia, where inflammation causes fluid accumulation around the lungs, which restricts breathing.

What Are The Symptoms Of Benzene Poisoning?

According to Johnson & Johnson officials, there have been no known cases in which someone has exhibited symptoms from using these recalled aerosol sunscreen product lines.

The company advises consumers who purchased any five impacted items should immediately stop using them and contact their physician if they experience adverse health consequences, such as skin irritation or burns resulting from this recall.

Symptoms of benzene poisoning include:

Headache
Dizziness or lightheadedness, sometimes with nausea and vomiting
Irritation of the eyes, nose, and throat.
Chronic exposure can lead to a gradual decline in liver function leading to jaundice (yellowing), enlarged veins on the skin (spider nevi), and enlargement of fatty tissue around the heart.

Symptoms may take months or years before they show up after repeated exposures. Continued prolonged exposure can, over time, result in leukemia (cancer). There is no known safe level for benzene.

What Do I Do If I’ve Used Johnson & Johnson Aerosol Sunscreen Products?

Contact your local retailer for further instructions on how to return the sunscreen products, where they were purchased, and when. If you suspect you have symptoms from certain aerosol-recalled sunscreen products by Johnson & Johnson, you should see your physician.

According to The Food & Drug Administration:

“adverse reactions or quality problems experienced with the use of this product may be reported to the FDA’s MedWatch Adverse Event Reporting program either online, by regular mail or by fax.”

Complete and submit the report Online

Regular Mail or Fax: Download form or call 1-800-332-1088 to request a reporting form, then complete and return to the address on the pre-addressed form, or submit by fax to 1-800-FDA-0178.

Is My Health At Risk If I Used Any Of J&J Aveeno or One of the Four Neutrogena Sunscreen Versions?

It is difficult to say if you are at risk for adverse reactions or quality problems. If your health concerns have increased, please see a physician. The FDA recommends that all consumers stop using certain aerosol sunscreen products and contact Johnson & Johnson with any questions about their use.

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) stated in an email interview:

If someone had used one of the recalled J&J Aveeno or Neutrogena spray-on beach defense aerosol sunscreen products over the past few days then yes, it would be reasonable to consult your healthcare provider.

If I’ve Been Using J&J Recalled Products, Should I Contact An Attorney?

If you have been injured or sickened due to daily exposure to Johnson & Johnson consumer recalled product, contact Ehline Law as soon as possible for help recovering damages and compensation.

How Glyphosate Infiltrates Your Brain – You May Have a Legal Claim!

Written by MichaelEhline on January 25, 2025. Posted in Products Defect Blog.

You May Have Legal Claims!

Ultimate Guide to Understanding Glyphosate Exposure. For decades, people have known herbicides as environmental contaminants. However, only recently have consumers understood the adverse health effects pesticide exposure might have on humans. However, only recently have consumers understood the adverse health effects pesticide exposure might have on humans. The detrimental effects glyphosate exposure will cause are now proven by science. Commercial herbicides and home-use pesticides can lead to damaging outcomes, horrific in vitro changes, and other neurodegenerative disorders. The controversial Roundup weed killer raised concerns about an active ingredient, glyphosate, warranting the need to study the substance’s effects on human health.

Research published in 2022 by Arizona State University reported that glyphosate infiltrates the brain, suggesting potential adverse health effects for Roundup users. The study shows that glyphosate successfully crosses the blood-brain barrier, enters the human brain, and can even onset of Alzheimer’s Disease and Dementia in a dose-dependent manner. Once inside, it enhances levels of a critical factor known as TNF-α. TNF-α TNF-α, which means tumor necrosis factor-alpha. When it does, we can help the victims. Ehline Law and our injury attorneys advocate for injured victims suffering from exposure to toxic substances, including Agent Orange, glyphosate-based herbicides, and other broad-spectrum herbicide problems like cell biology division in brain tissues.

We have recovered over $150 million in compensation and helped over 3,000 injured victims. If you’re experiencing health problems following herbicides, including Agent Orange, contact us to learn more about your brain tissue post-exposure rights.

Glyphosate and Its Link to Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma

Glyphosate herbicide became popular in the early 2000s, becoming Monsanto’s best-selling product. Eyeing the opportunity, Bayer acquired Monsanto for $63 billion. When Bayer purchased Monsanto in 2018, it also acquired a hoard of legal problems Monsanto was facing. Soon, thousands of lawsuits from citizens complained about health problems with correlations leading to glyphosate-based herbicide use. The cell death in cortical neuron lawsuits all made their way to Bayer.

2015 the World Health Organization (WHO) identified glyphosate as a carcinogen. It warned consumers about exposure’s potentially toxic effects and health risks, such as brain and spinal cord damage, non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, and other cancers. Before the 2015 WHO warning, many studies conducted in the past, including “A case-control study of non-Hodgkin lymphoma and exposure to pesticides” completed in 1999, suggested a link between glyphosate exposure and non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. A 2013 research suggests that glyphosate induces human breast cancer cell growth through estrogen receptors.

Findings of Previous Studies Show Glyphosate Cross the Blood Brain Barrier

Previous studies, such as the 2011 “Aseptic meningitis in association with glyphosate-surfactant herbicide poisoning” and many more, have shown that once in the environment and you become exposed, glyphosate crosses the blood-brain barrier. It leads to cell death in vitro models. However, it has not extensively studied glyphosate in human brain models or its pathological effects. Findings from previous research also suggest that exposure to herbicides for six weeks in adult rats leads to peripheral blood inflammation.

It also revealed that glyphosate exposure resulted in a detectable tumor necrosis factor-alpha (TNFα) in the examined sample rat’s liver. A 2010 research suggests that a healthy brain’s TNFα levels are low. However, those suffering from cancer, psoriasis, inflammatory, and neurodegenerative diseases have shown increased levels of TNFα molecule in their brains. There is a strong link between TNFα and the progression of Alzheimer’s disease.

A 2017 research study on chronic exposure to glyphosate in mice revealed changes in brain-related function but did not establish whether the substance infiltrated the brain, inducing cell death. But things are changing.

Recent Experiments Suggest Effects of Glyphosate on Brain Tissue

A 2022 study explored the connection between glyphosate and neurodegenerative disorders by experimenting on 48 four-month-old mice. The mice received various doses of glyphosate per day for 14 days to study the substance’s effects. On the final day, the researchers collected urine, plasma, and brain samples to analyze for anomalies. Let’s examine the experiment’s results and determine how glyphosate infiltrates your brain.

Glyphosate Detected in Brain Tissue

The experiment revealed that an increased dose of glyphosate led to increased glyphosate levels in the mice’s brains. There was also higher aminomethylphosphonic acid (AMPA), glyphosate’s major metabolite.

The study also found a strong correlation between brain glyphosate and AMPA; as the brain glyphosate increased, so did the levels of AMPA. It also showed a significant correlation between brain glyphosate and urine glyphosate levels.

Glyphosate Increases Brain TNFα

The findings of the study also revealed an increase in the following:

Brain TNFα in specific brain areas affected by neurodegenerative diseases such as Alzheimer’s.
Hippocampal TNFα levels
Cortical TNFα levels.

Collectively, the study suggested an increase in brain TNFα from glyphosate exposure.

Glyphosate Increases Peripheral Blood Plasma

The researchers analyzed blood plasma to determine the effect of glyphosate on the levels of TNFα in the periphery.

The findings of the experiment showed a significant dose-dependent increase in the levels of the following:

Brain TNFα
Brain homogenate
Hippocampal TNFα
Cortical TNFα.

It also showed effects on the hippocampus, cortical homogenates, and cortex. A significant relationship exists between glyphosate and TNFα in the brain, especially in specific regions.

Brain Glyphosate Levels Correlation with Brain TNFα Levels

Different linear correlation models revealed a positive correlation between the levels of the following:

Brain glyphosate and brain TNFα
Brain glyphosate and peripheral blood plasma
Urine and brain glyphosate
Urine glyphosate and peripheral blood plasma TNFα.

Exposure to Glyphosate Results in Transcriptomic Dysregulation

The study sets out to find the transcriptome change after glyphosate exposure. Analysis of cell-specific changes in gene expression revealed a positive enrichment of oligodendrocytes. It also saw the enrichment of oligodendrocytes in various biological processes, including central nervous system myelination.

Key Takeaway of the Recent Experiment and Neurodegenerative Diseases

Glyphosate showed a dose-dependent increase in brain tissue, supporting previous study results.
The possible degradation of glyphosate in vivo models suggests small amounts of AMPA. However, further research is required.
Exposure to glyphosate in mice suggested heightened levels of TNFα in blood plasma.
Elevated levels of TNFα in brain homogenates.
High levels of TNFα in specific brain regions affected by Alzheimer’s disease.
Brain glyphosate correlates with brain TNFα levels
There is a positive correlation between brain glyphosate and blood plasma and brain and urine glyphosate.
Glyphosate leads to higher cytotoxicity and reduced cell viability.
Glyphosate alters gene expression.
Glyphosate induces human breast cancer cell growth through its estrogen receptors.
The doses used on mice are above the daily human exposure but a benchmark set by the Environmental Protection Agency for experiments on rodents.

Dose-dependent glyphosate accumulation infiltrating brain tissue in the human body is natural. Brain tissue revealed glyphosate entered the brains of test subjects, including mice. Chronic pesticide exposure in testing shows significant health problems in glyphosate-treated groups compared with the general population. So, if you work around corn and soy crops, you will likely have a higher, more significant dose-dependent response.

Persistent exposure means farm workers in the Central Valley of California will have higher environmentally relevant concentrations and a greater chance of contracting brain disorders over their lives. Additionally, like Agent Orange, neurological disorders can lead to dysregulated gene expression, DNA damage/congenital disabilities/disfigurement. Other conditions can include neurodegenerative diseases like Alzheimer’s and oligodendrocyte development.

Schedule a Free Consultation with Ehline Law Glyphosate Exposure Injury Lawyers

Are you worried about differential expression analysis results after dosage regression? The recent study raises awareness of glyphosate exposure’s detrimental effects and potential hazards for those who are still using glyphosate products.

If you’re suffering from health conditions and are using glyphosate-based herbicides/pesticides, there is a likelihood that the herbicide has something to do with your deteriorating health. Contact us at (213) 596-9642 for a free consultation with our legal experts, as you may qualify for compensation after glial cell development from pesticide use.

Neurological Health Citations:

Arizona State University and the Arizona-based Translational Genomics Research Institute.
2019 Pandey A , Dhabade P , Kumarasamy A. 2019. Inflammatory effects of subacute exposure of Roundup in rat liver and adipose tissue. Dose-Response. 17: 1559. [Crossref], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar].
J Environ Res Public Health. 2022 Apr 19;19(9):4966. DOI: 10.3390/ijerph19094966. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022. PMID: 35564359 Free PMC article. See all similar articles References Alavanja MCR, Hoppin JA, Kamel F. Health effects of chronic pesticide exposure: cancer and neurotoxicity. Annu Rev Public Health. 2004;25:155–197. DOI: 10.1146/annual.pub health.25.101802.123020. – DOI – PubMed Benbrook CM.
Ait Bali et al. 2017 Ait Bali Y, Ba-Mohamed S, Bennis M. 2017. Behavioral and immunohistochemical study of the effects of subchronic and chronic exposure to glyphosate in mice. Front Behav Neurosci. 11: 146. [Crossref], [PubMed], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar].
Products Defects Lawyer
Contaminated Water Lawsuits
Bayer/Monsanto Roundup Cancer Lawsuit
Camp Lejeune Cancer Claims
Benzene Exposure in Los Angeles