Fresno Pesticide Injury Attorney

Attorney Michael Rehm — (800) 978-0754

Attorney Michael Rehm represents people injured by pesticide and agricultural chemical exposure throughout Fresno County. Fresno County applies more pesticide than any other county in California — and more than any other county in the United States. According to the California Department of Pesticide Regulation's 2023 Annual Pesticide Use Report, Fresno County applied 26,288,224 pounds of pesticide active ingredients in 2023 alone, ranking first in the state. This is roughly 15 percent of California's entire 176 million pound statewide total. The source data is published by the California Department of Pesticide Regulation at cdpr.ca.gov.

Fresno County grows more crops by value than any other county in the United States, exceeding the output of 23 states. That agricultural dominance is inseparable from the pesticide application that protects those crops. The people who work in Fresno County's fields, orchards, and vineyards — and the families who live near them — bear disproportionate exposure to chemicals that carry documented health risks.

Fresno County Pesticide Exposure Data

The California Department of Pesticide Regulation's 2023 county-level pesticide use report identifies the specific chemicals applied in Fresno County. The most heavily applied include:

1,3-Dichloropropene (1,3-D / Telone): A soil fumigant injected into the ground before planting that converts to an airborne gas. In 2023, Fresno County applied 1,3-D across almonds (74,782 pounds), grapes (67,022 pounds), wine grapes (55,384 pounds), peaches (65,044 pounds), melon (51,391 pounds), plums (38,634 pounds), nectarines (33,963 pounds), tangerines (32,969 pounds), eggplant (25,699 pounds), and cherry (18,709 pounds), among other crops. These figures are drawn directly from the CDPR 2023 Fresno County Chemical Use Report.

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services has classified 1,3-D as a probable human carcinogen. It is classified as a Volatile Organic Compound, a Toxic Air Contaminant, and a Proposition 65 carcinogen under California law. It has been banned in more than 40 countries, including all 27 members of the European Union.

Fumigants near Fresno schools: In 2010, Fresno County had 9,371 pounds of 1,3-D and chloropicrin applied within one-quarter mile of school boundaries. By 2022, that figure had climbed to 14,648 pounds — a 56 percent increase over 12 years. This data was published by Californians for Pesticide Reform and reported in the Community Alliance, December 2025.

1,3-D exposure in South Fresno: Air monitoring conducted by the Central California Environmental Justice Network and Sonoma Technology found 1,3-D levels in South Central Fresno varying up to threefold across five monitoring sites near West Park Elementary, an unincorporated community in South Fresno that is predominantly Latino. This data was reported by the Fresno State Collegian, November 2025.

PFAS pesticides: Between 2018 and 2023, Fresno County applied 2.1 million pounds of pesticides containing PFAS — the highest of all 58 California counties and more than Kern County (1.6 million pounds), San Joaquin County (923,000 pounds), and Imperial County (898,000 pounds) combined. PFAS chemicals are classified as Group 1 human carcinogens. This data was published by the Environmental Working Group in November 2025, based on CDPR records, and reported in Newsweek.

OEHHA vs. DPR gap: California's Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) has set a lifetime cancer risk threshold for 1,3-D exposure. The California Department of Pesticide Regulation's current exposure limits for 1,3-D and chloropicrin are approximately 14 times higher than the safe level recommended by OEHHA toxicologists. This gap is the subject of ongoing litigation by Californians for Pesticide Reform and was confirmed in multiple published accounts through 2025, including reporting by Inside Climate News.

The Regulatory Framework — Negligence Per Se

Pesticide applicators in California are licensed and regulated by county agricultural commissioners. The Fresno County Agricultural Commissioner's Office issues permits for the purchase and use of restricted-use pesticides and Operator Identification Numbers for all agricultural pesticide applications. Information about the permit process is published at fresnocountyca.gov.

Every pesticide product registered for use in the United States carries a label that is a federal legal document under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), codified at 7 U.S.C. section 136 et seq. FIFRA makes it unlawful to use a pesticide in a manner inconsistent with its labeling. A violation of the pesticide label constitutes negligence per se when the violation causes the harm the label restrictions were designed to prevent.

Application of restricted-use pesticides requires a permit from the county agricultural commissioner. Failure to obtain required permits, failure to provide required notification to neighboring properties and schools, and application under prohibited wind or weather conditions are regulatory violations that support a negligence claim independent of the product liability framework.

Products Liability Against Manufacturers

Where the pesticide product itself is defective in design, defectively manufactured, or was sold without adequate warnings of known health risks, the manufacturer may be liable under California's strict products liability doctrine, established in Greenman v. Yuba Power Products (1963) 59 Cal.2d 57. A failure-to-warn products liability claim requires proof that the manufacturer knew or should have known of a risk of harm and failed to provide an adequate warning. This claim does not require proof of negligence in the product's design — it requires proof that the warning was inadequate given what the manufacturer knew.

Federal preemption is a defense pesticide manufacturers raise in failure-to-warn cases, arguing that FIFRA's labeling requirements preempt state law tort claims. The United States Supreme Court in Bates v. Dow Agrosciences LLC (2005) 544 U.S. 431 held that FIFRA does not preempt state law failure-to-warn claims that are “equivalent to” the FIFRA misbranding standard, meaning claims that the label failed to include warnings that would have been required under federal law as well. State law claims that impose requirements “in addition to or different from” FIFRA requirements are preempted; claims that parallel federal requirements are not.

The pesticide industry has lobbied Congress to include FIFRA preemption language in the Farm Bill that would go beyond Bates and preempt all state and local pesticide labeling and failure-to-warn claims. As of 2025, this legislative effort has not succeeded, and Bates remains the controlling standard for preemption analysis in California pesticide cases.

Discovery Rule and Long-Latency Claims

Many pesticide-related illnesses — cancer, Parkinson's disease, non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, neurological conditions — develop years or decades after the exposure that caused them. California's discovery rule provides that the two-year statute of limitations under Code of Civil Procedure section 335.1 begins to run when the plaintiff knows or reasonably should know both that they have suffered harm and that the harm may have been caused by the defendant's conduct. For a farmworker who develops cancer 15 years after exposure and learns only then of a possible connection to the chemical, the limitations period may not have begun to run until diagnosis and the establishment of a causal link.

Medical Monitoring Damages

California recognizes a claim for medical monitoring damages in toxic exposure cases. The California Supreme Court in Potter v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. (1993) 6 Cal.4th 965 held that plaintiffs exposed to toxic substances may recover the cost of a reasonable medical monitoring program even without manifested physical illness, if the exposure creates a significantly increased risk of serious disease, monitoring is reasonably necessary given the risk, and monitoring is prescribed by qualified medical professionals.

Under Potter, a plaintiff who establishes toxic exposure need not present clinically verifiable cancerous or precancerous conditions in order to recover for emotional distress arising from fear of developing cancer, provided the plaintiff demonstrates it is more likely than not that the plaintiff will develop the feared disease due to the exposure, and the fear is genuine, reasonable, and serious. Where the defendant acted with oppression, fraud, or malice — for example, a manufacturer that concealed known carcinogenic risks — the “more likely than not” threshold for fear-of-cancer damages does not apply.

Damages

Recoverable damages under Civil Code section 3333 include past and future medical expenses, lost wages and earning capacity, pain and suffering, emotional distress including fear of cancer damages under Potter, and the cost of a court-ordered medical monitoring program. In cases involving malice, fraud, or oppression, punitive damages may be available under Civil Code section 3294.

Filing a Lawsuit in Fresno County Superior Court

Pesticide injury lawsuits arising in Fresno County are filed in the Fresno County Superior Court, B.F. Sisk Courthouse, 1130 O Street, Fresno, CA 93721. Electronic filing is mandatory for represented parties under Code of Civil Procedure section 1010.6(g). Fresno County Local Rules require ADR before the mandatory settlement conference and in-person attendance at the Trial Readiness Hearing the Friday before trial.

Statute of Limitations

The statute of limitations for personal injury claims is two years from the date of injury under Code of Civil Procedure section 335.1. For long-latency toxic exposure claims, the discovery rule tolls this period until the plaintiff knows or should know of both the injury and its potential cause. Contact Attorney Michael Rehm to assess the specific timeline in your case.

Attorney Michael Rehm represents farmworkers and others injured by pesticide and agricultural chemical exposure throughout Fresno County on a contingency fee basis. No fee without a recovery. Call (800) 978-0754 for a free consultation.

The information on this page is general legal information, not legal advice, and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Every case turns on its own facts. The law can change — statutes are amended, cases are decided, and regulations are revised; nothing on this page should be relied upon as a statement of current law without verification. Deadlines and legal bars discussed on this page are general guides — whether a particular deadline applies, has run, or is subject to tolling, and whether a particular doctrine bars or limits recovery in your case, requires individual analysis. Contact Attorney Michael Rehm to discuss the specific facts of your situation.