Attorney Michael Rehm — (800) 978-0754

Attorney Michael Rehm represents PFAS contamination victims throughout San Jose and Santa Clara County. Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances — PFAS — are a class of synthetic chemicals that do not break down in the environment or in the human body. Exposure to certain PFAS compounds has been linked to cancer, thyroid disease, immune system disruption, and reproductive harm. Santa Clara County has documented PFAS contamination at multiple sites, including Moffett Federal Airfield — a former NASA and Navy facility in Mountain View — where PFAS-containing aqueous film-forming foam (AFFF) used in fire suppression training has contaminated groundwater used by surrounding communities.

Sources of PFAS Contamination in Santa Clara County

PFAS contamination in the South Bay has multiple documented sources. Military and former military installations that used AFFF firefighting foam — including Moffett Field — are among the primary contributors to groundwater contamination in the region. Semiconductor manufacturing facilities, which historically used PFAS-containing compounds in chip fabrication processes, have also contributed to soil and groundwater contamination at industrial sites throughout Silicon Valley. The EPA has designated several Santa Clara County sites as areas of concern under federal cleanup programs.

Drinking water contamination is the primary exposure pathway for most affected residents. Water systems that draw from contaminated groundwater sources may deliver PFAS to homes and businesses served by those systems. The EPA has established maximum contaminant levels for several PFAS compounds under the Safe Drinking Water Act, and California has adopted its own notification levels and response levels through the State Water Resources Control Board.

Health Effects and Legal Claims

Scientific and regulatory agencies have identified associations between PFAS exposure and specific health outcomes including kidney cancer, testicular cancer, thyroid disease, ulcerative colitis, high cholesterol, and immune system effects. The strength of the association varies by compound and exposure level. Legal claims arising from PFAS contamination typically proceed on negligence and strict liability theories — the manufacturer or operator that released PFAS into the environment knew or should have known of the contamination risks and failed to prevent them or disclose them to affected communities.

Under Potter v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. (1993) 6 Cal.4th 965, California recognizes medical monitoring damages in toxic exposure cases — allowing plaintiffs who have been exposed to toxic substances but have not yet manifested disease to recover the costs of a medical monitoring program designed to facilitate early detection. Whether medical monitoring damages are available in a PFAS case depends on the specific facts of the exposure and the current state of the law at the time of the claim.

Statute of Limitations and the Discovery Rule

PFAS contamination cases frequently involve exposures that occurred years or decades before the harm was discovered. California's discovery rule tolls the statute of limitations until the plaintiff knew or reasonably should have known of the injury and its cause. Code of Civil Procedure § 335.1 sets the base two-year personal injury limitations period. Whether the discovery rule applies and when the limitations period began to run requires case-specific analysis — contact Attorney Michael Rehm to assess the specific timeline in your case.

Related Pages

• San Jose Personal Injury Attorney
• San Jose Toxic Tort Attorney
• San Jose Defective Product Attorney
• San Jose Wrongful Death Attorney

Attorney Michael Rehm handles PFAS contamination cases throughout San Jose and Santa Clara 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.