Attorney Michael Rehm — (800) 978-0754

Attorney Michael Rehm represents toxic tort and occupational chemical exposure victims throughout San Jose and Santa Clara County. Silicon Valley's history as the birthplace of the semiconductor industry left a specific legacy of chemical contamination — trichloroethylene, tetrachloroethylene, arsenic, lead, and dozens of other industrial solvents and metals were used in chip fabrication facilities throughout Santa Clara County for decades. Workers who were exposed to these substances on the job, and residents who lived near contaminated sites, have faced elevated rates of cancer, neurological disease, and reproductive harm.

Santa Clara County's Toxic History

Santa Clara County has more federal Superfund sites than any other county in California. The Santa Clara Valley's groundwater was contaminated by decades of industrial chemical disposal by semiconductor manufacturers including Fairchild Semiconductor, Intel, Advanced Micro Devices, and others. The Leaking Underground Storage Tank crisis of the 1980s revealed widespread contamination of the aquifer beneath Silicon Valley's industrial corridor. The EPA's National Priorities List includes multiple sites in Sunnyvale, San Jose, Mountain View, and surrounding cities where cleanup efforts have continued for decades.

Workers in semiconductor fabrication facilities were exposed to a range of toxic substances — including trichloroethylene, a known carcinogen — through inhalation and skin contact in cleanroom environments. Community members living near these facilities were exposed through contaminated drinking water, soil, and air. The health consequences of these exposures — cancers, miscarriages, birth defects, neurological damage — have been documented in epidemiological studies and in litigation spanning decades.

Legal Framework for Toxic Tort Claims

Toxic tort claims in California proceed on negligence and strict liability theories. A company that manufactures, uses, or disposes of hazardous chemicals owes a duty of ordinary care under Civil Code § 1714(a) to prevent foreseeable harm to workers, neighbors, and the community. Where the company knew of the hazardous nature of the substance and failed to take reasonable precautions — proper containment, adequate ventilation, truthful disclosure to workers, proper disposal — a negligence claim arises.

California recognizes medical monitoring damages under Potter v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. (1993) 6 Cal.4th 965, allowing plaintiffs exposed to toxic substances to recover the cost of a monitoring program designed for early disease detection, even before illness has manifested. Civil Code § 3294 permits punitive damages where the defendant's conduct amounted to malice or conscious disregard of the rights or safety of others — a standard that may be met where a company knew of the contamination and concealed it from affected workers or communities.

Causation — The Central Challenge

The central challenge in most toxic tort cases is establishing that the specific chemical exposure caused the specific harm. General causation — whether the substance is capable of causing the disease — and specific causation — whether this plaintiff's exposure caused this plaintiff's disease — are both required. Establishing causation in toxic tort cases requires expert testimony from toxicologists, epidemiologists, and treating physicians. The strength of the causation evidence depends on the specific substance, the duration and intensity of exposure, the plaintiff's medical history, and the available scientific literature.

Statute of Limitations and the Discovery Rule

Toxic tort cases frequently involve latent diseases — cancers and neurological conditions that develop years or decades after exposure. California's discovery rule tolls Code of Civil Procedure § 335.1's two-year limitations period until the plaintiff knew or reasonably should have known of the injury and its toxic cause. Whether the discovery rule applies and when the 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 PFAS Water Contamination Attorney
• San Jose Defective Product Attorney
• San Jose Wrongful Death Attorney

Attorney Michael Rehm handles toxic tort and occupational exposure 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.