Stockton Paraquat & Pesticide Exposure Attorney

Attorney Michael Rehm — (800) 978-0754

Paraquat and Pesticide Exposure in San Joaquin County

Attorney Michael Rehm represents farmworkers and residents harmed by Paraquat and other agricultural pesticide exposure throughout San Joaquin County. San Joaquin County is one of the most productive agricultural counties in California — row crops, orchards, vineyards, and dairies cover hundreds of thousands of acres across the county. Pesticide application is intensive and year-round. The population most directly exposed includes farmworkers who mix and apply pesticides, residents of rural communities adjacent to agricultural operations, and workers in related agricultural industries.

Paraquat and Parkinson's Disease

Paraquat (chemical name: 1,1′-dimethyl-4,4′-bipyridinium) is a broad-spectrum herbicide that has been in commercial use in the United States since the 1960s. It is manufactured primarily by Syngenta and Chevron Phillips Chemical. A substantial body of epidemiological research links Paraquat exposure to Parkinson's disease — a progressive neurodegenerative disorder that produces tremor, rigidity, slowness of movement, and, over time, significant cognitive decline and disability. The evidence of a causal relationship between Paraquat exposure and Parkinson's disease is sufficiently strong that Paraquat has been banned in the European Union, the United Kingdom, and dozens of other countries. It remains legal for use in the United States.

Exposure to Paraquat occurs through multiple routes: direct contact during mixing and application, inhalation of spray drift, contamination of water sources near treated fields, and residential proximity to fields where Paraquat is regularly applied. Farmworkers in San Joaquin County's vineyards, orchards, and row crop operations have among the highest documented Paraquat exposure levels of any occupational group in the United States.

The Legal Framework — Products Liability

Claims arising from Paraquat exposure proceed primarily under products liability theories. A manufacturer of a pesticide has a duty to adequately warn users and bystanders of known health risks associated with the product. Where the manufacturer knew or should have known that Paraquat exposure was associated with Parkinson's disease and failed to provide adequate warning of that risk, failure to warn liability attaches under California's strict products liability framework.

California's strict products liability doctrine, established in Greenman v. Yuba Power Products (1963) 59 Cal.2d 57 and developed through subsequent cases, holds manufacturers liable for injuries caused by products that are defective in design, manufacture, or warnings. A pesticide whose warning label does not adequately disclose known neurological risks associated with chronic exposure is a product with a defective warning. Proof of the manufacturer's negligence is not required — strict liability applies when the product is defective and the defect causes the harm.

Negligence claims against manufacturers who had actual knowledge of the Parkinson's disease risk and concealed it from regulators, distributors, and users are also available and may support punitive damages under Civil Code § 3294 where the conduct was malicious, oppressive, or fraudulent.

Other Agricultural Pesticide Exposure Claims

Organophosphate poisoning. Organophosphate pesticides inhibit the enzyme acetylcholinesterase, producing acute toxicity that can cause seizures, respiratory failure, and death at high doses, and chronic neurological impairment at lower levels of repeated exposure. Farm workers who experience acute organophosphate poisoning or who develop chronic neurological symptoms from repeated low-level exposure may have claims against the pesticide manufacturer and, depending on the circumstances, against the employer or property owner responsible for the application conditions.

Chlorpyrifos exposure. Chlorpyrifos is an organophosphate insecticide that has been the subject of significant regulatory and litigation activity. California banned its use for agricultural purposes effective February 2020. Farmworkers and children in communities adjacent to chlorpyrifos-treated fields with documented exposure before the ban may have claims arising from that exposure.

Glyphosate (Roundup) exposure. Glyphosate, marketed primarily as Roundup by Bayer (formerly Monsanto), has been the subject of substantial litigation linking it to non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. Agricultural workers and others with documented Roundup exposure and a subsequent non-Hodgkin's lymphoma diagnosis have pursued products liability claims. The litigation has produced significant verdicts and settlements.

Regulatory Framework

Pesticide use in California is regulated by the California Department of Pesticide Regulation and, at the federal level, by the Environmental Protection Agency under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (7 U.S.C. § 136 et seq.). Pesticide labels are federal law under FIFRA — a pesticide user who applies a product in a manner inconsistent with the label has violated federal law. That violation, when it causes harm to a worker or bystander, may support negligence per se claims against the applicator in addition to products liability claims against the manufacturer.

California also maintains a Pesticide Use Reporting system that documents pesticide applications by location, crop, and product. This data can be obtained through the California Department of Pesticide Regulation and provides documentary evidence of the type, volume, and location of pesticide applications that may have caused exposure in a particular case.

Damages

California law entitles an injured person to compensation for all detriment proximately caused by another's negligence or by a defective product, whether or not that detriment could have been anticipated. Civ. Code § 3333. In Paraquat and pesticide exposure cases, damages include the costs of medical evaluation and treatment, lost earnings and diminished earning capacity resulting from the disease, physical pain and mental suffering, and future medical and care expenses. Civ. Code §§ 3281, 3282, 3283.

Parkinson's disease is a progressive and permanent condition. The future damages component — lifetime care costs, ongoing medication and treatment, eventual attendant care needs, and lost earning capacity over the course of the disease — is frequently the largest component of the claim and requires life care planning and economic expert support.

Statute of Limitations

The statute of limitations for personal injury claims in California is two years from the date of injury. Code of Civil Procedure § 335.1. In toxic exposure cases, the discovery rule applies: the limitations period begins to run when the plaintiff knew or reasonably should have known that they suffered harm and that the harm was caused by another's conduct. A Parkinson's disease diagnosis received years after the Paraquat exposure occurred does not necessarily mean the claim is time-barred — the analysis turns on when the plaintiff knew or should have known of the causal connection. Tolling doctrines may apply depending on the facts — contact Attorney Michael Rehm to assess the specific timeline in your case.

San Joaquin County Superior Court

Pesticide exposure cases in San Joaquin County are litigated at the San Joaquin County Superior Court, 180 E. Weber Ave., Stockton, CA 95202. Civil departments 10A, 10B, 10C, 10D, and 11B. Branch courts in Lodi (315 W. Elm St.) and Manteca (315 E. Center St.). Court reporters are not provided in civil departments — parties must retain their own. Local Rule 3-102(J).

Attorney Michael Rehm handles Paraquat and pesticide exposure cases throughout San Joaquin 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.