|
Chemical exposure can result in devastating injuries
requiring extensive medical care and great expense.
It is essential that victims of chemical exposure have
appropriate representation when pursuing reparations
for their injuries. In these challenging cases Golomb
& Honik offers wide-ranging experience that few
other firms can match. The typical chemical exposure
suit requires extensive knowledge of several areas of
the law, including but not limited to class action,
personal injury, and commercial law.
We have been particularly active in cases involving
respiratory toxins, substances that regularly cause
serious health problems for workers in a range of industries.
One particular case took almost five years to complete
and involved three-quarters of a million documents.
Despite the fact that the defendant declared bankruptcy
while the case was still in progress, Golomb & Honik
attorneys were able to achieve settlement for their individual
and class action clients. We have a proven track record
of success with chemical exposure cases. Read more about
it here:
- After exposure to beryllium, some workers
at a Reading, Pennsylvania plant died, and others
were injured. A judge who cited the statute of limitations
threw out their lawsuits. However, the lawyers at
Golomb & Honik did not give up and achieved an
important victory before a panel of judges on the
Third Circuit Court of Appeals. Golomb & Honik
attorneys argued that the statute of limitations did
not apply because doctors had told the workers that
their illness did not relate to beryllium. Only at
a later time, within the statutory period, was it
known that the illness causing their injuries and
deaths stemmed from beryllium exposure. A majority
of judges agreed, and the cases were successfully
reinstated. Golomb & Honik then achieved a multi-million
dollar settlement against the defendant polluter,
even though the defendant was bankrupt at the time.
- Golomb & Honik successfully represented dozens
of individual workers—and a class of more than
1,000 additional workers—in a case arising from
ongoing occupational exposure to sulfur dioxide and
sulfur trioxide in Delaware County, Pennsylvania.
For more than a decade, workers at an oil processing
facility were exposed to emissions of sulfur dioxide
and sulfur trioxide gasses from a neighboring plant.
Those emissions caused reactive airways disease and
occupational asthma in many workers. In addition,
many others were exposed and require medical monitoring
to detect the potential onset of pulmonary disease.
Following years of protracted litigation, and the
bankruptcy of the defendant polluter, Golomb &
Honik achieved a multi-million dollar settlement against
the bankrupt polluter, instead of the pennies on the
dollar that many other creditors received.
- A woman was a tenant in a Center City Philadelphia apartment building that had recently been purchased by a new owner. It was the intention of the owner to remodel the common areas of the building and to reconstruct the ground floor space which was being reconstructed for use as a grocery store. In anticipation of the construction, the defendant owners served 30-days written notice to vacate on the tenants. However, construction began on the retail space and common areas well before the thirty days expired and while the plaintiff-tenant still lived in the building.
As a result, during demolition that took place while the building was still inhabited, carbon monoxide was leaked when an old heating system was removed. The carbon monoxide leak was discovered by a local licenses and inspections inspector after he was called to the building by a tenant via a 911 call. It was learned that the leak took place several days prior, so the tenants had been exposed to carbon monoxide for several days.
As a result, the building was immediately vacated forcing the tenants out of the building and the woman was hospitalized for carbon monoxide exposure.
Golomb & Honik attorneys filed suit against the building owner and it was determined that, not only did defendant owner not abide to the 30-days written notice to vacate they gave to the tenants, but several days prior to the demolition in question, the building owner promised local police that they would not begin construction until the 30 days expired and the tenants were able to vacate the premises. The case settled just prior to trial for $350,000.00.
|
