2010 Foodborne Illness Litigation Process with Bill Marler
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5

2010 Foodborne Illness Litigation Process with Bill Marler



Bill Marler of Maler Clark, The Food Safety Law Firm gives a presentation about the process of foodborne illness litigation.

Bill Marler of Maler Clark, The Food Safety Law Firm gives a presentation about the process of foodborne illness litigation.



Total Views
Views on SlideShare
Embed Views



1 Embed 1

http://www.linkedin.com 1


Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
Post Comment
Edit your comment

2010 Foodborne Illness Litigation Process with Bill Marler 2010 Foodborne Illness Litigation Process with Bill Marler Presentation Transcript

  • The Claim And The Claimant
    Just like health departments we need to quickly and reliably recognize unsupportable claims
    How Do We Do It?
  • Basic Tools of the Trade
    Food History
    Medical Attention
    Suspected source
    Others Ill
    Health Department Involvement
  • Matching Symptoms with Specific Characteristics of Pathogens
    • E. coli O157:H7
    • Hepatitis A
    • Salmonella
    • Shigella
    • Campylobacter
    • Vibrio
    Hepatitis A
    E. coli O157:H7
  • Matching Incubation Periods
    Incubation Periods Of Common Pathogens
  • Communicable Disease Investigation
    • Reportable Disease Case Report Form
    • Enteric/viral laboratory testing results
    • Human specimens
    • Environmentalspecimens
  • Medical Attention
    • Health care provider
    • Emergency Room
    • Hospitalization
  • Epidemiologic Assessment
    • Time
    • Place
    • Person association
    • Part of a recognized outbreak?
  • Molecular Testing Results
    • PulseNet
  • Traceback Records
    POS A
    FIRM A
    FIRM D
    FIRM I
    FIRM N
    FIRM E
    FIRM J
    POS B
    FIRM B
    FIRM F
    FIRM K
    POS C
    FIRM G
    FIRM O
    FIRM L
    FIRM C
    POS D
    FIRM H
    FIRM M
  • FOIA/Public Records Request
  • Case vs. Non-Case? In A Nutshell:
    CDC “confirmed” or “probable” case definitions
    Non-culture proven cases
    Product identification, proof of purchase, product exposure or likely product exposure
    Consistent medical symptoms occurring within epidemiological curve
    Strain prevalence/alternative causes
  • The Legal Standard: Strict Liability
    • The focus is on the product; not the conduct
    • You are liable if:
    • The product was unsafe
    • The product caused the injury
  • Who is a Manufacturer?
    A “manufacturer” is defined as a “product seller who designs, produces, makes, fabricates, constructs, or remanufactures the relevant product or component part of a product before its sale to a user or consumer….”
  • Causation - Science
    “Causation is an essential concept in epidemiology, yet there is no single, clearly articulated definition ….” J Epidemiol Community Health 2001Dec;55(12):905-12; Parascandola M, Weed DL.
    Confidence Interval (CI) – Range within which 95% of times the true value of the estimated association lies (95% CI)
  • Causation – The Law
    “A proximate cause of an injury is a cause which, in natural and continuous sequence, produces the injury, and without which the injury would not have [likely] occurred. The concept of proximate causation has given courts and commentators consummate difficulty and has in truth defied precise definition.” Prosser, Torts, pp. 311-313
  • But, Causation Still Requires Admissible Evidence
    • Whether a theory or technique can be (and has been) tested
    • Whether it has been published and subjected to peer review
    • Whether it has a high potential rate of error
    • Whether it enjoys general acceptance in scientific community
    Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993).
  • Negligence Is The Legal Standard Applied To Non-Manufacturers
    The reason for excluding non-manufacturing retailers from strict liability is to distinguish between those who have actual control over the product and those who act as mere conduits in the chain of distribution.
    See Butello v. S.A. Woods-Yates Am. Mach. Co.,72 Wn. App. 397, 404 (1993).
  • Some Recent Case Studies
    Spinach 2006 – 205 culture confirmed cases (5 deaths) – outbreak strain traced from finished product in sealed bagsto a single field in the Salinas Valley, yet 89 claims.
    Peter Pan Peter Butter 2007 – 714 culture confirmed cases,yet 25,000 claims.
    Peanut Corporation of America 2009 – 714 culture confirmed cases, yet 123 claims.
    Subway Shigella 2010 – 100 culture confirmed cases, yet 80 claims.
  • Once Causation Then Damages
    Past Medical Expenses
    Past Pain and Suffering
    Future Medical Expenses
    Future Pain and Suffering
    Punitive damages
    Parental Claims
    Loss of Consortium
  • What About Isolated – “One Off” Cases?
    Yearly in the United States:
    76,000,000 Sickened
    325,000 Hospitalized
    5,000 Deaths
    1,097 Outbreaks 2007
    497 Outbreaks with Confirmed Agent 2007
    21,244 Confirmed Illnesses 2007
  • Prior Health Department Inspections
    • Improper storage and cooking procedures
    • Improper cooking procedures
    • Improper refrigeration
  • Improper Cooking Procedures
    A young girl suffered HUS after eating a hamburger from a midsized southern California fast-food chain. 
    Her illness was not culture-confirmed.
    No food on site tested positive for E. coli O157:H7. 
    Review of health inspections revealed flaws in cooking methods.
    Hamburger buns are toasted on the grill immediately adjacent to the cooking patties, and it is conceivable that, early in the cooking process, prior to pasteurization, meat juices and blood containing active pathogens might possibly splash onto a nearby bun.
  • Improper Refrigeration
    A Chinese buffet-restaurant in Ohio was the suspected source of an E. coli O157:H7 outbreak.
    No contaminated leftover food was found. 
    A number of ill patrons were children. Jell-O was suspected as the vehicle of transmission.
    Health Department report noted “raw meat stored above the Jell-O in the refrigerator.” 
    The likely source of E. coli O157:H7 in the Jell-O was from raw meat juices dripping on the Jell-O while it was solidifying in the refrigerator.
  • Improper Storage and Cooking
    A few banquet-goers tested positive for Salmonella.
    Leftover food items had been discarded or tested negative. 
    Restaurant had “pooled” dozens, if not hundreds, of raw eggs in a single bucket for storage overnight, then used them as a “wash” on a specialty dessert that was not cooked thoroughly. 
  • Ultimately - What Will a Jury Think?
    A Jury
    12 Consumers
  • Questions?