Litigation Support


Dr. Neal Langerman provides litigation support and expert testimony for both defendants and plaintiffs in litigation involving a wide variety of chemical-related issues. Dr. Langerman has trial-proven expertise in Failure-to-Warn litigation as well as litigation involving chemical contamination, pollution, explosions, fatalities, chemical misuses, and product liability.

Dr. Langerman has expertise in issues related to chemical production, regulatory management, spill response, toxicology and labeling. A brief summary of some of the cases in which Dr. Langerman has testified is given below. Because Dr. Langerman limits his forensic practice to a small percentage of his total consulting practice, he is very selective about cases he accepts. A current PDF file with his resume is available here.

Stollar Enterprises v. Fertispec: This litigation involved a patent infringement claim. It went to jury trial. The patent claim involved the method of manufacture of the chemical product, a fertilizer.

Silva vs. Hooker Chemical & Wilcor, Inc.: This litigation involved a propane leak in a camper. The case settled following deposition.

Cox vs. Pacific Hyde & Fur; C.E. Natco: This litigation involved the misuse of an empty solvent drum and the labeling thereof. The case was a "failure-to-warn" case, in which the label was shown to be inadequate, when compared to current technology. The case settled following deposition.

Choto vs. Bear Oil, et al.: This litigation involved the adequacy of a label on a solvent (acetone) which was used to remove mastic from linoleum. A fire resulted from the misuse, which severely injured the plaintiff. The wording of the label was challenged. This was a Consumer Product challenge, under the Federal Hazardous Substances Act. The litigation settled following deposition.

General Motors vs. Imperial West Chemical: This litigation involved the loading of a transport truck with the incorrect chemical and its subsequent delivery to a manufacturing location, where a chemical reaction occurred. Over 50 people were hospitalized. The issues involved the proper procedures to follow at the point of loading and the design of the loading rack. The case settled following deposition.

People vs. Keith Looney & Amerigo Giovannoni, Jr.: This case was a preliminary hearing in a criminal prosecution. The People maintained that improper procedures were used at a railroad car repair facility, which resulted in an explosion and injuries. The defendants pleaded guilty following the hearing.

Consolidated Carriers vs. Pepcon: This litigation was the result of a major industrial accident in Henderson, Nevada. The litigation was multifaceted, but involved questions of proper handling of an oxidizer (ammonium perchlorate). The particular aspects of the case addressed by Dr. Langerman included the use of plastic drums for the storage of the chemical and the labels on the drums. In addition, the safety issues related to the manufacture of the chemical were addressed. This was the fourth industrial explosion worked on by Dr. Langerman. The others were during investigations for various Agencies. This case settled prior to trial.

Applegate v. S.J. Harris: This litigation addressed the safety of using an open flame to heat the manifold on an asphalt truck. The case ultimately addressed the design of the asphalt plant, and the possibility for flammable vapors to accumulate in a low spot at the plant. The case settled following deposition.

EEI v. Solkatronic: This litigation involved the duties of various parties who handle hazardous waste. The trial addressed the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, and the duties of Generators, their Agents (consultants), and Disposal Facilities. The jury trial was in Federal Court.

Lopez v. Grow Group, et al.: A plant in the Los Angeles area had a fire which released a cloud of chlorine gas. The release caused the evacuation of over 50,000 residents, on a Sunday morning. The litigation addressed personal injuries. The questions of fact included the proper handling of the chemical (trichlorotriazine) and the proper methods for responding to a fire at such a plant.

Rust v. Modern Options, Inc., et al.: This case addressed the adequacy of a chemical label on a consumer product used for placing a patina finish on a surface. The case was decided by a jury trial.

Bell Atlantic v. Onan/Cummins Southwest: This case involved the losses following the release of sulfuric acid from a battery in a cellular telephone switch station. The acid caused severe corrosion to the electronic equipment. The issues of fact involved whether the clean-up and decontamination of the equipment were adequate and whether the equipment should have been scrapped or salvaged. The case settled following deposition.

Dr. Langerman has worked on many more cases. The ones listed are only those for which he provided testimony. Current cases are not included in this list. For more information on these cases, contact ADVANCED CHEMICAL SAFETY. You can obtain a copy of Dr. Langerman's Professional Resume.

Call now for litigation support: 619-990- 4908

PO BOX 152329, San Diego, CA 92195

Copyright © 2024 Advanced Chemical Safety | W3 Web Design & Hosting
Copyright © 2024 Advanced Chemical Safety | W3 Web Design & Hosting