Adding Insult to
Injury: Young Victim Ordered to Pay Stanley Pest Control Company's
Court Costs of $132,276
[About
Matt's Sister]
Journal of Pesticide Reform/Fall, 2000
A recent decision by a Los Angeles
superior Court is not only a major disappointment to one California family, but
also a difficult pill to swallow for pesticide victims and activists everywhere.
The decision shows that it is still extremely difficult to fight the
chemical industry and win.
In the case in question, Matelko vs. Stanley Pest
Control,
(1) “experts” hired by the defendant managed to convince the jury that
Stanley Pest Control was not negligent in its use of an insecticide at a school,
despite strong evidence that is caused harm to students.
The facts of the case are that in 1994, when Matthew
Matelko was 5 years old, he and some of his kindergarten classmates developed
strange symptoms after chemical pesticides were sprayed in their elementary
school. The Fontana, California
school district had contracted with Stanley Pest Control to install automatic
insecticide dispensers in classrooms in an effort to control flies.
The dispensers sprayed a pyrethrin-containing pesticide called Purge III
throughout the school every 15 minutes, for 24 hours a day.
The residue left by the two
pesticides dispensers in Matthew’s kindergarten classroom was enough that the
tables in the room had to be cleaned off in the mornings to remove build-up. (2)
Parents and their family doctors were baffled at first by
the rash of symptoms that the students at the school were experiencing.
One fifth-grader was hospitalized with fatigue and unbearable stomach
pain and missed months of school. Matthew
developed rashes and blisters on the parts of his body that came into contact
with classroom surfaces, as well as a smoker-like cough, diarrhea, stomach
pains, and shortness of breath. One
of his classmates suffered bleeding blisters on his head and hair loss, and
others developed asthma-like symptoms. (3)
Pyrethrins, the active ingredient of Purge III, can be
easily absorbed via inhalation, as well as skin contact.
Materials from Waterbury, the manufacturer of the insecticide, list
headaches, nausea, vomiting, abdominal cramps and dermatitis as signs and
symptoms of exposure. Purge III
also contains the “inert” ingredient 1,1,1-trichlorethane, at much greater
levels than the active ingredients.(4) Symptoms of overexposure to 1,1,1-trichlorethane include
dizziness, lightheadedness, skin irritation, and damage to breathing passages
and the nervous system. (5)
Matthew’s mother, Janine Matelko, suspected that the
reason for the children’s illnesses was pesticide poisoning. Her requests for school pesticide records prompted an
investigation by the Department of Agriculture, which found that some dispensers
in the cafeteria were used illegally, too close to food handling surfaces, but
concluded that the other dispensers were correctly used.
Following the investigation, the school principal ordered that all of the
dispensers be turned off, but officials continued to assure parents that
pesticide exposure had not caused their children’s health problems.
One child’s parents were told that his bleeding scalp was probably
caused by the family’s shampoo. (6)
Janine Matelko was not convinced and sued the pest control
company on behalf of her son. However,
she and Matthew found themselves up against a powerful opponent with the
finances to successfully back their no-harm-done claim.
Stanley Pest Control brought in an “expert” from Waterbury who
testified that the amount of pesticide exposure experienced by the students was
perfectly safe. This expert even
went so far as to use theoretical calculations to make the incredible claim that
it would take approximately 2,000 cans of Purge III releasing at once to cause
unsafe levels of the pesticide to build up. (2)
Evidence was not allowed to be presented regarding other
children’s symptoms, making it appear to the jury that only Matthew had
experienced adverse affects. The
defense also worked to discredit the testimony of Janine Matelko, painting her
as forgetful and hysterical.
Unfortunately, the defense convinced the jury, and not only
did Matthew, now 11 years old, lose his case, but as part of the ruling a
$132,276 judgement is held against him that covers the charges of the
“expert” witness hired by Stanley Pest Control and their insurance company.
(7)
Ironically, right after the judgement was signed, the U.S.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 9CDC) published a new report on
Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report titled “Illnesses Associated with Use of
Automatic Insecticide Dispenser Units.” This
is the first study to document the hazards posed by these dispensers, including
reports of more than 90 specific incidents in which exposure to Purge III-type
insecticides by automatic dispensers caused injury. (8)
In one case documented in the report, several restaurant
patrons and a cook (all adults) experienced symptoms believed to be caused by
exposure to pyrethrin and piperonyl butoxide-containing insecticides released by
the automatic dispensers located in the restaurant.
The cook developed a sore throat, shortness of breath, headache and
dizziness after several hours of exposure, and noted that when he removed the
dispensers, these symptoms were relieved. One
forty-year-old customer developed a headache and shortness of breath within one
hour of entering the restaurant. (8)
In light of this new report, and the unfairness of the
trial, Matthew’s lawyer filed a motion for a new trial, but their motion was
denied. (6) Though the new
government report came too late for Matthew’s case, hopefully it will at least
raise public awareness of the hazards of automatic insecticide dispensers and
lead to a reduction in their use. Better
yet, it should prompt the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to restrict
or ban the use of automatic insecticide dispensers. It is unconscionable that EPA continues to allow these
dangerous products to remain on the market given the hazards documented by
another federal agency.
As a result of his exposure to Purge III six years ago,
Matthew is still unable to do activities that would put him into contact with
pesticides. He can no longer play
baseball or attend school regularly, and doctors believe his chemical
sensitivity will persist for the rest of his life. The federal government should act to ensure that no one else
has to face the serious harm and injustice that Matthew has experienced.
by
Lindsay Given and Becky Riley
References
-
Superior Court of the State of California for the City of Los Angeles,
Matelko vs. Stanley Pest Control, Case Number EC168 815, April 1997.
-
Superior Court of the Sate of California for the City of Los Angeles,
Plaintiff Matthew Matelko’s motion for a new trial; memorandum of points and
authorities; Declaration of Michael N. Friedman, Clint Skinner, and Marc L.
Platt, July 21, 2000
Matelko,
- Janine, Personal communication, December, 1999.
-
Waterbury Companies, Inc. 1995. Material Safety Data Sheet:
Purge III Industrial Type
Insect Killer, Independence LA, mar. 21
-
U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services Public Health Service Agency for
Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, 1995.
Toxicological profile for 1,1,1-trichlorosthane, Aug. p.5.
- Matelko, Janine. Personal
communication, August 31, 2000.
-
Superior Court of the State of California for the City of Los
Angeles Matelko vs. Stanley Pest Control; memorandum of Costs, June 6, 2000
- Shafey, O. 2000. Illnesses
associated with use of automatic insecticide dispenser units.”MVWR Weekly
49(22) 492-5, June 9
The Attorney's Representing Stanley Pest Control in this Collection Action
against Matthew are:
ERICKSEN, ARBUTHNOT, KILDUFF, DAY & LINDSTROM, INC.
Steve Karcher, Esq.
1830 Truxtun Avenue,
Suite 200
Bakersfield, CA 93301-5022
(661) 633-5080
FAX (661) 633-5089
E bakersfield@eakdl.com
Stanley Pest Control's email: mrbarlow@pacbell.net
/
Phone: Mr. Barlow at 800-243-8284
Update from Matt's Mom: 7/31/2001
Just spoke to the attorney for Stanley, He stated he was going to do everything in his power to collect. I told him that if they did come after
Matt that it would draw attention to the fact that after Matt lost his case the CDC reported the dangers of purge 111 and automatic
sprayers. Those children who still have years until they are the age of 18, and those who
attended school districts where Stanley was the vendor, could have been affected. What are they going to do, deem all those mothers crazy like they
did me.. He stated that my statement was a threat and I stated that my statement was the truth that could be
exposed...... He stated that a jury would feel sorry and not hold Stanley accountable for exposing children to a
product that at the time they felt was SAFE.
I will keep you informed.
Janine
If you would like to be included in our mailing list for continuing
information on pesticides, Email Us.
with "subscribe" in the subject line.
TOP