Top Defense Verdicts — Velasquez v. Flavor and Extract Manufacturers Assoc.

Just what sort of responsibility does a supplier bear when an individual alleges he was exposed to a chemical the company supplied that caused him respiratory damage?

Such was the central question a jury was tasked with answering in Velasquez v. Flavor and Extract Manufacturers Assn., BC370319 (L.A. Super. Ct., filed April 30, 2007).

In the case, Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP San Diego partners Peter L. Garchie and Ruben Tarango helped one of many defendants - Paterson, N.J.-based supplier Centrome Inc., which does business as Advanced Biotech Inc. - reach a jury verdict in its favor.

Plaintiff Wilfredo Velasquez, a production worker at Commerce-based food flavoring production company Gold Coast Ingredients Inc. from 2003 to 2005, alleged he had been exposed to diacetyl, which he claimed Advanced Biotech supplied without adequate warning of its health risks. Exposure to diacetyl, a compound added to many foods to produce a buttery taste, caused Velasquez respiratory damage, he claimed, and his counsel sought $27 million.

In the first California commercial diacetyl trial to reach a verdict, the defense convinced the jury to side its way, in part by calling John L. Henshaw, head of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration under President George W. Bush. Henshaw testified it was unclear at the time of the plaintiff's employment whether there was causal relationship between diacetyl and bronchiolitis obliterans, a serious lung disease. Since that time, diacetyl has been linked to lung problems and is used far less today than it was 10 years ago.

Garchie said he and Tarango couldn't comment on the case, because it's expected to be appealed.

Indeed, Raphael Metzger, principal at Metzger Law Group, said he plans to appeal based on introduction of information he says tainted the jury. During the case, Judge Anthony Mohr allowed the defense to introduce evidence that Velasquez was in the U.S. illegally, prohibiting him from getting a fair trial, Metzger argues.

"It's our belief that by telling the jury that Mr. Velasquez was here illegally, that prejudiced the jury against the case," Metzger said. "Allowing that evidence in tainted the trial, and my client did not get a fair trial, and we'll take that up on appeal."

- ANDREW MCINTYRE

<!-- Top Defense Verdicts ? Velasquez v. Flavor and Extract Manufacturers Assoc. -->