Justia Lawyer Rating
badge - Top 100 Trial Lawyers, The National Trial Lawyers
badge - Lead Counsel Rated
badge - Avvo Rating 10, Gregory J. Brod, Top attorney
badge - American Bar Association
badge - Member of San Francisco Trial Lawyers Association
badge - Super Lawyers

|

According to newsinferno.com, Abbott, the manufacturer for Similac Brand Powder Infant Formulas, has issued a recall for certain formulas. During an internal quality review, the presence of a small common beetle was detected in one production area in one manufacturing facility. According to the FDA, the formulas that contain the beetles poses no immediate health risk, but there is a possibility that infants who consume formula containing beetles or their larvae could experience symptoms of gastro intestinal discomfort and refuse to eat due to the irritation. The recall includes certain Similac product lines offered in plastic containers, 8-ounce, 12.4-ounce, and 12.9-ounce cans. Consumers can visit www.similac.com/recall or call (800) 986-8850 to find out if they have purchased a product involved in the recall. The good news is that all Abbott liquid infant formulas and all powder specialty formulas, such as Similac Expert Care Alimentum, Elecare, Similac Expert Care Seosure, Similac Human Milk Fortifies, and metabolic formulas for inherited disorders, are not affected by the recall,

Abbott has consulted with the FDA regarding the recall and is implementing a plan to address the matter at the affected manufacturing facility. No other facilities are involved in the recall. Recalled products can be returned at no cost to the consumer. The website and the consumer hotline have specific details on how to complete the return process. According yahoonews.com, Abbott expects to recall $100 million in connection with the recall. Over the past few decades, infant formula has become a popular method for feeding infants, but there is debate over how healthier it is over human milk. Here at the Brod Law Firm, we believe all families with infants should be aware of ten facts related to infant formula, as stated in yahoonews.com:

1. The linings of formula cans contain bisphenol-A 2. Feeding an infant formula can increase the child’s risk of developing food allergies and inflammatory bowel disease.

Continue Reading ›

|

According to the Oakland Tribune, PG&E plans to release a list of 100 high-risk natural gas pipelines and has already stated that two of those lines are in the northern part of San Jose. One pipeline is located near the intersection of the Tasman Drive and North First Street and another near the city’s border with Milpitas. PG&E does plan to upgrade the street section at Tasman and First, but it is still unclear to what degree the cities should be concerned regarding locations of the high-risk pipelines. PG&E released the information about the pipelines to San Jose and Milpitas before releasing the it to the California Public Utility Commission, but both cities are still uncertain as to what needs to be done about the matter. However, they are planning a meeting with Milpitas concerning what action needs to be taken. PG&E had previously publicly disclosed a list of pipelines that were deemed a problem, but, like the San Jose and Milpitas situation, it is unclear which area of pipe should be considered a maintenance priority, and which should not. Here at the Brod Law Firm, all this new information inspires little confidence, especially considering the fact that San Bruno was not on that previous list. We do hope, however, that the disaster will save lives by forcing government to create new regulations about pipeline safety.

If you have been injured, have sustained the loss of a family member, your home, your possessions or were injured in the San Bruno PG&E gas line explosion, our firm and fire are here to help. The Brod Law Firm has successfully prosecuted explosion and fires claims under similar circumstances in the past and has represented individuals and families injured in fires for more than 10 years. The Brod Law Firm will represent individuals and families in claims or injury and property loss resulting from the PG&E gas line explosion. If you have questions about any fire burn injury lawsuit or property claim, please call us.

|

James E. Towery, Chief Trial Counsel of the California State Bar, issued an alert to victims of the San Bruno Explosion sand Fire last week, noting that it is both illegal and unethical for an attorney, or for someone working on an attorney’s behalf, to make unsolicited contact with a potential client. The State Bar recognizes that people who have been injured, or whose family members have been injured, are particularly vulnerable, and may not be able to exercise reasonable judgment. Selecting an attorney is an important decision that requires careful thought and consideration. If someone in a vulnerable state is the subject of an unsolicited contact, they may not be in the best state of mind to make the important decision as to who is best suited to help them with their legal needs.

At the Brod Law Firm, we are San Francisco Injury Attorneys and San Francisco Legal Malpractice Attorneys who recognize that the rules and policies set forth by the California State Bar are designed to protect the clients. Though it is occasionally forgotten by some lawyers, we believe that protecting clients’ interests is the most important aspect of being a lawyer.

|

Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) is setting up a $100 million compensation fund for victims of the catastrophic fire that devastated part of San Bruno. According to The Wall Street Journal, PG&E says the relief fund will be used to cover any expenses not covered by insurance of residents whose property was damaged by the fires. The funds will also pay for the rebuilding or replacing of public property damaged or destroyed in the accident and for certain costs incurred by emergency responders and government services. The company said it will provide payments of $15,000, $25,000, or $50,000 per household depending on the extent of damage incurred, and that residents that accept such payments won’t be asked to waive any potential claims against the company.

The relief fund, however, is not intended to pay for personal injury or wrongful death claims–those will be dealt with separately. According to the San Francisco Chronicle, PG&E is suggesting customers pay the bill of any future disaster. Regulators, are considering a proposal backed by PG&E that would require customers to pay all costs of future catastrophic fires which exceed a utility company’s insurance policy. PG&E said it expects to have most of the costs’ related to the recent explosion in san Bruno covered, but if the new proposal is passed, customers are likely to see a hike in rates further down the line. Under current rules, utilities in California can seek a rate increase if the costs of a disaster exceed their insurance coverage; yet, the Public Utility Commission can veto the request and force utility shareholders to pay the bill.

In order to protect their rights, residents of San Bruno and those affected by this PG&E gas line explosion should seek representation from lawyers who specialize in representing victims of fire damage. The Brod Law Firm has successfully prosecuted explosion and fires claims against PG&E under similar circumstances in the past and has represented individuals and families injured in fires for more than 10 years. Brod Law Firm will represent individuals and families in claims or injury and property loss resulting from the PG&E gas line explosion. Whether you have been injured, have sustained the loss of a family member, your home, your possessions or were injured in the San Bruno PG&E gas line explosion, our firm is here to help. If you have questions about any fire burn injury lawsuit or property claim, please call us.

|

According to newsinferno.com, a Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) spokesman said last Friday that the company’s gas transmission line ruptured, leading to the blast. It is not known what caused the rupture. CNN reported that the ruptured line was installed in 1948 and obtained a document form PG&E that stated the gas line had a relatively high risk and likelihood of failure. The document recommended the line be replaced because of its proximity to a populated area. In addition, the Wall Street Journal reported the gas line had an unusual construction, as it contained a longitudinal seam and numerous welds indicating it had been made from many small segments of steel pipe. And it is not known if the numerous welds could have weakened the pipe. A 28-foot section of the pipe has been excavated and will be sent to the national Transpotation Safety Board’s (NTSB) metallurgy labs in Washington for study.

According to Bloomberg news, a PG&E spokesman said the company inspected the pipeline in November and performed an annual gas-leak assessment in March. However the official would not discuss the results of the inspection. The blast and fire injured 52 people and killed four. Additional remains have been discovered and are being tested to determine their origin and identity. Investigators are looking into reports that residents in the area had made complaints to PG&E in the weeks prior to the blast about gas leaks in the neighborhood. PG&E has not been able to confirm those reports and says it has searched about two thirds of its phone reports from the neighborhood from September 1st thru September 9th.

In a statement PG&E said: “if it is ultimately determined that we were responsible for the cause of the incident, we will take accountability.” Here at the Brod Law firm we haven’t a doubt that PG&E is responsible for the injuries and property damage caused by this explosion, as they have admitted that they own and operated the gas line (the company has $992 million in liability insurance for damages caused by fire, according to a public filing on Sept. 10). It appears from various reports that the injuries and deaths which resulted were preventable. In order to protect their rights, residents of San Bruno and those impacted by this PG&E gas line explosion should seek representation from a law firm that specializes in representing victims of fire damage.

Continue Reading ›

|

Last night a horrifying fire, due to an explosion, swept through the Crestmoor neighborhood in San Bruno. According to the San Francisco Chronicle, fire has been contained and the search continues for possible victims. Officials said the fire was caused by a gas pipeline explosion. Searchers have combed through 75% of the homes destroyed by the blast and there are no residents unaccounted for. But they won’t know for certain about additional victims until they search the remaining homes, which are now too hot to enter. At least four people were killed and 52 injured in the explosion and fire.Lt. Gov. Abel Maldonado, serving as acting governor while Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger is in Asia, declared a state of emergency in the neighborhood. A total of 52 people have been hospitalized, including three with third-degree burns. The most seriously injured were being treated at St. Francis Memorial Hospital in San Francisco. Three victims there have burns over 50 percent of their body, and a fourth has burns over 40 percent.

The site of the explosion is marked by a 30-foot-diameter crater filled with water, while chunks of asphalt and melted cars cover the road. The natural gas pipe that ruptured was laid down 60 years ago. A metallurgist, Ravi Chhatre, with the National Transportation Safety Board will be helping locals investigate what caused the pipeline to explode. Although the safety board is known primarily for investigating plane crashes, it also dispatches teams after major pipeline incidents. According to reports, some residents said they had smelled gas in the neighborhood in the days preceding the explosion and that PG&E trucks had been in the area. Here at the Brod Law Firm, we wonder how the victims of the fire will cope as they try and put their lives back together. More than likely, when the cause of the explosion is confirmed, the lawsuits will begin to be filed. The good news is the Federal Emergency Management Agency has authorized the use of federal funds to help rebuild the community. If you or your family have been the victim of a fire or have question regarding lawsuits due to fires, please call the Brod Law Firm.

|

Walmart faces what may turn out to be the biggest class-action suit in U.S. history-a class action that claims systematic discrimination against women in promotion and pay. Walmart has already asked the US Supreme Court to overturn a ruling from the Ninth US Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco, that would allow 1.5 million current and former female Walmart employees to file the largest class-action lawsuit in history. The case started in San Francisco in 2001 when six women filed suit claiming Walmart discrimination, in part because they were passed over for promotion in favor of men — one says she was told, “It’s a man’s world.” The case, known as Dukes v. Walmart Stores, Inc., claims that Walmart actively discriminated against its female employees by denying them job assignments, promotions, training, and compensation equivalent to their male counterparts.

The suite claims women who were hired in 1996 earned, on average, $0.35 less per hour than men doing the same job. Of these women, those who were still working for Walmart in 2001 earned, on average, $1.16 less per hour than men doing the same job. In 2001, women in salaried management positions earned an average of $14,500 less than men per year. Additionally, testimony by plaintiffs document numerous accounts of sexist and discriminatory behavior coming from men in upper management positions such as being told that men “need to be paid more than women because they have families to support” and that “men are here to make a career and women aren’t. Retail is for housewives who just need to earn extra money.”

Recently Walmart’s lawyers have argued against the validity of the class-action suit based upon its size and its centralization of claims. They contend that discrimination is the result of specific acts committed by individuals, not company policy, and that decisions made by local manages did not have the same effect on all female workers, which would all become members of the potential class action. Yet, previously, the district court held that “although the size of this class action is large, mere size does not render a case unmanageable” and Judge Jenkins, of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit recently wrote that plaintiffs ‘assertion that managers’ actions were in line with an extremely centralized and “strong corporate culture that includes gender stereotyping.” If the suit is allowed to go forward, with its class of 1.5 million U.S. women, it could cost the retail giant billions of dollars.

|

Today, the U. S. Consumer Product Safety Commission has announced a voluntary recall of lithium-ion batteries that were sold with, or sold separately to be used with the following notebook computer models: Satellite A100, Satellite A105 and Tecra A7. The battery model is printed on the battery. The lithium-ion batteries can overheat, posing a fire hazard to consumers. This recall affects a good 41,000 notebooks sold worldwide and includes the Satellite T135, T135D, and Satellite Pro T130 notebooks. The issue is due to the potential overheating of the notebook’s AC adapter power plug, and Toshiba has already received several incidents of the notebooks overheating and deforming the plastic around the power plug. Owners of affected models can check if their notebook is affected by downloading a new BIOS update that will check if the notebook is overheating, disable the external power port when necessary, and display a message to bring the notebook to Toshiba for a free repair.

The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission is charged with protecting the public from unreasonable risks of serious injury or death from thousands of types of consumer products under the agency’s jurisdiction. The CPSC is committed to protecting consumers and families from products that pose a fire, electrical, chemical, or mechanical hazard. CPSC is still interested in receiving incident or injury reports that are either directly related to this product recall or involve a different hazard with the same product. They are asking consumers to tell them about related incidents by visiting https://www.cpsc.gov/cgibin/incident.aspx. Here at the Brod Law Firm, we wonder if Toshiba faces a class-action lawsuit regarding these faulty laptops, with their faulty batteries. Similar suits against laptop makers rest on the contention that an aspect of a faulty device is “substandard”. A defective laptop is a major inconvenience in today’s world, as many people rely on their notebook computers as a means of earning a living and for educational purposes. And a laptop that could potentially burn consumers is completely unacceptable. To date, Toshiba has received 129 reports of the notebook computers overheating and deforming the plastic casing area around the AC adapter plug, including two reports of minor burn injuries that did not require medical attention and two reports of minor property damage. It is only fair that Toshiba offers to fix faulty laptops, as people should not be forced to spend hundreds of dollars to fix or replace their laptops, when Toshiba should have known about this problem at the time they initially sold the computer. If you are the owner or a defective product or if you have questions about product liability, please call our firm.

|

According to newsinferno.com, Toyota is recalling some 1.13 million Corolla and Matrix cars for a flaw that U.S. regulators say may cause stalling at any speed without warning. This is a setback for the company as they try to regain their reputation for quality and reliability. Toyota is recalling the vehicles for the model years 2005-2008 in the U.S. and Canada following three reported accidents linked to the defect. The action raises new questions about Toyota’s electronics and adds to their recall list from the past year, which included more than 8 million vehicles worldwide for flaws related to unintended acceleration. Toyota tested 32 of the engine components and found four had cracking after thermal-shocking tests. Consequently, Toyota has concluded that this problem would likely continue to occur, and has decided to conduct a voluntary safety recall of all vehicles within the affected range. The recall also covers General Motors’s Pontiac Vibe hatchbacks, which were manufactured in a GM- Toyota venture in California. Toyota will repair the cars at no cost to owners and will reimburse those who had repairs done at their own cost.

The National Highway Transportation Safety Administration (NHTSA) has called for an investigation of possible electronics-related defects in Toyota vehicles. Earlier this year Toyota agreed to pay a record $16.375 million fine levied by the NHTSA for concealing information related to a January recall of 2.3 million vehicles for sticky accelerator pedals. This is in addition to the over 200 lawsuits Toyota faces in the US alone over accidents, decreased resale values, and stock drops. Consumer advocates and plaintiff’s attorneys have alleged that Toyota’s electronic control systems have played a major role in the defects that have lead to accidents and injuries. It looks like Toyota is losing their once-deserved rock solid reputation. If you are concerned about your car you visit Toyota.com/recall and review the list of current recalls. Also, if you or a loved one has been injured due to negligence of a car manufacturer, please call the Brod Law Firm.

|

https://www.brodfirm.comAccording to the californiabeat.com, three major traffic incidents that involved MUNI vehicles left one man dead, several passengers injured and delayed service for hours in different parts of San Francisco Saturday. The first accident happened in Chinatown after a 8X-Bayshore Express bus collided with a 30-Stockton trolley coach near Stockton and Clay Streets at around 11:00 a.m. The driver of the 8X bus left the coach to inspect a faulty wheelchair lift when the bus suddenly rolled backwards down Stockton St. until it collided into the side of the 30-Stockton bus. The bus rolled into a collection of street-side newspaper racks and a mailbox before it came to a complete stop on a sidewalk. Several passengers aboard both buses were treated for minor abrasions. No one was seriously injured in the accident.

Then at approximately 3:00 p.m., Pacific Gas and Electric crews reported a downed wire that fell onto MUNI’s overhead trolley wires at 25th & Mission Sts. in the Mission District. The failure of the wire caused a large power outage that knocked out electricity to approximately 6,500 customers in the neighborhood. No one was injured in the power line collapse. The third incident happened around 6:00 p.m. when a 47-Van Ness MUNI bus struck a pedestrian as it was pulling into the northbound bus stop outside a Walgreens drug store at Van Ness and Market Sts. The pedestrian was pronounced dead at the scene. Witnesses claim the man intentionally stepped in front of the bus when it approached the bus stop.

Injuries sustained in city bus accidents are frequently caused by passengers being thrown around in the bus, due to the fact that passengers are not appropriately restrained, and can range from cuts and bruises, whiplash and fractures, to serious head injuries and injuries that result in brain damage, paralysis, loss of limbs and even death. If you or a loved one has been injured as a passenger in a city bus accident, then you have the right to make a claim for personal injury compensation on a no win no fee basis. As a victim, you can obtain personal injury compensation for your injuries and for any costs incurred. If you have questions regarding how California law protects public transport passengers, please call our firm.

Contact Information
San Francisco, CA
100 Pine St #1250
San Francisco, CA 94111
Toll Free: (800) 427-7020Phone: (415) 397-1130
Los Angeles, CA
11150 W Olympic Blvd #1050
Los Angeles, CA 90064
Toll Free: (800) 427-7020
Petaluma, CA
17 Keller St
Petaluma, CA 94952
Toll Free: (800) 427-7020Phone: (707) 238-8999

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Please do not include any confidential or sensitive information in a contact form, text message, or voicemail. The contact form sends information by non-encrypted email, which is not secure. Submitting a contact form, sending a text message, making a phone call, or leaving a voicemail does not create an attorney-client relationship.

Copyright © 2025, Brod Law Firm
JUSTIA Law Firm Blog Design