Leonard S. Kurfirst

• As lead counsel, defended a global producer of carbon compounds and treated wood products in one of several cases filed in Brazoria County, in which a total of 35 plaintiffs claimed to have developed a wide variety of illnesses as a result of living next to a creosote wood treatment plant. The case required detailed knowledge of medical literature regarding the types of chemicals purportedly emitted by the plant and experience with different types of exposure pathways identified by the plaintiffs. Since RCRA remediation work was ongoing at the time the lawsuits were filed, it was also necessary for defense counsel to have a detailed understanding of environmental law and the client’s interaction with various regulatory agencies on state and federal levels. Early in the litigation, the Lone Pine doctrine was cited, which forced the plaintiffs to identify experts who could allegedly establish a causal connection between the plaintiffs’ alleged injuries and the chemicals emitted by the plant. This was the first use of the Lone Pine doctrine in Brazoria County. The client was dismissed shortly thereafter. Faust, et al. v. Koppers, Inc., Brazoria County, Texas, 2004.
• As lead counsel, defended a large chemical corporation in a mass tort case involving over 200 plaintiffs who alleged to have developed a wide variety of serious illnesses as a result of living next to a wood treatment plant, and were purportedly exposed to dangerous emissions of lead and arsenic. Initial settlement demands were in excess of $50 million and plaintiffs also sought punitive damages. Plaintiffs’ counsel had retained many different national experts who frequently appear in this type of toxic tort litigation. Defense focused on the failure of the plaintiffs’ expert to demonstrate that the chemical exposures were above background levels and to otherwise offer valid causation opinions. On the eve of trial, the plaintiffs accepted a nominal settlement after a favorable review of the client’s summary judgment motions by the trial judge. Abron v. Beazer, et. al., U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Texas, 2003.
• As lead counsel, defended a cardiologist in a wrongful death claim in which the decedent died from complications following a myocardial infarction and retroperitoneal bleed. The case required a detailed analysis of various pharmaceuticals given to the decedent in the days following his initial infarction and how they may have induced internal bleeding. After a two-week trial, a not guilty verdict was rendered by the jury in favor of the physician. Nybert v. Duggal, Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, 2002.
• As lead counsel, defended the medical director of a hospice under investigation by the U.S. Attorney General’s Office, Northern District of Illinois, which was prepared to file a False Act Claim against him for allegedly participating in a scheme to defraud Chicago area hospice patients. The owner of the hospice admitted to criminal liability and was fined and sentenced to prison. The case required detailed knowledge of state and federal regulations regarding the provision of hospice care and its billing under various government programs. The medical director’s defense included interaction with the FBI and the Assistant U.S. Attorney General. After addressing each of the concerns raised by the government, the case was dropped without any fines or sanctions being imposed upon the medical director. In Re: Dr. S. L., Chicago, Illinois, 2000.
• As lead counsel, defended the manufacturer of treated wood products in a case in which a plaintiff claimed to have experienced an immunological reaction after working with treated lumber, leaving him permanently disabled, with diminished respiratory capacity and chemical sensitivity. The wood was treated with a type of preservative, CCA, which was regulated by the EPA under the Federal Insecticide Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). On the eve of trial, summary judgment was entered on behalf of the client on the basis that FIFRA preempted the plaintiff’s failure to warn claims. The summary judgment was affirmed. This was one of the first wood treatment cases to assert successfully FIFRA preemption as a defense. This defense became common and was raised in most CCA treated wood litigation filed after 1995. Sirico v. Hickson Corp, et. al., Supreme Court of New York, Rockland County, 1995.

Publications And Presentations:

• Presenter, “Nano-technology and What It Means to Regulations and Business,” Chemical Industry Council of Illinois “Hot Topics” Seminar, April 2010.
• Presenter, “Enforcement Trends and Priorities: Citizen Groups,” Chemical Industry Council of Illinois “Hot Topics” Seminar, September 2009.
• Co-Author, “BPA Update: Beyond Baby Bottles,” BNA Class Action Litigation Report, April 10, 2009.
• Presenter, “Biomonitoring: Its Expanding Role in Public Health Evaluations and Litigation,” American Chemical Society National Convention, Salt Lake City, March 2009.
• Presenter, “Nanotechnology in Consumer Products: An Update on Regulatory Responses and Litigation,” American Chemical Society National Convention, Salt Lake City, March 2009.
• Author, “Manufacturers' Role In Toxic Air and America's Schools," IndustryWeek.com, March 13, 2009.
• Presenter, “An Old Whine in New Bottles: What’s New – and What Isn’t – about BPA Litigation,” American Chemical Society Regional Convention, Kearney, Nebraska, November 2008.
• Co-Author, “An Old Whine in New Bottles? What's New – And What Isn't – About the Current Wave of BPA Litigation," BNA's Class Action Litigation, Vol. 9, No. 15, August 8, 2008.
• Presenter, “Federal Electronic Discovery Rules: Protect Yourself and Your Company,” American Chemical Society National Convention, Boston, March 2007. 
• Presenter, “Application of Forensic Chemistry to Environmental and Toxic Tort Litigation,” American Chemical Society National Convention, Boston, March 2007. 
• Author, “A Primer for the Interpretation of Dust Data in Toxic Tort Litigation,” Mealey’s Emerging Toxic Torts, June 1, 2007.