|
by Rick Lovett
In an amicus brief filed on April 17, the California attorney
general's office supported Consumer Cause in its appeal of an adverse
ruling in the dental amalgam case, Consumer
Cause v. SmileCare.
Last winter, Los Angeles Superior
Court Judge Aurelio Munoz granted
summary judgment in favor of the defendants, based on an affidavit
asserting that the American Dental Association viewed the mercury-containing
fillings as safe (see Prop
65 News, March 1 & 15, p. 1).
This ruling flies in the face of Proposition 65 requirements,
Deputy Attorney General Susan
Fiering told the Court of
Appeal's Second Appellate District. "Proposition 65 is very clear
in its allocation of the burden of proof concerning the
exemption," she wrote. "The plaintiff need only prove that
the defendant has knowingly and intentionally exposed individuals to
listed chemicals without providing a warning. The plaintiff need not
prove, nor even introduce evidence, of the amount of this exposure or
whether it is above the threshold level."
Attempts to prove that exposures are safe, Fiering added, must
involve risk assessments carried out in accordance with regulatory
requirements. Conclusory statements such as those made by the American
Dental Association, even if accurate, are insufficient, she said.
Fiering added that the AG is interested only in ensuring that the
court applies the proper burden of proof. The office takes no position
on the underlying question of whether warnings are needed for amalgam
fillings, she said.
The case document cited in this article is
Consumer
Cause v. SmileCare (7 P65LR 955).
|
