Man says he suffered psychosis as a result of pesticide-induced poisoning

PHILADELPHIA – A Philadelphia man who believes he was poisoned by methyl bromide pesticides two years ago has sued the companies he believes are responsible for his medical condition.

Jonathan Olszewski filed suit on Feb. 15 in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas, versus Adams Expediting, Inc. of Philadelphia, Royal Fumigation, Inc. and Royal Pest Control, Inc. both of New Castle, Del., and Royal Pest Management of PA, Inc., in Kemblesville.

“Plaintiff came into contact with the methyl bromide containing pesticides complained about herein at all three of the Adams Expediting, Inc. locations. During the month of March of 2015, plaintiff worked a significant amount of hours at the Delaware and New Jersey locations and was working in close proximity to the methyl bromide containing pesticides. Furthermore, during the several months prior to March of 2015, plaintiff had worked strenuous amounts of hours at the Delaware and New Jersey locations, which often consisted of 15-hour shifts with no days off,” the complaint details.

“On or about March 9, 2015, after having worked approximately 23 days straight without a day off and numerous hours per day, plaintiff began experiencing severe blurry vision, and an unsteady gait. Upon returning home, he essentially collapsed and was taken to the emergency room and examined and diagnosed with diabetes,” the complaint adds.

The plaintiff attempted to work through the conditions, but would later go on to suffer a psychotic breakdown in June 2015, requiring hospitalization at Pennsylvania Hospital’s in-patient psychiatric and treated with medication.

The plaintiff says the defendants’ negligence caused him injuries such as extreme anxiety, sleepiness, hallucinations, paranoia and psychotic delusions, eye damage, ataxia, neuropathy and severe toxic metabolic encephalopathy, in addition to depression, psychosis, breakdowns and permanent disability.

For counts of strict product liability – design defect, negligence, negligent design, fraud, misrepresentation and suppression, constructive fraud, breach of express and implied warranties and workplace safety intentional tort, the plaintiff is seeking damages in excess of $50,000, including compensatory, punitive and delay damages plus costs.

The plaintiff is represented by Nicholas L. Palazzo of DeFino Law Associates, in Philadelphia.

Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas case 170203552

 

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s