By: Ray Henke
Submitted: 2009-06-12 11:32:44 | Word Count: 798
Salmonella Food Poisoning Lawyers Describe Evidence That Peanut Corporation and Parnell Engaged in Intentional, Dishonest and Fraudulent Acts, Distributing Salmonella Contaminated Peanut Butter Products in Chain of Commerce to Companies Incorporating the Peanuts and Peanut Butter Paste in 2000 Products Now the Subject of the Largest Food Poisoning Recall in U.S. History.
Our salmonella lawyers' preliminary review of the available information confirms our earlier suspicions with regard to how the peanut products were contaminated with salmonella at the Plainview plant operated by Peanut Corporation of America. Additional information has been compiled from government agencies, including Texas officials and investigators though to testimony before Congress and the disclosure of PCA documents including e-mails from PCA operator Stewart Parnell. That information provides a more complete picture of the corruption of Parnell and the a conscious disregard of the health and lives of the consumers that characterized PCA, and Parnell in particular.The evidence compiled by our salmonella lawyers even just still at this very early stage in the investigation demonstrates that Parnell intentionally "let loose" on the public, "let loose" being Parnell's ver batim instruction, salmonella poisoned peanut product delivered to food product manufacturers and distributed retailers and consumers throughout the United States.
[ advertisement ]
As our salmonella food poisoning attorneys had previously speculated, from the open holes in the ceiling and openings in the physical perimeter of the plant, and from the known mechanisms of salmonella contamination, there was the likelihood that the cause of the salmonella contamination would probably turn out to be rat or bird excrement. Water draining off a roof into an area where it can contaminate food processing areas is a potent source of salmonella poisoning from bird excrement; and the Texas investigators who examined the plant found dead rodents and rat excrement located near the air exchange.
As early as 2006 the assistant manager of the plant, Kenneth Kendrick, sent numerous e-mails to the Texas health department complaining about the leaking roof, which he stated could be a contamination issue specifically because of bird excrement."Anything nasty you can think of comes from water off a roof," were Kendrick's words.
Peanut Corporation of America was a low budget, cost cutting, peanut operation run from a converted garage outside Parnell's Linchberg VA suburban home.
When tests of the Plainview Texas plant's peanut butter product proved positive for salmonella contamination, Parnell attempted time and time againt to get around destroying the contaminated product, which is just the food industry standard requirement to protect the health of the consumer.Instead, Parnell would order plant managers to get new laboratory tests by sending samples to a different laboratories. In October, 2008, for example, when internal testing showed positive for salmonella Parnell not only ordered that a different lab retest the product, he complained about the delay: "The time lapse, besides the cost, is costing us huge $$$," Parnell stated in an e-mail to his plant manager. In August 2008, when the Plainview plant peanut product returned test results positive for salmonella, Parnell obtained a negative result from another laboratory, and then sent an e-mail to the plant manager, "Okay, let's turn them loose then," referring to the very peanut products which had previously tested positive.According to memoranda and correspondence that was made a part of the public record at a Congressional hearing of the House of Representatives Energy and Commerce Committee, Peanut Corporation of America, through its subsidiary, also shipped out peanut products with a "homemade certificate" falsely attesting that they were contamination free.
If Peanut Corporation of America was solvent, our salmonella food poisoning lawyers would evaluate the case not only as satisfying the criteria for establishing liability for compensatory damage case, but as a good case of malice and conscious disregard for human life and health sufficient to justify punitive damages.Our investigation is ongoing in terms of whether the corporate shield may be pierced but Peanut Corporation of America has gone bankrupt and so the company itself may turn out to receive protection from punitive damages and may indeed have little in terms of insurance or assets to pay compensatory claims by those who suffered illness, let alone assets to pay punitive damages. The punishment of PCA and Parnell may have to be left to the criminal process, and criminal investigations are now underway. As our salmonella food poisoning lawyers explain elsewhere in our"Attorney Evaluation of Viability of Lawsuits Post PCA Bankruptcy"we feel confident that the cases for compensation at least are still viable, including specifically because in food poisoning cases the victim can recover compensatory damages from all those in the "chain of commerce," from the manufacturers to the distributors through to the retailer from whom the victim purchased the contaminated product.
