Denton

Baxter Healthcare Corp. v. Denton

Good Law
120 Cal. App. 4th 333·15 Cal. Rptr. 3d 430·2004 Cal. App. LEXIS 1054·2004 Daily Journal DAR 8099·34 Envtl. L. Rep. (Envtl. Law Inst.) 20042
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJuly 1, 2004C043352California13,484 words

Opinion

Opinion

Scotland, J.

Under Proposition 65, a business must provide a warning when it exposes the public to a chemical that is on a list of chemicals known to the state to cause cancer in animals. However, a warning is not required if the business can show that the exposure poses no significant risk of causing cancer in humans. (Health & Saf. Code, § 25249.5 et seq.; further section references are to the Health and Safety Code unless otherwise specified.)

Director Joan Denton and the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (collectively OEHHA), which is the lead agency charged with implementing Proposition 65, appeal from the superior court’s judgment declaring that a chemical plasticizer contained in medical devices manufactured by Baxter Healthcare Corporation (Baxter) poses no significant risk of causing cancer in humans and, therefore, Baxter need not provide the warning of carcinogenicity required by Proposition 65.

OEHHA raises various procedural challenges to the superior court’s ruling and also claims the decision is not supported by substantial evidence. We shall affirm the judgment.

As we will explain, Proposition 65 does not preclude a business from bringing a…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.