Fluoride Action Network

Appeal seeking reversal of District Court’s Order in Metropolitan Water District of Southern California’s fluoridation case

Source: Blumenthal Nordrehaug & Bhowmik: Press Release | July 9th, 2013

On June 27, 2013, the attorneys at Blumenthal Nordrehaug & Bhowmik filed an appeal brief in the United States Court of Appeals For The Ninth Circuit asking the Court to reverse the District Court’s order dismissing the action. The original Complaint was filed in August of 2011 and alleged that the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California is distributing a drug through the public water systems despite the fact that the drug has not been approved by the FDA to fluoridate our drinking water to fight tooth decay. Foli v. Metropolitan Water District is currently on appeal in the United States Court of Appeals For The Ninth Circuit, Docket No. 13-55302.

According to the Appellants’ opening brief filed by the California attorneys at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik, “[t]his appeal is about the constitutionality of the selection by Appellees Metropolitan Water District of Southern California . . . of an untested drug, Hydrofluosilicic Acid, which has no FDA approval, to be injected into our water supply for the medical purpose of treating dental caries.” Blumenthal’s brief went on to state, “[w]hat this case is not about is the right of the state in general to order the fluoridation of the water supply for the purpose of treating dental caries using a tested drug with FDA approval.” A copy of the appeal brief can be read here.

Specifically, the First Amended Complaint, See Foli v. The Metropolitan Water District, Case No. 11:CV:1765, sought to stop the Water District’s alleged practice of injecting HFSA into the water supply on the basis that HFSA was never approved by the United States Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of disease or dental cavities. The attorneys at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik argue in their opening brief that the Water District’s use of a drug not approved by the FDA to fight tooth decay violates Appellants’ constitutional rights.

When asked about the lawsuit, the managing partner of the law firm for the Appellants, Norman Blumenthal, stated, “[t]he constitutional rights at issue here are fundamental, we are talking about peoples’ bodily integrity and the safety and upbringing of one’s children.”

Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik is a California contingency fee law firm that represents employees and consumers in individual and class action lawsuits against companies that violate state and/or federal laws.