Lead phone cables Verizon beats lawsuit from utility worker who said lead cables made him sick Judge: It's not clear whether utility pole worker's symptoms were caused by lead. Jon Brodkin Feb 11, 2025 2:22 pm | 23 A Verizon store in New York on January 15, 2024. Credit: Getty Images | Bloomberg A Verizon store in New York on January 15, 2024. Credit: Getty Images | Bloomberg Story textSizeSmallStandardLargeWidth *StandardWideLinksStandardOrange* Subscribers only Learn moreVerizon has defeated a lawsuit filed by a utility pole worker who claims that lead cables made him sick.A federal judge on Friday granted Verizon's motion to dismiss the complaint, which sought class action status on behalf of other utility pole workers. However, the judge said the plaintiff may have standing to bring his claims in state court instead of federal court.The lawsuit was filed in US District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania in September 2023, about two months after a Wall Street Journal report said that at least 2,000 lead-covered telephone cables installed decades ago by multiple phone companies had not been removed.Plaintiff Mark Tiger, who previously worked for Figure 8 Communications and Duda Cable Construction, the latter of which is a Comcast contractor, "regularly worked around and came into direct contact with Verizon's lead-sheathed cables," US District Judge Nicholas Ranjan wrote in an opinion issued Friday. "His clothes and body regularly rubbed against the cables as he climbed up the utility poles, and he had to grab onto the cables while he worked. And then when he touched his face with his hands or used his hands to eat, he ingested and inhaled the lead. He was routinely sick while he worked with the cables and experienced mood changes, headaches, nausea, fatigue, irritability, muscle and joint pain, and constipation, which are symptoms associated with lead exposure. Because he did not have insurance, he did not see a doctor."Judge: Mere exposure to lead not enoughA November 2024 filing said that Tiger recently "left his job because of his concerns regarding the effect of continued exposure to Verizon's lead cables on his health." Tiger alleges that Verizon was negligent and sought class certification for all utility pole workers who were occupationally exposed to Verizon's lead-sheathed cables in Pennsylvania. He said Verizon should dispose of the cables and pay for medical monitoring because lead can be stored in the body for years or decades and symptoms may not occur immediately.However, Ranjan found that Tiger lacked standing to bring the lawsuit. It is not clear that Tiger's symptoms were caused by working with lead-covered cables, and everyone is exposed to lead to some degree, the ruling said."Given the naturally occurring lead levels in the environment and in our bodies, and the fact that individuals exposed to lead may not develop any lead-related conditions or symptoms at all, mere exposure to leadand the mere presence of lead in one's bodyisn't a concrete injury," Ranjan wrote.Verizon said in September 2023 that at sites described in the Wall Street Journal article, soil lead levels near Verizon cables were similar to lead levels in the surrounding area and did not pose a public health risk.Verizon is also seeking dismissal of a similar lawsuit filed in US District Court for the District of New Jersey. Verizon yesterday submitted a filing to the New Jersey federal court that cited the Pennsylvania ruling. Verizon said the plaintiffs in the two cases are represented by the same legal team and that the allegations are "virtually identical."Health claims not specific enoughRanjan's ruling said that "Tiger hasn't alleged the presence of elevated levels of lead in his body," and "has not taken any blood or bone testing to measure the amount of lead that is presently in his body. This is problematic because, as indicated by the articles cited to in the amended complaint, everyone is exposed to lead, due to its prevalence in the environment." Ranjan continued:Mr. Tiger might have a better argument if he had asserted conditions or non-common symptoms that are unique to or at least more consistent with elevated levels of lead in his body. But, despite his allegations that lead exposure can cause certain "catastrophic" health issues, such as reduced kidney function, neurological problems, cardiovascular problems, and cancer, he has not alleged that he suffers from these ailments or that they are even imminent.And, from the complaint, the Court cannot tell the amount or extent of Mr. Tiger's exposure to lead, e.g., whether, and the extent to which, the alleged exposure to Verizon's lead cables increased his risk of contracting an illness or condition, such that it posed an unacceptable risk to his health, and whether there is a dangerous amount of lead in his body. Simply put, the Court requires more concrete confirmation that Mr. Tiger has suffered an injuryor is at imminent and substantial risk of suffering an illnesslikely caused by exposure to lead.In summary, the judge decided that the "complaint fails to plead any cognizable injury-in-fact" and that the "theories of injury in the context of this specific case are too conjectural and speculative." Ranjan dismissed the complaint without prejudice and said in a footnote that "nothing in this opinion should be construed as a finding that Mr. Tiger lacks standing to bring any of his claims in state court."The similar lawsuit in New Jersey was filed by Greg Bostard, who worked for Comcast from 1990 to 2019. Bostard regularly climbed utility poles on which "Comcast shares space for its aerial cables with Verizon's lead-sheathed cables," his lawsuit said. Verizon's filing in New Jersey yesterday argued that the Bostard complaint suffers from the "same pleading deficiencies" that led to Tiger's complaint being dismissed.We contacted lawyers representing Tiger and Bostard and will update this article if we get a response.Jon BrodkinSenior IT ReporterJon BrodkinSenior IT Reporter Jon is a Senior IT Reporter for Ars Technica. He covers the telecom industry, Federal Communications Commission rulemakings, broadband consumer affairs, court cases, and government regulation of the tech industry. 23 Comments