Chlorpyrifos Lawsuit: Dursban & Lorsban Parkinson's & Birth Injury Claims
PRACTICE AREAS
A chlorpyrifos lawsuit is a product liability claim alleging that Dursban, Lorsban, and other chlorpyrifos insecticides caused Parkinson’s disease or neurodevelopmental birth injuries. Our law firm is investigating claims against Dow Chemical Company, Corteva, FMC, and other chlorpyrifos manufacturers across the country. The chlorpyrifos pesticide litigation is in the early stages: no MDL exists yet, and the first Parkinson’s case is pending in federal court in Pennsylvania.
Filing chlorpyrifos claims nationwide from our Houston office. You don't owe unless we win.
Call 713-622-7271Chlorpyrifos Lawsuit Update October 2026: Where the Litigation Stands
Chlorpyrifos Parkinson's and birth injury litigation
Updated October 7, 2026
- First federal caseRamos v. CortevaE.D. Pa., removed from Philadelphia July 17, 2026
- DefendantsDow, Corteva, FMCCorteva's SEC filings disclose pending injury claims
- SettlementsNone yetNo verdict, average, or published range
Ramos v. Corteva, the first Parkinson's case, is pending in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania after removal July 17, 2026. No MDL yet.
Sources: Ramos v. Corteva docket; Corteva Form 10-Q.
This is emerging litigation, not a mature mass tort, and anyone evaluating a chlorpyrifos lawsuit deserves that stated plainly. A chlorpyrifos Parkinson’s lawsuit is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania as Ramos v. Corteva, Inc., after defendants removed it from the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas on July 17, 2026.
The plaintiff is a former pest control technician from Selden, New York, who named Dow Chemical, Corteva Inc., and FMC Corp. as defendants. The chlorpyrifos manufacturers aren’t disputing that claims exist. Corteva’s own SEC filings acknowledge pending chlorpyrifos personal injury claims asserted against the former Dow AgroSciences LLC.
No MDL just means there isn’t a federal insecticide case yet. Chlorpyrifos claims are being filed by individuals. This doesn’t mean research is weak; it reflects filing volume. It’s the same posture the paraquat Parkinson’s lawsuit occupied before consolidation and before bellwether trials shaped that mass tort’s value. Early filers had years of discovery working in their favor.
No chlorpyrifos lawsuit has settled or gone to verdict. There is no average, no tier structure, and no published range. The chlorpyrifos lawyer team at Reich & Binstock is working tirelessly to help clients secure maximum compensation, however.
What Products Contain Chlorpyrifos?: Dursban, Lorsban, & Other Chlorpyrifos Brand Names
Chlorpyrifos was introduced in the U.S. in 1965. Over 21 million pounds of chlorpyrifos were used annually from 1987 to 1998.
Dow AgroSciences LLC held the registration and sold Lorsban products into agriculture. Dow AgroSciences is now Corteva Agriscience, which is why Corteva Inc. is listed alongside Dow Chemical Company in the defective product-related chlorpyrifos lawsuit filed today.
The major difference between exposure to chlorpyrifos from Dursban and Lorsban products was that Dursban was manufactured for residential use while Lorsban was restricted for agricultural applications.
Corteva Inc. stopped selling chlorpyrifos in Lorsban in 2020. These filings distinguish Lorsban claims from Dursban claims. Which dangerous product you encountered often determines which track your case belongs to.
On paper, the chemical also appears as chlorpyrifos-ethyl and, by its systematic name, O,O-diethyl O-(3,5,6-trichloro-2-pyridinyl) phosphorothioate.
Generic and co-formulated products multiply the confusion, and it is the same brand-name confusion that complicates paraquat claims. If a name on this table looks familiar, EPA’s chlorpyrifos registration and product record can confirm what was registered and when.
- DursbanDow → Corteva
- LorsbanDow → Corteva
- CobaltDow → Corteva
- HatchetDow → Corteva
- NufosCheminova → FMC
- BoltonFMC
- StallionFMC
- PilotGharda Chemicals International
- WarhawkLoveland Products
Recognize one of these chlorpyrifos product manufacturers?
Call 713-622-7271 Start a Free Case ReviewWho Qualifies to File a Chlorpyrifos Lawsuit
Eligibility for filing a chlorpyrifos lawsuit requires: documented exposure, a qualifying diagnosis, and product identification. The third is where most intake conversations actually start, because ost victims don’t remember active ingredients. They remember the brand, the crop they sprayed, and the company they worked for.
Our chlorpyrifos attorneys don’t expect clients to know this and can help investigate to determine whether they qualify for compensation.
Qualifying factors:
- Direct handling: mixed, loaded, sprayed, or cleaned up chlorpyrifos products
- Occupational exposure over months or years rather than a single incident
- Residential or workplace proximity to treated agricultural acreage
- A Parkinson’s disease diagnosis, or a child’s neurodevelopmental diagnosis following in utero exposure
- Ability to identify a product by brand name, employer, crop, or era of use
- Diagnosis date and exposure end date that survive statute of limitations analysis
A free evaluation determines whether the facts support a product liability claim against a pesticide manufacturer.
Injuries & Health Problems Linked to Chlorpyrifos Exposure
Two separate claimant groups are filing, and they are not variations of a single theory. One involves adults with Parkinson’s disease after years of occupational handling. The other involves children with neurodevelopmental conditions after prenatal exposure. Different science, different plaintiffs, different deadlines, and a chlorpyrifos lawsuit built on one does not resemble a claim built on the other.
Chlorpyrifos Parkinson’s Lawsuit
Farmworkers, or more specifically, applicators, mixers, and loaders are at the highest risk of developing parkinson’s disease. They also have the strongest claims because the health problems associated with chlorpyrifos increase with higher levels of exposure. A 2026 Molecular Neurodegeneration study on chlorpyrifos and Parkinson’s risk from UCLA Health found that long-term residential exposure is associated with over a 2.5-fold increased risk of developing the disease, pairing human health data with lab and scientific studies suggesting extensive damage to dopamine-producing brain cells.
The human health study included 829 people diagnosed with Parkinson’s disease and 824 people without it. Parkinson’s disease researchers estimated pesticide exposure by mapping where participants lived and worked and comparing those locations with records showing where pesticides were used.
If you developed parkinson’s disease after using Dursban or Lorsban products, contact a chlorpyrifos attorney for a free consultation.
Chlorpyrifos Birth Injury Lawsuit
A chlorpyrifos lawsuit filed on a child’s behalf alleges that prenatal exposure caused lasting neurodevelopmental damage. Corteva’s filings identify these as claims already asserted, describing allegations of autism, developmental delays, decreased neurologic function, and other neurological risks resulting from farm worker exposure, bystander drift, and in utero exposure.
In a Columbia birth cohort of 265 children, Environmental Health Perspectives reported IQ and working memory deficits at age 7: each 1-standard-deviation increase in prenatal exposure, measured in umbilical cord blood, corresponded to a 1.4% decline in Full-Scale IQ and a 2.8% decline in Working Memory. Exposure was documented at birth, before any outcome was known. Our Houston birth injury attorneys handle claims nationwide involving developmental harm where the injury is cognitive rather than physical.
Acute Organophosphate Poisoning
Chlorpyrifos is an organophosphate insecticide. It works by inhibiting acetylcholinesterase, the enzyme that clears acetylcholine from the nerve cells. Large enough doses drastically affect the nervous system and produce immediate symptoms: nausea, vision changes, muscle twitching, respiratory distress, and in severe cases, seizures or loss of consciousness.
Acute cases look different from chronic exposure claims. There is usually an incident report, an emergency room record, and sometimes a cholinesterase level drawn the same day, which makes causation cleaner. Toxic exposure claims across industrial and agricultural workplaces frequently involve this pattern.
What the Research Shows About Chlorpyrifos Exposure
Evidence from scientific studies predates chlorpyrifos litigation by more than a decade. Parkinson’s disease researchers found the link between the Parkinson’s mechanism and organophosphate pesticide in the early 2010s
After Monsanto Co. v. Durnell, discussed below, the evidence is used differently. A manufacturer’s failure to warn consumers is no longer primarily a notice record supporting a demand for a label warning. However, human studies establish chlorpyrifos is linked to parkinson’s disease and other neurological risks: the causation theories require.
Essentially, cases now turn on whether the evidence connects exposure to chlorpyrifos to a specific injury, not what manufacturers knew and failed to warn consumers about.
| Study / Publication | Year | Population Studied | Key Finding | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Molecular NeurodegenerationUCLA PEG cohort | 2026 | 829 Parkinson's patients and 824 controls across Kern, Fresno and Tulare counties, California, paired with mouse and zebrafish models | Long-term residential exposure carried more than 2.5x the risk of Parkinson's. Exposed mice lost dopamine-producing neurons in the substantia nigra; zebrafish work tied that loss to alpha-synuclein. | Mol Neurodegener 2026 |
| Environmental Health PerspectivesColumbia CCCEH, 7-year follow-up | 2011 | 265 New York City children followed from birth, with prenatal exposure measured directly in umbilical cord blood | Every standard-deviation rise in cord-blood chlorpyrifos tracked with measurable IQ and working-memory loss at age seven, on the WISC-IV. | EHP 119(8):1196 |
| PediatricsColumbia CCCEH, 3-year follow-up | 2006 | 254 inner-city children assessed at 12, 24 and 36 months against cord-plasma exposure levels | Highly exposed children scored 6.5 points lower on the Bayley psychomotor index and 3.3 points lower on the mental index by age three. | Pediatrics 118(6):e1845 |
| EPA Human Health Risk AssessmentsRegistration review, docket EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0653 | 2014 2016 2020 |
General U.S. population: dietary residues, drinking water and agricultural drift, with children assessed separately | The agency found expected food residues exceed the federal safety standard, that most drinking-water exposures stay above safe levels, and that the old cholinesterase endpoint was not protective enough given the neurodevelopmental data. | U.S. EPA |
They had the science. You deserve the answer.
What Chlorpyrifos Is Used For
Chlorpyrifos is an organophosphate insecticide, acaricide, and miticide that controls foliage- and soil-borne insect pests. It was once one of the most widely used pesticides and insecticides in the country.
Historical and current chlorpyrifos uses include:
- Fruits and vegetables: corn, soybeans, citrus, cotton, grapes, sugar beets, walnuts, apples, strawberries, peaches, tart cherries, alfalfa, spring and winter wheat, asparagus
- Greenhouse, nursery, and ornamental plant production
- Golf course turf and sod farms
- Seed treatments and grain storage facilities
- Wood treatment and structural applications, including utility poles and fence posts
- Cattle ear tags and other livestock pest control products
- Mosquito control and roach bait products
- Residential lawn, garden, and indoor pest control, until EPA phased out most home uses in 2000 and 2001
How People Are Exposed to Chlorpyrifos
Long-term residential exposure or exposure to chlorpyrifos as an agricultural worker is what drives most chlorpyrifos claims. The people exposed to chlorpyrifos at the highest levels are those who opened product containers, farm workers, mixers, and loaders handling concentrate, applicators riding open equipment through their own spray, and farm workers who cleaned tanks and nozzles without respiratory protection.
Re-entry exposure is also important. Farmers and pest control technicians were sent back into treated areas, absorbing residue through skin contact. Many also brought home residue, exposing pregnant women and children to the dangerous products.
Agricultural Settings: Maintenance, Groundskeepers, Greenhouse, Nursery, Ornamental Plant & Farm Workers
The people exposed to chlorpyrifos at the highest risk of developing parkinson’s disease are employees. Many handled concentrate daily across entire growing seasons for years or decades before the EPA ban/restricted the remaining food uses. Farmworkers were exposed to chlorpyrifos through skin contact during mixing and loading, inhalation during various application methods, and re-entry.
Workers with potential exposure include:
- Licensed agricultural applicators and crop dusters
- Farmworkers who mixed, loaded, or applied product
- Greenhouse, nursery, and ornamental plant workers
- Grain elevator and seed treatment workers
- Golf course and turf maintenance crews
- Groundskeepers at schools, parks, and commercial properties
Our Texas farm injury attorneys are accepting cases nationwide.
Pest Control Technicians
We believe most of the future Dursban lawsuit cases will come from pest control technicians, as structural pest control was Dursban’s home market. Technicians applied it inside houses, schools, restaurants, and offices, in enclosed spaces with limited ventilation. The first person who filed after developing parkinson’s disease worked in pest control.
If you are a pest control worker who developed parkinson’s disease after spraying a widely-used pesticide, contact a chlorpyrifos attorney for a free consultation. You may be entitled to significant compensation.
Chlorpyrifos in Drinking Water/Food: Residents Within Drift Range
Victims don’t have to be pesticide applicators for chlorpyrifos exposure to occur. They can be exposed to chlorpyrifos in drinking water. Spray drift carries beyond the farms or agricultural settings. Researchers found that residues of the pesticide chlorpyrifos reach groundwater, private wells, and food crops. Families living or working near treated agricultural areas are at potential risk of exposure to chlorpyrifos without being a farmer or applicator themselves. This is the basis for many bystander and in utero claims. Our personal injury attorneys handle toxic exposure claims for residents as well as agricultural workers, and in most cases, our Texas occupational exposure lawyers handle the employment side.
Regulatory Timeline of Chlorpyrifos Cases: The Chlorpyrifos EPA Ban & Tolerances
A major question in chlorpyrifos lawsuits is what the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) required on Chlorpyrifos products’ labels. In Monsanto Co. v. Durnell, the Supreme Court held that FIFRA preempts state failure-to-warn cases that would force a manufacturer to add a warning EPA did not require.
The record is still important. It shows what the Environmental Protection Agency reviewed and when.
| Date | Action | Agency or Court | Practical Effect on Users |
|---|---|---|---|
| Aug. 2021 | Final rule revoking all chlorpyrifos food and feed tolerances. | U.S. EPA | Every registered crop use ends. Food and feed application stops. |
| Nov. 2, 2023 | 2021 rule vacated and remanded. EPA should have weighed modifying tolerances, not only revoking them. | Eighth Circuit | Blanket revocation no longer stands. EPA must reconsider. |
| Dec. 28, 2023 | Mandate issues. | Eighth Circuit | All tolerances automatically back in effect. Legal application resumes. |
| Feb. 5, 2024 | Federal Register notice amending the CFR to reflect reinstatement. | U.S. EPA | Published regulations catch up to the court. No change on the ground. |
| Sept. 30, 2024 | Amended labels approved, reflecting voluntary cancellations and 2020 geographic and application limits. | U.S. EPA | Food uses narrow to 11 crops in specified states. The label binds the applicator, not the tolerance. |
| Dec. 2024 | Proposed rule to revoke all tolerances except those tied to the 11 crops that remain registered. | U.S. EPA | EPA projects a 70% cut in average annual pounds applied nationwide. Proposed, not final. |
| 2026 | Amended Proposed Interim Decision expected for comment, followed by an Interim Decision. | U.S. EPA | Registration review still open. Remaining uses can be tightened or pulled. |
Federal tolerance and registration actions only; state restrictions may be stricter. Current as of October, 7, 2026. Past exposure may support a claim regardless of what is registered today.
While Durnell narrows cases, it doesn’t end them. Design defect, manufacturing defect, negligent testing, express warranty, and off-label advertising cases don’t depend on labels. Products shipped with labels departing from what the EPA approved do, as well.
The Court also left implied preemption undecided. The question is no longer whether the manufacturer failed to warn. It’s whether claims can stand without asking juries to rewrite EPA-approved labels.
The Federal Register notice proposing revocation of most chlorpyrifos tolerances documents the current posture.
Evidence Needed For Chlorpyrifos Lawsuits: Proving Exposure & Harmful Effects
For decades-old chlorpyrifos exposure cases, product identification is the hardest element. However, our chlorpyrifos attorneys have extensive experience with this process. This is the same product identification work our Roundup attorneys do in glyphosate claims.
Evidence checklist:
- Employment records showing job title, dates, and employer for every exposure period
- Union, licensing, or applicator certification records
- Names of specific products, formulations, and crops treated
- Pesticide application logs, invoices, or purchase records
- Co-worker and supervisor statements confirming product use
- Complete medical records
- Residential and workplace address history for proximity analysis
- Photographs of product containers, labels, or equipment
Compensation in a Chlorpyrifos Lawsuit
Chlorpyrifos cases are just starting. There isn’t a settlement average for chlorpyrifos parkinson’s lawsuits or chlorpyrifos birth injury lawsuits. However, our Chlorpyrifos lawyers are seeking maximum compensation on behalf of victims across the country. Victims can recover compensation for the following and more:
- Past and future medical expenses, including neurology, therapy, and medication
- Long-term and in-home care costs
- Lost wages and diminished earning capacity
- Pain and suffering
- Loss of consortium
- For birth injury claims, lifetime special education and developmental services
- Wrongful death and survival damages where the exposed person has died
- Exemplary damages where the evidence supports them
As the legal process continues, the value of an individual chlorpyrifos lawsuit will vary based on:
- severity, stage, and age of the diagnosis, and
- short-term vs long-term exposure to chlorpyrifos.
How compensation frameworks developed in the paraquat litigation are the closest available model, and surviving family members filing after a death pursue a distinct set of damages.
Chlorpyrifos Lawsuit Deadlines
There have been many years in between the bans and when parkinson’s disease researchers linked exposure to chlorpyrifos with parkinson’s disease. If the deadline ran from the last time the victim was exposed to chlorpyrifos, all lawsuits would be dead on arrival.
Most states have a discovery rule for latent diseases. This means the statute of limitations starts when the person is diagnosed and should reasonably know they developed parkinson’s disease as a result of chlorpyrifos exposure. Which state’s law applies depends on where you were exposed to chlorpyrifos and where you’ve lived. The Texas personal injury filing deadline works is one framework among fifty. Claims filed on behalf of a minor usually follow separate tolling rules entirely.
If you developed parkinson’s disease or a neurological injury, or if you were exposed to chlorpyrifos during pregnancy and your child developed a neurological disorder, we can help you determine if you’re eligible to file a chlorpyrifos exposure lawsuit.
How to File a Chlorpyrifos Lawsuit
-
1
Confirm the diagnosis. Parkinson's disease, neurological injury, or birth injury — then pull the medical records that prove it.
-
2
Rebuild the exposure. Employer, product, and date range. Every year counts.
-
3
Talk to a toxic tort attorney. The consultation is free and confidential.
-
4
We trace the chemical. Product identification and defendant lineage, verified back to the manufacturer.
-
5
File inside the deadline. Miss the applicable period and the claim is gone.
-
6
Move through discovery. Deposition and medical examination, with your attorney beside you.
-
7
Settle or try the case. You weigh the offer. The decision stays yours.
Filing Chlorpyrifos Lawsuits Nationwide From Texas
We accept chlorpyrifos claims nationwide from our Houston law firm. Venue follows the chlorpyrifos exposure and the defendants, not the victim’s residence. The chlorpyrifos lawsuit is regularly filed in a state the claimant does not live in.
Chlorpyrifos Claims in Houston and Harris County
Texas cases are typically venued in the Harris County Civil District Courts or, on removal or diversity, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas. Houston-area claimants are usually diagnosed and treated through the Texas Medical Center, and those records form the medical backbone of a neurological injury or Parkinson’s disease lawsuit.
If you were harmed in Harris County, call a Houston personal injury attorney for a free case review.
Chlorpyrifos Exposure Across Texas Agricultural Regions
Chlorpyrifos exposure in Texas tracks the crops that retained tolerances: cotton in the High Plains and Coastal Bend, citrus in the Rio Grande Valley, and row crops through the Brazos Valley and Blackland Prairie. We take claims from applicators, farmworkers, and residents in Fort Bend, Brazoria, Galveston, Waller, Montgomery, Hidalgo, Cameron, Lubbock, and Hale counties.
Filing Chlorpyrifos Claims Nationwide
Our law firm is taking neurological injury and parkinson’s disease lawsuits across the country. The venue is determined by where the chlorpyrifos exposure occurred and the defendant’s contacts, so living outside Texas doesn’t affect eligibility or how the case is handled.
Chlorpyrifos Pesticide Lawsuit FAQs
Is there a chlorpyrifos class action lawsuit?
No, there isn’t a chlorpyrifos class action. People diagnosed with parkinson’s disease or neurological injuries caused by chlorpyrifos exposure are pursuing chlorpyrifos lawsuits individually right now. However, if enough victims come forward, lawsuits may be consolidated into an MDL. Here:
- Each victim keeps a separate case and recovery
- Consolidation wouldn’t reduce the individual’s compensation
Where is chlorpyrifos banned?
Chlorpyrifos is banned outright in the European Union, the United Kingdom, Canada, and six U.S. states: California, Hawaii, Maryland, New York, Oregon, and Maine. The EPA proposed a ban on food uses in 2015-2016. In 2000, manufacturers agreed to eliminate most residential uses.
European Union and UK: The UK and EU have banned chlorpyrifos since 2016 and 2020, respectively, over developmental neurotoxicity and possible genotoxicity, apart from limited seedling drenching.
- Other countries that have banned chlorpyrifos: Canada (2023), Thailand (2020), Malaysia (agricultural applications), New Zealand (began revoking approvals), Singapore (manufacture, import, and export prohibition), and India (still permits on 18 crops).
- U.S. states that ban chlorpyrifos: Hawaii acted first in June 2018. California ended agricultural use, and Maryland banned all uses of chlorpyrifos in 2020. New York followed in July 2021, and Maine in 2022, and Oregon’s ban took effect in 2024.
In 2021, the Biden EPA revoked all chlorpyrifos food tolerances. The 8th Circuit Court of Appeals vacated the EPA’s 2021 ban on chlorpyrifos in 2023, citing failure to consider alternatives. The EPA’s December 2024 proposed rule would keep 11 high-value crop uses: alfalfa, apple, asparagus, tart cherry, citrus, cotton, peach, soybean, strawberry, sugar beet, and spring and winter wheat. A 2025 treaty decision now commits most of the world to phase the pesticide out.
Next step: Confirm current status with your state department of agriculture, since state bans control regardless of federal registration.
What is the difference between Dursban and Lorsban?
The difference between Dursban and Lorsban products is that Dursban was a residential and structural product, while Lorsban products were strictly for certified pesticide applicators in agricultural settings. If you used Dursban, this generally means you were exposed to chlorpyrifos through residential buildings or pest control work. If you used Lorsban, you were exposed to chlorpyrifos in agricultural fields, orchards, or farm work.
- Dursban products: discontinued for residential use over two decades ago
- Lorsban products: production ended in 2020
- Both trace to Dow Chemical Company and, through Dow AgroSciences, to Corteva Agriscience (now Corteva Inc.)
Can I file a chlorpyrifos lawsuit if I was exposed in the 1980s or 1990s?
Often, yes, you can file a chlorpyrifos lawsuit for 80s or 90s exposure. Most states start the clock when the people exposed to chlorpyrifos are diagnosed with parkinson’s disease or realize the neurological injuries were a result of chlorpyrifos exposure under latent disease rules. The hurdle isn’t generally the deadline but proving which dangerous product you handled. Our chlorpyrifos lawyers can use employment and union records, however.
Can I file a chlorpyrifos claim if the person exposed has already died?
Yes, if your loved one suffered from long-term exposure to chlorpyrifos, the family can bring a wrongful death and survival action on their behalf to seek compensation for medical expenses, funeral costs, and other damages related to the chlorpyrifos exposure.
- Eligible family members are generally spouses, children, or parents
- Medical records and death certificates are typically needed
- Deadlines are often shorter than personal injury timelines
Can I file a claim on behalf of my child?
Yes. A parent or guardian files on a minor’s behalf. Neurological damage in children involving prenatal exposure to chlorpyrifos is brought by the child’s parent. In most states, the deadline is tolled until the child reaches adulthood. However, we recommend filing a chlorpyrifos lawsuit for neurological injuries earlier because evidence degrades. We handle birth injury claims brought on a child’s behalf across both physical injury and developmental neurotoxicity.
What if I do not remember the product name?
Most claimants remember a crop, an employer, and a decade rather than a chemical. Our chlorpyrifos attorneys reconstruct identification through employment records, application logs, EPA registration data, and co-worker testimony.
What does it cost to hire a chlorpyrifos lawyer?
Nothing upfront. We work on a contingency-fee basis. You don’t pay any upfront fees and don’t owe anything unless we recover compensation on your behalf. Consultations are free and confidential, and you have no obligation to file.
Exposed to Chlorpyrifos? Contact Our Law Firm For a Free Case Evaluation
If you or your child was exposed to Dursban, Lorsban, or another chlorpyrifos product and was later diagnosed with Parkinson’s disease or another type of neurological disorder, contact our law firm for a free consultation. Call 713-622-7271 or request a free evaluation online.There is never a fee unless we recover on your behalf.
Additionally, clients are not obligated to pay expenses if a recovery is not made.
