قالب وردپرس درنا توس
Home / Insurance / Chemical workers with cancer drop cases against Exxon, subcontractors

Chemical workers with cancer drop cases against Exxon, subcontractors



A former chemical industry worker failed to show that Exxon Mobil and the subcontractors he worked for were intentionally negligent or that their behavior caused his cancer. court order granting the companies a summary judgment after agreeing that the employee's claim was obstructed by the exclusivity provision of the Louisiana Workers' Compensation Act. The case is Million against Exxon Mobil Corp .

James Million worked in the chemical industry for 40 years and spent at least part of his career for two Exxon Mobil subcontractors. In 2016, he was diagnosed with cancer and a pulmonary embolism that he claimed was a result of his exposure to dangerous chemicals, including benzene and vinyl chloride, during his employment.

He and his wife sued Exxon Mobil and subcontractors at the Louisiana District Court, claiming negligence and strict liability.

The subcontractors submitted a request for a summary judgment and claimed that Mr. Millions' claims were excluded by the exclusivity provision in the State Compensation Act. Although Mr. Million claimed that the subcontractors intentionally caused his exposure to toxic chemicals, the district court found that he did not show any real question of material facts that any action by the subcontractors was covered by the workers' compensation for intentional indemnity and granted a summary judgment

Exxon also on the basis that Mr. Million did not provide medical evidence to prove the causal link to his cancer, which was also granted.

Mr. Million appealed, but the Board of Appeal upheld the district court's decision. Although Mr. Million argued that the subcontractors did not provide adequate safety equipment, ensure proper ventilation of workplaces or properly trained employees, the Board of Appeal considered that even if the allegations were accepted as true, they would constitute negligence, not necessary intentional damage.

The Board of Appeal also confirmed the district court's grant of a summary judgment to Exxon and noted that Mr. Million did not provide the necessary medical testimony to prove evidence of causation. Catalog

Catalog


Source link