Keogh Cox Secures Dismissal Of Alleged Chemical / Environmental Exposure Case: Worker’s Compensation Immunity

In Rowland v. BASF, 20- 278 (La. App. 1 Cir. 3/29/21), 2021 WL 1170326, the Louisiana First Circuit Court of Appeal ruled that a claim for death benefits filed by a widow whose husband died from an occupational disease was not prescribed, even though her deceased husband’s claim for workers’ compensation benefits would have been time-barred.

The claimant’s husband was exposed to asbestos from 1969 to 1989 while working for BASF. He was diagnosed with occupationally-related asbestos in 2001 and passed away on July 27, 2018. A claim for Workers’ compensation death benefits against BASF was filed on December 26, 2018.

BASF filed an “Exception of Prescription &/or Motion for Summary Judgment” and argued the widow’s claim was derivative of her husband’s cause of action. BASF contended that, because the employee’s claim would have been prescribed, her claim for death benefits also prescribed. In response, the claimant argued suit was timely because it was filed within one year of the employee’s death as required by La. R.S. 23:1031.1(F). The Worker’s compensation trial judge granted the exception of prescription.

The First Circuit reversed, accepting the claimant’s argument that the claim was timely because it was filed within one year of death. The court rejected BASF’s argument that the death benefit claim could be pursued only if the deceased husband had filed a Worker’s comp claim prior to his death.

In support of dismissal, BASF also cited La. R.S. 23:1231(A), which provides there is no right of action to pursue death benefits if the claim is not filed within two years of the employee’s last treatment. However, the Rowland court did not address this issue because BASF had not filed an Exception of No Right of Action and did not factually establish when the deceased employee last received treatment for asbestos. Moving forward, the viability of the claim will depend upon whether her husband died within two years of the last treatment related to the occupational disease.

A recent decision from the Louisiana Third Circuit Court of Appeal re-affirms the merchant liability rules. In Carolyn R. Miller and Steven Rathjen v. Willis Communications, et. al., 19-787 (La. App. 3 Cir. 6/24/20), the plaintiff was an elderly patron of an AT&T store. Plaintiff and her daughter were assisted at the customer service desk, and plaintiff took a seat in a rolling chair. When she attempted to stand up, the rolling chair moved, and she fell to the floor breaking a hip.

Plaintiff filed suit under the merchant’s liability statute, La. R.S. 9:2800.6. Per the statute, if a negligence claim is brought against a merchant by a person lawfully on the merchant’s premises for injuries sustained because of a fall, then plaintiff must prove: 1) that the condition of the merchant’s premises presented an unreasonable risk of harm that was reasonably foreseeable; 2) that the merchant created the risk or had actual or constructive knowledge of the condition; and 3) that the merchant failed to exercise reasonable care to address the unreasonable risk of harm. Plaintiff argued that an unreasonable risk of harm was created when she was given a chair on rollers on flooring allegedly unsafe for use with a rolling chair.

The defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, which was denied by the trial court. The appellate court reversed and entered summary judgment. The appellate court found that the critical element of plaintiff’s burden of proof was missing – any defect in the rolling chair. Plaintiff admitted that the chair was not defective. Instead, she argued that she should not have been given a rolling chair to sit in because of her age, obvious mobility issues, and because the rolling chair was unsafe on the flooring of the store.

Evidence was presented that: 1) plaintiff’s daughter was able to maneuver the rolling chair without incident; 2) the daughter did not believe that plaintiff would have trouble navigating the rolling chair; and 3) no other customer had ever fallen out of one of the rolling chairs. Simply, what occurred at the AT&T store was an accident, for which AT&T and its employees were not responsible. Plaintiff, well aware of her own physical limitations, chose to sit in a rolling chair that she physically was unable to get out of on her own. Based upon this evidence, the court reasoned that plaintiff did not prove that: 1) the rolling chair posed an unreasonable risk of harm; or 2) the merchant possessed actual or constructive knowledge of any defect.

Following decisions which imposed harsh standards upon retailers, the Louisiana Legislature adopted the merchant’s liability statute to limit recovery to cases involving true negligence. The Carolyn R. Miller decision demonstrates that the statute is properly used in motion practice to resolve cases where the merchant lacks advance knowledge of the claimed unreasonable risk. Sometimes, an accident is just an accident.

Virginia “Jenny” McLin is a partner at Keogh Cox who practices in the fields of corporate litigation, insurance defense and workers compensation defense. When she is not practicing law, Jenny can be found volunteering with the Junior League of Baton Rouge; cheering for the LSU Tigers with her husband Ryan; or shuffling her two kids to and from dance practice.

In Louisiana, a “statutory employer” is entitled to protection from tort suit. With limited exceptions, the defense must be supported by a contractual provision declaring the defendant to be a statutory employer in a manner consistent with La. RS 23:1061. In Spears v. Exxon Mobil Corporation & Turner Industries Group, LLC, 2019-0309, 291 So. 3d 1087 (La. App. 1^st Cir. 2019), the defendant-premises owner successfully asserted the defense, notwithstanding multiple issues with respect to the nature and terms of the agreement and an alleged lack of privity with the plaintiff’s immediate employer.

In Spears, the plaintiff was injured when he slipped and fell on the production floor at the Exxon plastics plant. Spears filed suit against multiple parties, including Exxon, alleging it failed to provide a safe premises. The plaintiff worked for Poly Trucking who operated at Exxon under a contract with Polly-America. Poly-America, LP and Exxon, in turn, were signatories to an agreement entitled "STANDARD PURCHASE ORDER" which stated that Polly-America was to:

"… provide pickup/delivery service… For all containers of Polyethylene scrap as well as Polyethylene's scrap recovery vacuum service for a quoted amount of one dollar.”

The "STANDARD PURCHASE ORDER" also contained a section expressly recognizing Exxon:

“… as the statutory employer of employees of Poly America and subcontractors while such employees are engaged in the contracted work.”

Exxon filed a motion for summary judgment based upon its status as Spears’ statutory employer. The Trial Court granted the motion and dismissed Exxon with prejudice. On appeal, Spears argued that the contract between Exxon and Poly-America presented multiple issues of fact and law which necessitated a reversal of the summary judgment. The issues identified by the plaintiff included the following:

1. The agreement upon which Exxon relied was a “Contract of Sale,” not a “Contract for Services;”
2. The agreement specified that the signatory contractor (Poly America) was an "Independent Contractor;"
3. The plaintiff’s immediate employer (Poly Trucking) was neither a signatory to, nor specifically identified anywhere in the agreement; and,
4. Although the agreement designated Exxon as the statutory employer of the “employees of Poly America,” Exxon is not specifically designated as the statutory employer of the employees of Poly Trucking, the plaintiff’s immediate employer.

The First Circuit Court of Appeal expressly rejected each of the plaintiff's arguments.

First, the Court pointed out that the law does not mandate that the contract containing the statutory employment language be of any particular type. As such, whether the contract was considered a contract of sale or for services was irrelevant.

Secondly, the Court rejected the claim that contractual language describing Exxon as an “independent contractor” required a rejection of the statutory defense. The Spears Court reasoned that nothing in La. RS 23:1061 prevents an independent contractor from entering into a written agreement whereby the principal to that contract is recognized as the statutory employer of the employees of the contractor and its subcontractors.

Finally, the Court rejected the claim the defense should be rejected because the plaintiff’s immediate employer was not a party to the contract. As discussed in Spears, the law provides that the contract establishing statutory employment can be with either the plaintiff’s immediate employer or the plaintiff’s statutory employer, and Poly America qualified as the plaintiff’s statutory employer under the “two contract” theory because the work that Poly America subcontracted to the plaintiff’s immediate employer (Poly Trucking) was included within Poly America’s “STANDARD PURCHASE ORDER” contract with Exxon.

The Spears opinion highlights that the statutory defense should be maintained, even under unusual facts, when the requirements of La. RS 23:1061 are satisfied.