 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Griffin v. Baker Petrolite Corp.9/17/2004
Mandate Issued: 10/15/2004
__ P.3d __
AFFIRMED
Plaintiff/Appellant Charles Griffin (Plaintiff) seeks review of the trial court's order granting the motion for summary judgment of Defendant/Appellee Baker Petrolite Corporation (Defendant) on Plaintiff's claim to recover damages for Defendant's alleged intentional infliction of emotional distress. In this accelerated review proceeding, Plaintiff asserts (1) neither the exclusive remedy provisions of the Oklahoma Workers' Compensation Act, 85 O.S. §§1, et seq., §11 and §12, nor his "election" to pursue and accept workers' compensation benefits for his job -related occupational disease, bar prosecution of his emotional distress claim, and (2) construing the facts in the light most favorable to him, there exist material facts in controversy concerning whether Defendant's acts were sufficiently extreme and outrageous as to permit recovery, precluding the summary disposition of his claim. Having reviewed the record, however, we hold the order of the trial court should be, and hereby is, affirmed.
In April 1997, Plaintiff applied for and accepted employment at Defendant's Sand Springs facility as a pilot plant process chemist, a position in which Plaintiff knew he would be exposed to various chemicals. Defendant assigned him to work on a project in the pilot plant, where, in the course of his employment, he was exposed to several gaseous substances, including ethylene oxide, dioxane and boron trifluoride etherate, in the process of producing batches of chemicals for a customer of Defendant.
According to Plaintiff, the pilot plant production facility was plagued by problems. Particularly, Plaintiff averred the production equipment leaked excessive ethylene oxide, and that Defendant made little or no effort to ameliorate the problem, in spite of warnings by the customer concerning the hazards of inhaled ethylene oxide, and internal requests for repair of the production equipment.
Plaintiff subsequently asserted physical symptoms as a result of his on-the-job exposures, eventually refused to return to his work station in the pilot plant, and requested reassignment to a different position. According to Defendant, there were no other positions for Plaintiff in the facility, and, when Plaintiff reiterated he would not return to work in the pilot plant, the Defendant "accepted [Plaintiff's] resignation -- effective February 5, 1998 -- for his refusal to perform the job for which he had been hired."
Plaintiff filed a complaint with the United States Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), asserting his prohibited discharge for submission of his health and safety complaints to Defendant. An OSHA investigator determined Plaintiff's complaint "to be without merit." OSHA consequently dismissed his complaint and denied his administrative appeal, citing "a negative OSHA inspection[,] . . . his employer addressing all safety concerns raised," and the evidence of his termination "for unrelated disciplinary reasons."
On or about May 11, 1998, Plaintiff filed a Form 3 in the Oklahoma Workers' Compensation Court, asserting a compensable cumulative trauma respiratory illness from exposure to "ethylene oxide, dioxane, BF3 and other chemicals" arising out of and in the course of his employment with Defendant. By order filed May 1, 2002, the Workers' Compensation Court eventually awarded Plaintiff benefits for two percent (2%) permanent partial disability to the body as whole for "an occupational disease consisting of injury to the LUNGS due to the continued inhalation of, and exposure to, harmful dust, smoke and fumes," "exposure [to which] wa
Page 1 2 3 4 Oklahoma Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|