 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Griffin v. Baker Petrolite Corp.9/17/2004
s peculiar to or characteristic of [Plaintiff's] employment with" Defendant.
In February 2000, Plaintiff commenced the instant action, claiming actual and punitive damages arising from his wrongful, retaliatory discharge by Defendant in violation of 85 O.S. §5, and Defendant's intentional infliction of emotional distress, i.e., Defendant's extreme, outrageous, reckless and/or intentional acts in failing to address and protect employees from the known dangers of ethylene oxide in the work place. Plaintiff subsequently confessed Defendant's motion for summary judgment on his retaliatory discharge claim.
Defendant then filed another motion for summary judgment, presenting evidentiary materials showing Plaintiff's recovery in the Workers' Compensation Court for his job -related occupational disease, and argued to demonstrate its abatement of reported hazards, including an OSHA inspection, soon after Plaintiff's discharge, which "disclosed no existing leaks of hazardous chemicals." Defendant argued that (1) the exclusive remedy provisions of the Oklahoma Workers' Compensation Act (Act), 85 O.S. §§1, et seq., §11 and §12, barred prosecution of the emotional distress claim; (2) Plaintiff's election to pursue and accept workers' compensation remedies precluded assertion of his emotional distress claim; and (3) the complained-of conduct -- failure to protect from exposure to harmful chemicals -- did not even arguably rise to the extreme and outrageous, intentional and/or reckless level necessary to support an actionable emotional distress claim.
Plaintiff responded, presenting evidentiary materials argued to show Defendant's appreciation of the hazards associated with inhalation of ethylene oxide, and Defendant's failure or refusal to abate the ethylene oxide pollution in the pilot plant in spite of numerous reports and requests for repairs. Plaintiff argued that neither the exclusive remedy provisions of the Workers' Compensation Act, nor his election to pursue and accept his workers' compensation remedies for his physical injury under the Act, precluded prosecution of his emotional distress claim, an intentional tort and a matter outside the scope of Workers' Compensation remedies. Plaintiff also argued the evidentiary materials, when viewed in the light most favorable to him, established a controversy of material fact concerning whether Defendant's acts were sufficiently extreme and outrageous as to permit his recovery, precluding the summary disposition of his claim.
On consideration of the parties' arguments and submissions, the trial court granted Defendant's second motion for summary judgment, finding "that Plaintiff's claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress is barred by the exclusive remedy provision contained within 85 O.S. §12." Plaintiff appeals, and the matter stands submitted for accelerated review on the trial court record.
Section 11 of title 85 directs that " very employer subject to the provisions of the . . . Act shall pay, or provide as required by the . . . Act, compensation . . . the disability or death of an employee resulting from an accidental personal injury sustained by the employee arising out of and in the course of employment, without regard to fault as a cause of such injury" except in limited circumstances. "The liability prescribed in Section 11 . . . shall be exclusive and in place of all other liability of the employer and any of his employees, . . . , at common law or otherwise, for such injury, loss of services, or death, to the employee, or the spouse, personal representative, parents, or dependents of the employee, or any other person." 85 O.S. §12. (Emphasis added.)
The exclusive remedy
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.
|
|