 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Allen v. General Electric Co.12/23/1999
Donald Allen's complaint against General Electric and the other named defendants (collectively "G.E."), related to injuries sustained cleaning up chemicals, was dismissed on a summary judgment as time barred. Mr. Allen in his appeal argues (1) material facts remain in dispute, and (2) the trial court applied the wrong statute of limitations. We disagree and affirm.
FACTS
Mr. Allen worked as a contract laborer for Qualified Personnel Inc. In November 1988, he was part of a crew assigned to clean up Polychlorinated Biphenyl (PCB) from five utility rooms at the Kaiser Trentwood plant. During the cleanup, workers collected and deposited waste slurry into barrels then transported them to approved waste sites. Mr. Allen says he was told the cleaning chemicals he was using were similar to common household products. The cleaning solution was actually "Capsure," a solvent containing ethyl and methyl Benzine, Naphaline, and Xylene. During the cleanup project, Mr. Allen and several of his co-workers experienced health problems. State and Spokane County health workers investigated. Although the health workers first suspected Legionellosis, their studies soon focused on chemical exposure as the cause. Survey results indicated 87 percent of the Kaiser-project workers reported health problems.
In December 1988 and January 1989, Mr. Allen met with Diane Nebel, a County health worker. Mr. Allen reported experiencing health problems such as chronic cough, shortness of breath, skin rash, and headaches. In September 1989, Ms. Nebel wrote a letter to all of the Kaiser-project workers, including Mr. Allen, telling them the results of the Kaiser investigation including the chemicals, involved the possibility for long-term health effects, and advising them to file claims with Labor and Industries (L&I;. In August 1989, Mr. Allen told Ms. Nebel that he was going to file an L&I;claim. In October 1989, Mr. Allen consulted with Dr. Paula Lantsberger. Dr. Lantsberger believed Mr. Allen's health problems were attributable to chemical exposure from the Kaiser project. Mr. Allen filed an L&I;claim in October 1989. The claim specified health problems due to chemical exposure during the Kaiser project in November 1988. Dr. Lantsberger's written report reaching the same conclusion accompanied Mr. Allen's L&I;claim. Mr. Allen later asserted that he thought the L&I;claim was related to work at a truck stop, not Kaiser.
In December 1990, Mr. Allen met with Anita Reno, a vocational rehabilitation consultant hired by L&I; Mr. Allen told Ms. Reno he had been injured doing hazardous waste clean up at the Kaiser project. He told Ms. Reno he was aware several of his similarly injured co-workers had filed a lawsuit against G.E.
On July 13, 1995, Mr. Allen filed this lawsuit against G.E. claiming damages for the injuries he sustained during the Kaiser project. He alleged outrage, fraud and violation of his "right to know" for G.E.'s failure to disclose the hazardous chemicals. Mr. Allen asserted he was unaware of G.E.'s concealment or the true nature of the chemicals until 1994 after disclosure in his co-worker's trial.
In February 1998, G.E. filed for summary judgment alleging Mr. Allen's claims were time barred. G.E. supported its motion with deposition excerpts, interrogatories, and affidavits from persons involved in the Kaiser project investigation. Mr. Allen did not respond. The court decided after argument:
based upon the evidence that the court has before it at the present time, which consists of the various Pleadings and the defendants' motion and attachments, and based upon the argument that I have allowed up to this point in t
Page 1 2 3 4 Washington Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|