Plaintiff worked in the design and manufacturing group for a clothing manufacturing company in 2017 when she became seriously injured by exposure to the toxic chemicals contained within and present on the fabrics and materials she worked with in her job.
Plaintiff asserted that the fabrics and materials used in the design and development stages of production contained harmful chemical compounds. Defendant knew that its fabrics and materials could be toxic but performed no testing prior to exposing its employees to the potentially toxic fabrics. Defendant required its employees involved with the design, development, and quality assurance processes to handle these potentially toxic fabrics and materials and store them in their workspaces. Defendant provided no information to its employees about the chemical composition or toxicity of the fabrics and materials, nor did they warn their employees about the potentially toxic nature of the fabrics.
In July 2017, Plaintiff suffered initial rash symptoms as a result of her excessive exposure to the untested toxic chemicals in the fabrics and materials. Defendant had both actual knowledge and constructive knowledge that plaintiff was being exposed to potentially toxic fabrics and materials and had been injured by them. Plaintiff complained repeatedly to Defendant about her condition, requested testing, and eventually expressed suspicion that it might be related to their fabrics. Defendant fraudulently concealed its knowledge about plaintiff’s injury by denying that her condition could be caused by the fabrics at work and continued to expose plaintiff to the toxic chemicals that had caused her initial injury – a breakdown of the dermal barrier – which caused her condition to progressively worsen causing a severe permanent allergic condition. Defendant’s fraudulent conduct also prevented plaintiff from receiving timely, appropriate and necessary medical treatment.
Defendant argued that Plaintiff’s civil claims were barred by the exclusive remedy provisions of the workers’ compensation laws. The case settled in mediation that resolved both the civil case and the concurrent workers compensation case.
The matter resolved from global mediation that included the civil and workers’ compensation cases for a total of $1,450,000.