Federal: Workers’ Civil Action Against Employer Related to Chemical Release Can Continue Toward Trial

A civil action filed against BP Products North America, Inc. (“BP”) by more than 500 plaintiffs—including some 315 employees—in connection with an accidental chemical release by the refinery may continue toward trial, held a federal district court in Texas. BP had filed a motion for partial summary judgment, contending the employees’ civil action was barred by the exclusive remedy provisions of the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act. Acknowledging that BP had shown that at the time of the alleged chemical release the 315 “worker” plaintiffs were employees, the federal court stressed that wasn’t sufficient. BP must show two things: (a) that the employees were covered by workers’ compensation insurance and (b) that the injuries suffered were “work-related.” Under Tex. Lab. Code § 401.011(10), in order to prove that second element of the defense, BP was required to show that the injuries occurred “in the scope and course of employment.” BP had not offered any evidence to that second prong in the exclusivity defense.

Thomas A. Robinson, J.D., the Feature National Columnist for the LexisNexis Workers’ Compensation eNewsletter, is a leading commentator and expert on the law of workers’ compensation.

LexisNexis Online Subscribers: Citations below link to Lexis Advance. Bracketed citations link to lexis.com.

See Boyd v. BP Prods N. Am. Inc., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1017 (S.D. Tex. Jan. 6, 2015) [2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1017 (S.D. Tex. Jan. 6, 2015)]

See generally Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, § 100.04 [100.04]

For a more detailed discussion of the case, see http://www.workcompwriter.com/for-now-exclusivity-does-not-bar-workers-tort-cases-against-bp-products-following-2011-chemical-release-at-refinery/

Source: Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, the nation’s leading authority on workers’ compensation law.