A worker claimed he had suffered injuries on the job in Ohio, and wanted to sue the manufacturer and distributor of the chemical that caused his injury. He filed for summary judgment, arguing that they were negligent and in violation of federal safety regulations. Though his request for summary judgement was not granted, United States District Judge Mark Hornak of the Western District of Pennsylvania decided that he could proceed with his tort case. His previous workers’ compensation claim against his employer for injuries he allegedly sustained because of the chemicals did not prevent him from filing a tort claim against the manufacturer and distributor, who were not his employers.

Robert Lucas worked for Oxford Mining Co. in Ohio and worked with fuel additives in his job but was not equipped with protective respiratory equipment. He took chemicals from a large drum and mixed them, cranking it into a 5 gallon gas can that he used to pour the chemicals into a funnel while changing filters in mining equipment. He alleged that he suffered neurological impairments and seizures as a result of working with the substances.

American Clean Energy Systems, Inc. shipped the chemical he worked with. They and several other companies are named as defendants in the suit because they manufactured, sold or distributed these toxic chemicals.

Lucas had already gone through a workers’ compensation claim with his former employer in Ohio, and so the defendants in the case argued that the causation of his injuries was already settled in that case. His case against Oxford was dismissed by the Ohio Industrial Commission and the Ohio Court of Common Pleas. Judge Hornak determined that did not preclude the federal action Lucas now sought.

Ohio’s issue preclusion doctrine requires mutuality, and since the case was against his employer and had been dismissed by the Ohio Industrial Commission and the Ohio Court of Common Pleas the mutuality requirement really was not satisfied. Those cases dealt with a smaller scale situation said the judge, as the employer was merely the purchaser of a potentially harmful chemical. A suit against the manufacturer of a potentially harmful chemical could have a much greater impact. The judge determined that the employer and the manufacturer or distributors are not really related, for mutuality purposes, particularly when it comes to litigating the issue of causation.

Read more about the decision here.