Ruble v. Rust-Oleum Corp.

902 S.E.2d 873

Michael D. RUBLE and Brenda K. Ruble, Plaintiffs below, Petitioners,

v.RUST-OLEUM CORPORATION, et al., Defendants below, Respondents.

No. 22-0329

Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia.

Submitted: March 12, 2024

Filed: June 12, 2024

Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cabell County, The Honorable Paul T. Farrell, Judge, Civil Action No. 19-C-127

R. Dean Hartley, Esq., Mark R. Staun, Esq., David B. Lunsford, Esq., Hartley Law Group, PLLC, Wheeling, West Virginia, Counsel for the Petitioners

Ancil G. Ramey, Esq., Steptoe & Johnson PLLC, Huntington, West Virginia, James J.A. Mulhall, Esq., Morgantown, West Virginia, Dallas F. Kratzer III, Esq., Columbus, Ohio, Counsel for Respondent Matrix Chemical LLC

Rodney L. Baker, II, Esq., Steptoe & Johnson PLLC, Huntington, West Virginia, Counsel for Respondent The Early Construction Company

Niall A. Paul, Esq., Charity K. Lawrence, Esq., Spilman Thomas & Battle, PLLC, Charleston, West Virginia, Counsel for Respondent E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company

Edward A. Smallwood, Esq., Leo G. Daly, Esq., Colby S. Bryson, Esq., Post & Schell, P.C., Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, Counsel for Respondents Nouryon Functional Chemicals, incorrectly named as "Akzo Nobel Functional Chemicals, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company"; Nouryon Chemicals LLC, as successor to Akzo Chemicals LLC, formerly known as Akzo Chemicals Inc., incorrectly named as "Akzo Nobel Chemicals, Inc., a Delaware corporation"; Bayer Corporation and Bayer CropScience, LP; and Monsanto Company HUTCHISON, Justice:

In this appeal from the Circuit Court of Cabell County, we consider the doctrine of collateral estoppel. Specifically, we consider whether collateral estoppel (sometimes called "issue preclusion") applies such that a finding in a West Virginia workers’ compensation decision may be used to preclude litigation of that issue against a third party in a West Virginia circuit court.

In this case, a plaintiff alleges that he was injured when he was exposed at his employer’s worksite to defective, toxic chemicals manufactured by third parties. The plaintiff filed a product-defect lawsuit against the third-party manufacturers, as well as a workers’ compensation claim with his employer. The workers’ compensation administrative process produced a decision finding that the plaintiff failed to prove he developed an injury in the course of and as a result of his employment. The third-party manufacturers subsequently filed a motion to dismiss the product-defect lawsuit, arguing that the plaintiff was collaterally estopped from litigating causation in the courtroom when that issue had been resolved by the workers’ compensation administrative decision. The circuit court granted the motion to dismiss.

As set forth below, we reverse the circuit court’s dismissal order. We find that the workers' compensation process involved legal standards and procedural rules that were substantially different from those in a courtroom, and that process did not afford the plaintiff a full and fair opportunity to litigate whether the third-party manufacturers' chemicals were a cause of his injury. Accordingly, we reverse the circuit court’s order and remand the case for further proceedings.

I. Factual and Procedural Background

Between 1996 and 2018, plaintiff Michael D. Ruble worked at a chemical manufacturing plant near Lesage, West Virginia.¹ The plaintiff worked in the making of polyurethane stains, paint strippers, xylene, acetone, and other paint-related products. In the course of his employment, the plaintiff asserts he worked with, and was exposed to the hazards from, various toxic raw materials supplied by the "Chemical Supplier Defendants."

Starting in 2016 or 2017, the plaintiff says he began having some breathing problems that he attributed to his chemical exposure at work. By late 2017, the plaintiff alleges he began showing symptoms of tremors, swollen hands and feet and numbness, weakness, memory problems, and difficulty walking. He stopped working on May 1, 2018.

On March 18, 2019, the plaintiff filed suit against his past and current employers ("the Employer Defendants")² and against some of the Chemical Supplier Defendants. The plaintiff amended his complaint to add additional Chemical Supplier Defendants after receiving discovery from the Employer Defendants. In general, the plaintiff asserted that the Chemical Supplier Defendants had sent defective, toxic chemicals into the stream of interstate commerce and to the Lesage facility where he worked, and that these chemicals caused or contributed to his medical and physical problems.

Contemporaneously, the plaintiff sought a workers’ compensation remedy from his most recent employer, RPM International. The plaintiff filed a claim for occupational disease ³ benefits, but the employer’s claims administrator rejected the claim. The plaintiff appealed the claims administrator’s decision to the West Virginia Workers’ Compensation Office of Judges ("the OOJ").⁴ The record contains the decision of an administrative law judge employed by the OOJ, but that decision suggests that no hearings were held before that judge or any other OOJ judge. Instead, the decision indicates the parties merely proffered evidence into the record. The plaintiff admitted a copy of his deposition testimony, various medical reports from doctors he has visited over the years, several articles from medical journals, and an expert report stating that an interview with the plaintiff demonstrated that the employer violated various safety regulations. The employer submitted written reports from medical examinations it requested, and an affidavit from a company employee describing safety equipment on the premises, such as ventilation fans, and protective equipment that was given to employees. After submitting evidence to the OOJ, both parties submitted written closing arguments.

In his decision dated October 15, 2020, an OOJ administrative law judge reviewed the submitted evidence and concluded that "[a] preponderance of the evidence indicates that the substances which are blended, filled and shipped at the employer’s worksite can be toxic[.]" The judge also found that while the "employer makes efforts to ensure that its employees have reduced exposure to fumes and liquids from its products," "a preponderance of the evidence indicates there are gaps in this process." However, the judge found "the evidence regarding the [plaintiff’s] direct exposure to fumes and/or liquids is inconsistent and inconclusive." Importantly, the decision does not deny the existence of the plaintiff’s physical and medical problems; instead, the decision affirmed the denial of the plaintiff’s claim because he did not prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that he developed an occupational disease "in the course of and as a result of employment."

The plaintiff appealed this decision to the West Virginia Workers’ Compensation Board of Review ("the Board"). In an order dated April 22, 2021, and in a generalized fashion, the Board "adopt[ed] the findings of fact and conclusions of law of the Administrative Law Judge’s Decision dated October 15, 2020, which relate to the issue on appeal[.]" The Board then summarily affirmed the decision from the OOJ denying the plaintiff’s claim for workers’ compensation benefits. The plaintiff did not appeal the Board’s decision to this Court.

Thereafter, the plaintiff and the Employer Defendants jointly agreed to voluntarily dismiss the Employer Defendants from the case. On December 9, 2021, the circuit court entered an order dismissing the claims filed by the plaintiffs against the Employer Defendants. However, the order also dismissed all of the cross-claims filed by the Chemical Supplier Defendants against the Employer Defendants.

Counsel for one of the Chemical Supplier Defendants, Matrix Chemical LLC, objected to the dismissal order. In response, counsel for the Employer Defendants explained that the basis for the dismissal order was the outcome of the workers’ compensation proceeding. The Employer Defendants supplied the circuit court with copies of the OOJ decision and the order from the Board, both affirming the denial of the plaintiff’s workers’ compensation claim. Upon receipt of these documents, Matrix filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s complaint under West Virginia Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Other Chemical Supplier Defendants promptly joined Matrix’s motion.

The basis of Matrix’s motion to dismiss was the doctrine of collateral estoppel. Matrix argued that the plaintiff litigated to conclusion before the OOJ the same issue he was attempting to litigate before the circuit court, namely whether he had been injured by exposure to chemicals in the workplace. Because the workers’ compensation administrative process had resulted in a final ruling that the plaintiff had failed to establish an injury caused by workplace exposure, Matrix argued that the plaintiff could not collaterally challenge or relitigate that final ruling before the circuit court.

In an order dated April 4, 2022, the circuit court granted the motion to dismiss. The circuit court determined that collateral estoppel attached to the causation determination from the workers’ compensation decision, in part because an individual in the workers’ compensation administrative process may be represented by counsel and may request written discovery, take depositions, and proffer expert witnesses. The circuit court found, in part, that the plaintiff "had a full and fair opportunity to address the cause of his injuries[.]" Accordingly, the circuit court dismissed the plaintiff’s claims as to all of the defendants remaining in the case.

The plaintiff now appeals the circuit court’s April 4, 2022, dismissal order.

II. Standard of Review

[1] "Appellate review of a circuit court’s order granting a motion to dismiss a complaint is de now." Syl. pt. 2, State ex rel. McGraw v. Scott Runyan Pontiac-Buick, Inc., 194 W. Va....