Becker v. Murphy Oil Corp.
70 So. 3d 885
La. Ct. App.2011Background
- Plaintiffs allege long-term occupational noise exposure at Murphy Oil Meraux refinery caused hearing loss.
- Bench trial awarded Becker, Barcia, Baudean, DiCarlo, and Phillips $50,000 each; Gilmore was dismissed with prejudice.
- Murphy challenged damages, prescription, and causation; new-trial orders issued on some issues; Gilmore’s case later severed.
- Trial court found Murphy negligent for not providing a safe workplace and for failing to implement a proper hearing-conservation program under OSHA 1910.95.
- Evidence included multiple expert opinions and extensive noise-survey data; the court rejected Murphy’s dose-based defenses and found causation by occupational noise.
- Damages were capped by stipulations, with the court concluding true damages would exceed the stipulated amounts if fully awarded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Murphy is liable for gradual hearing loss from occupational noise | Barcia, Baudean, Becker, DiCarlo, Phillips: Murphy’s exposure exceeded safe levels and caused permanent loss. | Murphy: no causation from noise at or below asserted levels; expert readings insufficient to prove 90 dBA dose. | Yes, Murphy liable; causation established by trial court and affirmed. |
| Admissibility and weight of noise data from other refineries | Murphy’s Tenneco readings were relevant to show similar exposures and dose. | Tenneco data is insufficiently comparable and properly excluded. | Excluded; trial court did not abuse discretion in not admitting Tenneco data. |
| Role of prescription and contra non valentem | Occupational hearing loss accrues slowly; contra non valentem applies to long-latency disease. | Some plaintiffs had knowledge of injury and should have sued earlier. | Contra non valentem applied to preserve claims for most plaintiffs; claims not prescribed. |
| Pre-1983 LWCA applicability to Barcia's claim | Gradual hearing loss not an 'accident'; LWCA does not bar such claims. | Pre-1983 'accident' provisions may cover some occupational injuries. | Gradual hearing loss cannot be an 'accident' under LWCA; Barcia’s LWCA claim barred. |
| Extent of damages under stipulations and statutory caps | Total damages should reflect full compensatory losses beyond $50,000 per plaintiff. | Stipulated ceilings cap recoveries; excess damages not recoverable. | Damages awarded at the stipulated $50,000 per plaintiff; trial court’s structured damages upheld. |
Key Cases Cited
- Broussard v. Union Pac. R. Co., 700 So.2d 542 (La. 1997) (long-latency occupational injury concepts and causation evidence marshalling)
- Chatelain v. American Can Co., 344 So.2d 1180 (La.App.4th Cir. 1977) (hearing loss not proven to be work-related; causation required)
- Chatelain v. American Can Co., 387 So.2d 670 (La.App.4th Cir. 1980) (continued discussion of workers' compensation causation standards)
- Comoletti v. Ideal Cement Co., 147 So.2d 711 (La.App.1st Cir. 1962) (pre-1983 view of hearing loss as occupational disease vs accident)
- Marin v. Exxon Mobil Corp., 48 So.3d 234 (La. 2010) (contra non valentem and discovery of environmental contamination claims)
- Austin v. Abney Mills, Inc., 824 So.2d 1137 (La. 2002) (recognition of asbestos-like latency framing for ongoing injuries)
- Cole v. Celotex Corp., 620 So.2d 1154 (La. 1993) (latency and accrual principles for progressive occupational disease)
- Eastin v. Entergy Corp., 865 So.2d 49 (La. 2004) (structure for contra non valentem and discovery timing)