Cotroneo v. Shaw Environment & Infra-Structure, Inc.
639 F.3d 186
5th Cir.2011Background
- Plumbers/clean-up workers at a Texas nuclear-material site alleged radiation overexposure causing bodily injuries and illnesses.
- Plaintiffs sued Shaw Environmental and supervisors in New York state court for negligence and assault/battery under Texas law.
- Defendants removed the case to the Southern District of Texas under the Price-Anderson Act (PAA) removal provision, 42 U.S.C. § 2210(n)(2).
- District court granted summary judgment on bodily-injury claims, finding no genuine dispute that radiation caused injuries; dismissed offensive-contact claims without prejudice as state-law claims.
- Plaintiffs cross-appeal, arguing bodily-injury causation facts support summary judgment; defendants cross-appeal, contending offensive-contact claims arise under the PAA and are unremovable.
- Panel majority affirms dismissal of bodily-injury claims, holds offensive-contact claims arise under federal public-liability action, and remands to dismiss those claims with prejudice; district court’s handling of offensive-contact claims is vacated.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Causation of bodily injuries | Causation supported by plaintiffs' experts and epidemiology. | No genuine issue that radiation caused injuries; alternative causes exist. | Summary judgment for defendants on bodily-injury claims affirmed. |
| Whether offensive-contact battery claims arise under the PAA | Offensive-contact claims are under federal law as part of a public liability action. | Offensive-contact claims are purely state-law and not governed by the PAA. | The claims arise under federal law as part of a public-liability action; remand for dismissal with prejudice. |
Key Cases Cited
- Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc. v. Havner, 953 S.W.2d 706 (Tex. 1997) (ha vner causation sufficiency standards)
- In re TMI Litig. Cases Consol. II, 940 F.2d 832 (3d Cir. 1991) (state law supplies decision rules in public liability actions under PAA)
- O'Conner v. Commonwealth Edison Co., 13 F.3d 1090 (7th Cir. 1994) (PAA public liability action uses state law unless inconsistent with 2210)
- In re Berg Litig., 293 F.3d 1127 (9th Cir. 2002) (radiation exposure and compensability under PAA)
- Cook v. Rockwell Int'l Corp., 618 F.3d 1127 (10th Cir. 2010) (nuclear-incident threshold and public liability concepts under PAA)
- El Paso Natural Gas Co. v. Neztsosie, 526 U.S. 473 (1999) (complete preemption under PAA; removal and federal forum)
- Golden v. CH2M Hill Hanford Group, Inc., 528 F.3d 681 (9th Cir. 2008) (exposure to radiation compensable only if physical injury occurs)
- In re Hanford Nuclear Reservation Litig., 292 F.3d 1124 (9th Cir. 2002) (context of non-listed harms under PAA)