Michael Pasko and Peggy Pasko v. Schlumberger Technology Corporation, 542 S.W.3d 671

On May 6, 2013, Michael Pasko, a third‑party contractor, cleaned a spill at a well site that contained "frac chemical residue" and alleges his hands were burned by the chemicals.
Pasko later received treatment and in September 2013 was diagnosed with squamous cell carcinoma in the same area.
Pasko filed suit May 5, 2015 against multiple parties and amended to add Schlumberger in August 2015, alleging among other things that Schlumberger negligently rigged a hose on May 5 causing U028 to contaminate the residue he cleaned.
Schlumberger moved for traditional summary judgment asserting the two‑year statute of limitations barred Pasko’s claims.
Pasko invoked the discovery rule, arguing he did not discover the latent occupational disease or Schlumberger’s alleged wrongful conduct until his September 2013 diagnosis and subsequent discovery.
The trial court granted Schlumberger’s summary judgment; the court of appeals reversed and remanded, finding a genuine fact issue about when Pasko discovered or should have discovered his injury and its work‑related cause.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether statute of limitations bars Pasko's claims	Pasko did not discover the latent disease or Schlumberger's role until diagnosis and later discovery, so accrual was tolled by the discovery rule	Pasko knew of his chemical burns on May 6, 2013 so limitations began then and suit is untimely	Reversed: fact issue exists whether accrual was tolled by discovery rule; summary judgment inappropriate
Whether defendant met burden to negate discovery rule on summary judgment	N/A (plaintiff alleges discovery rule applies)	Schlumberger must conclusively show no genuine fact issue that Pasko discovered injury or cause earlier	Schlumberger failed to conclusively negate discovery rule; genuine issue remains
Whether mere suspicion starts limitations	Pasko: mere suspicion is insufficient; he lacked actual or constructive knowledge until diagnosis	Schlumberger: nature of burns should have put Pasko on notice earlier	Court: mere suspicion insufficient as a matter of law; must show knowledge or that reasonable diligence would have revealed injury/cause
Whether summary judgment evidence established accrual date as matter of law	Pasko produced evidence suggesting later discovery and diagnostic confirmation in Sept 2013	Schlumberger produced no evidence proving Pasko discovered or should have discovered earlier	Court: Schlumberger presented no evidence establishing accrual before Sept 2013; summary judgment improper

Merriman v. XTO Energy, Inc., 407 S.W.3d 244 (Tex. 2013) (standard of review for summary judgment)
Provident Life & Acc. Ins. Co. v. Knott, 128 S.W.3d 211 (Tex. 2003) (movant must show no genuine fact issue)
Cantey Hanger, LLP v. Byrd, 467 S.W.3d 477 (Tex. 2015) (defendant bears burden to prove affirmative defense on traditional summary judgment)
Childs v. Haussecker, 974 S.W.2d 31 (Tex. 1998) (discovery rule requires knowledge of injury and that it was likely caused by wrongful act)
Transcon. Ins. Co. v. Briggs Equip. Trust, 321 S.W.3d 685 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2010) (what raises a genuine fact issue on summary judgment)
Nugent v. Pilgrim's Pride Corp., 30 S.W.3d 562 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2000) (discovery rule and latent disease accrual)
Markwardt v. Tex. Indus., Inc., 325 S.W.3d 876 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2010) (latent occupational disease accrual principles)
Shell Oil Co. v. Ross, 356 S.W.3d 924 (Tex. 2011) (discovery of nature of injury requires knowledge of wrongful act and resulting injury)
Pressure Sys. Int’l, Inc. v. Sw. Research Inst., 350 S.W.3d 212 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2011) (plaintiff must know injury likely caused by wrongful act, need not know actor)
Baxter v. Gardere Wynne Sewell LLP, 182 S.W.3d 460 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2006) (same principle regarding knowledge of causation)