Rosas v. BASF Corporation
187 Cal. Rptr. 3d 354
Cal. Ct. App.2015Background
- Rosas worked at Gold Coast Ingredients from 1994/1995 to April 2007 in a flavorings plant, including powder production with diacetyl exposure.
- From 1996 onward, Rosas frequently handled powders/chemicals, including diacetyl, causing respiratory symptoms beginning around 2000–2002.
- He was hospitalized in 2003 for pneumonia and later diagnosed with severe obstructive lung disease; doctors did not attribute it to work at that time.
- In 2005 Rosas sought a transfer from the powder room to warehouse due to coughing, supported by a doctor’s note; supervisor could not recall knowledge of health issues at that time.
- NIOSH and California health officials advised in November 2006 that his bronchiolitis obliterans was caused by diacetyl exposure, after which doctors concluded a workplace link; Rosas filed suit starting October 2008, later filing a more detailed Second Amended Complaint in 2012.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for multiple defendants, holding Rosas was on inquiry notice by 2003–2005, and the case was thereafter appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether summary judgment was proper under 340.8 discovery rule | Rosas should not be barred before November 2006; facts before then created triable issues | Rosas had inquiry notice by 2003–2005; discovery rule triggered earlier | Triable issues exist; summary judgment reversed and remanded |
| Whether a reasonable person would suspect wrongdoing before November 2006 | Evidence supports later awareness; doctors did not attribute cause to chemicals | Evidence shows suspected cause existed earlier | Issue for jury; not legally established as a matter of law |
| Whether Rosas’ subjective suspicions were adequately shown or reasonably inferred | Rosas communicated suspicions to doctors; transfer and symptoms corroborate concern | No clear, contemporaneous evidence of specific chemical causation known earlier | Triable issue pre-November 2006; not decided as matter of law |
Key Cases Cited
- Jolly v. Eli Lilly & Co., 44 Cal.3d 1103 (Cal. 1988) (discovery rule requires suspicion of wrongdoing to toll accrual)
- Norgart v. Upjohn Co., 21 Cal.4th 383 (Cal. 1999) (discovery rule; when plaintiff has reason to suspect wrongful conduct)
- Fox v. Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc., 35 Cal.4th 797 (Cal. 2005) (discovery rule; accrual delayed if plaintiff lacks knowledge of wrongdoing)
- Grisham v. Philip Morris U.S.A., Inc., 40 Cal.4th 623 (Cal. 2007) (established presumption of awareness of wrongdoing after injury and cause)
- Miller v. Lakeside Village Condominium Assn., 1 Cal.App.4th 1611 (Cal. 1992) (triable issue where undisputed facts show clear realization of harm and negligent cause)
- Rose v. Fife, 207 Cal.App.3d 760 (Cal. 1989) (reasonable inference of wrongdoing may be found from medical treatment context)
- Clark v. Baxter Healthcare Corp., 83 Cal.App.4th 1048 (Cal. 2000) (triable issues when evidence can support more than one inference of discovery)
- Nelson v. Invedus Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 142 Cal.App.4th 1202 (Cal. 2006) (non-specific symptoms may not establish discovery of wrongful cause as a matter of law)