Summary
In Johnson v. Exxon Corp., 685 N.Y.S.2d 530 (N.Y.App. Div. 199 9), a New York appellate court addressed the application of the discovery rule, as construed in Wetherill, in the context of an action for work-related injuries allegedly sustained from toxic exposure.
Summary of this case from Grillo v. Speedrite Products. Inc.Opinion
February 10, 1999
Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Chautauqua County, Gerace, J. — Dismiss Pleading.
Present — Denman, P. J., Green, Hayes and Callahan, JJ.
Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Plaintiff commenced this action seeking damages for injuries she sustained at work due to exposure to chemicals. Supreme Court properly denied defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint as time-barred by CPLR 214-c (2). Defendants failed to establish that plaintiff's cause of action accrued prior to July 21, 1989. Since early 1987, plaintiff experienced occasional ailments from working with chemicals, but she was always able to return to work after those incidents ( see, O'Halloran v. 345 Park Co., 251 A.D.2d 260, lv dismissed 92 N.Y.2d 1026). Plaintiff did not discover "the primary condition on which [her] claim is based" ( Matter of New York County DES Litig., 89 N.Y.2d 506, 509) until November 17, 1989, when she was overcome by fumes while working and suffered body tremors, a feeling of intoxication, a shooting pain in her head, rashes on her face and neck, and nausea. Plaintiff was unable to return to work after that incident because any exposure to chemicals would result in a severe reaction. In addition, plaintiff could no longer tolerate the scent of perfumes and tobacco smoke. Plaintiff's symptoms prior to November 1989 were "too isolated or inconsequential to trigger the running of the Statute of Limitations under CPLR 214-c (2)" ( Matter of New York County DES Litig., supra, at 514, n 4).