SEATTLE — A Washington man who had up to four gallons of toxic liquid splashed on him in May 2002 while he was working at a nuclear facility cannot prove that his exposure to radioactive materials caused him physical harm; however, he must be allowed to argue his state claims for emotional distress related to his exposure to nonradioactive materials, the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruled June 11 (Daniel R. Golden, et al. v. CH2M Hill Hanford Group, Inc., No. 05-35832, 9th Cir.; 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 12411).
Daniel Golden and his wife, Cindy Golden, sued Daniel’s employer CH2M Hill Hanford Group Inc. in the Benton County, Wash., Superior Court after the May 2002 incident. Daniel Golden claimed that the accident caused him various physical injuries and emotional distress. Cindy Golden sued for loss of consortium. CH2M removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Washington on the basis that the District Court has jurisdiction under the Price-Anderson Act. The Price-Anderson Act preempts all state law claims for nuclear incident injuries. Judge Lonny R. Suko granted CH2M’s motion for summary judgment, and the Goldens appealed.
The Ninth Circuit panel upheld the rejection of Daniel Golden’s claim that exposure to the toxins caused him physical injuries in light of Golden’s physician’s inability to say his injuries were caused by the exposure. However, Golden should be allowed to proceed with his claim for emotional distress based on exposure to nonradioactive materials at the federal or state level. The panel also vacated dismissal of Cindy Golden’s claim and remanded it.
Copyright 2008, LexisNexis, Division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
