Advertisment

IBM clears first cancer suit

author-image
CIOL Bureau
New Update

Daniel Sorid



NEW YORK: A California jury cleared IBM of liability in a lawsuit by two former workers who said their exposure to chemicals in a computer disk drive factory made them sick and ultimately gave them cancer, IBM spokesman Chris Andrews said.

The Silicon Valley jury of 11 women and one man deliberated for less than two days after the conclusion of the trial, which began in November.



Armonk, New York-based International Business Machines Corp. still faces around 200 other health-related lawsuits from workers in its electronics and computer chip plants.





The suits have challenged the reputation of the electronics sector as a clean industry, instead portraying the conditions of IBM's computer disk and microchip factories in decades past as loaded with carcinogenic chemicals.

"We believe that the facts in evidence will prove that our workplace did not cause the illnesses and injuries of the plaintiffs," Andrews said, referring to the cases that are pending. "We also realize that the plaintiffs' attorneys are determined to continue a crusade against IBM and the electronics industry."



The California suit, which has been closely watched because it was the first of those claims to go to trial, was brought by a pair of former workers who argued that they were the victims of "systemic chemical poisoning" over decades of work.

They said medical staff at the world's largest computer company failed to warn them of the risks of chemicals such as acetone, xylene and trichloroethylene when they sought treatment.



Alida Hernandez, 73, worked for more than a decade at the IBM plant and was diagnosed with breast cancer in 1993, two years after she retired. James Moore, 62, who suffers from non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, worked at IBM from 1966 to 1993 in a range of jobs handling printed circuit boards.

Under California law, workers are generally barred from suing their employers over unsafe workplace conditions. The two workers had sued IBM under an exception to that law that permits litigation when an employer has concealed evidence of an injury caused on the job.



Santa Clara County Superior Court Judge Robert Baines had instructed the jury on Tuesday to answer six yes-or-no questions relating to IBM's work conditions and the alleged concealment of illnesses by IBM medical staff.

The jury, Andrews said, answered "no" to the first question -- about whether the workers sustained "systemic chemical poisoning" -- the essential claim of the case.



"Therefore, there's no need to determine anything else," said Steven Williams, an attorney with Cotchett Pitre Simon & McCarthy in Burlingame, California, adding that plaintiffs had a high hurdle to begin with -- proving "systemic chemical poisoning."



"It's a tough thing for a jury to find," said Williams, whose class-action firm did not have a client in the case.

Richard Alexander, the attorney for the plaintiffs, had no immediate comment. In his closing arguments, Alexander had accused IBM of covering up the two workers' health problems and "protecting profits over people."



In a pending lawsuit on a similar claim, IBM faces a trial in New York next month related to the severe birth defects of the daughter of a former employee.



John Jones, an analyst for Schwab SoundView Capital Markets in San Francisco, said investors had largely discounted the impact of the lawsuits against IBM, which he noted generates $500 million of cash a month. Moreover, he said, the claims of the workers were difficult to prove.



"If you look at the merits of the case, it is in some people's opinions, mine included, a very difficult case to be awarded to the plaintiffs," he said. (Additional reporting by Duncan Martell in San Francisco)






© Reuters

tech-news