IBM diagnosed innocent

SANTA CLARA: The attorney for two former IBM employees who developed cancer after years of work in an IBM electronics factory told a jury on Monday that the world's largest computer company had concealed hazards it knew were sickening its workers.

In a setback for the plaintiffs, however, the California state judge in the case granted IBM motion to strike claims of fraud, eliminating the prospect of punitive damages even if the jury finds in favor of the former workers.

The ruling by Judge Robert Baines, issued on Friday, could sharply limit the amount that IBM might have to pay out, since punitive awards can exceed actual damages by several times under California law, and state juries have a track record of awarding large payouts to punish corporate misdeeds, observers said.

"The significance of that ruling cannot be overstated," said Scott Ferrell, a partner at Call, Jensen & Farrell who has defended large corporations in class action lawsuits. "It cuts the potential verdict by 80 percent."

Making his closing arguments before a Santa Clara County Superior Court jury, the attorney for the former workers, Richard Alexander said IBM sent Alida Hernandez and James Moore back to work even though it knew they were being sickened by chemicals on the job.

"The evidence has been overwhelming that IBM knew that Jim and Alida were injured and never said anything to them," Alexander told the jury.

IBM's lawyer, Robert Weber, has argued since opening arguments began in November that there was no link between chemicals in IBM's hard-drive factory in San Jose, California, and Hernandez's breast cancer or Moore's non-Hodgkin's lymphoma.

Weber is scheduled to make his closing arguments on Tuesday.

The case has been closely watched in part because it challenges the reputation of the electronics industry as clean and environmentally safe.

Judge Baines will ask the Silicon Valley jury to determine whether the workers suffered from "systemic chemical poisoning" at work, and if so, whether IBM medical personnel knew of and concealed their injuries, according to the verdict questionnaire to be provided to the panel.

Only if the jury answers yes to those questions will they be asked to determine if the chemicals caused the cancers and then to determine damages. Agreement by 9 of the 12 jurors will constitute a finding in the civil suit.

A verdict against Armonk, New York-based IBM could generate more claims against others in the industry whose workers came in contact with potentially cancer-causing chemicals, analysts have said.

IBM, which faces more than 200 lawsuits across the country over workplace health, has already begun to prepare for a case scheduled for March in a courtroom in White Plains, New York.

In that case, IBM faces charges that chemicals in a microchip plant caused severe birth defects in the daughter of an employee. IBM disputes the link between the defects and its workplace, which it has maintained was safe.

© Reuters