PITTSBURGH – U.S. Steel has filed preliminary objections in response to a lawsuit from a man suffering from Myelodysplastic Syndrome (MDS) and claiming his exposure to carcinogenic products over the course of his professional career led to his current medical condition.
Frederick R. Eastman and Janet L. Eastman of Irwin first filed suit in the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas on July 31 versus a long list of corporate defendants, including Sunoco, Inc., Texaco, Inc., Exxon-Mobil Corporation and BP Amoco Chemical Company.
In his lawsuit, Frederick Eastman said over a 37-year career where he worked as an auto mechanic, student ski instructor, maintenance man and painter, life insurance salesman and general salesman, he was exposed to benzene, solvents, lubricants, cleaners, which caused the development of his MDS.
“In September 2018, Mr. Eastman presented to Dr. Hyoung Kim at UPMC Hillman Cancer Center at Arnold Palmer Pavilion for an evaluation of a moderate degree of anemia. Two months later, in November 2018, he was seen by Dr. John Waas at the Arnold Palmer Pavilion. Dr. Waas diagnosed microcytic anemia with atypical red blood cell morphology as a result of Mr. Eastman’s visit on Nov. 7, 2018, and ordered a bone marrow biopsy,” the suit stated.
“A bone marrow biopsy was done on Nov. 13, 2018. Pathology analysis reported findings consistent with a myelodysplastic syndrome and a deletion of chromosome. Mr. Eastman was informed of this MDS diagnosis on Nov. 27, 2018, during his visit with Dr. Angela Marie Merlino. He brings this action within two years of learning of his cancer diagnosis.”
UPDATE
U.S. Steel filed preliminary objections to the lawsuit on Sept. 16, charging that it could not be directly connected to the suit’s charges through either a breach of its warranty or its call for punitive damages.
“Plaintiff admits that neither Mr. Eastman nor his employers had any contact with U.S. Steel. Moreover, even if there were a scintilla of evidence of contact between Mr. Eastman and U.S. Steel, these allegations fail to provide defendants with any factual information as to the product at issue, the nature of the implied warranty alleged to have been breached, the specific warranty allegedly given, the dates such warranty was given and allegedly breached by defendants, the manner in which the warranties were created, or how, if at all, the warranty was allegedly provided to Mr. Eastman,” the objections read.
“Plaintiff also fails to aver the giving of notice to U.S. Steel of its alleged breaches of implied warranties, including the dates on which, and the persons or entities to whom, such notice was given. This failure to give the statutorily required notice is not at all surprising given the fact that the existence of any warranty is belied by the complaint’s factual averments.”
U.S. Steel also targeted the plaintiffs’ desire for punitive damages in its objections.
“Nowhere in plaintiff’s instant complaint does she point to any specific allegations of outrageous conduct on the part of U.S. Steel. Likewise, the complaint fails to point to any conduct whatsoever on the part of U.S. Steel with respect to Mr. Eastman, much less conduct that was undertaken with ‘evil motive or reckless indifference to the interests of others,” the objections stated.
“Instead, plaintiff simply avers general conclusions without factual support, which is insufficient to survive preliminary objections. Additionally, insofar as plaintiff bases her claim for punitive damages on the alleged ‘acts, omissions, and/or conduct of defendants, as described herein, specifically including Counts I, II, and III’, punitive damages are not properly awardable for a breach of warranty claim (as set forth in Count II) because such claims are, in essence, claims for breach of contractual duties, for which punitive damages are not available.”
For counts of negligence, breach of warranty, strict liability, punitive damages and loss of consortium, the plaintiffs are seeking damages, individually, jointly and severally, in excess of $50,000, plus interest, costs and any other relief that the Court deems just and appropriate under the circumstances, plus a trial by jury.
Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas case GD-20-008181
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com