NuSil Technologies manufactures silicone and resins. NuSil utilized hazardous chemicals in the production and manufacture of products at its facility in Bakersfield, California. NuSil posted material safety data sheets with information about dangerous chemicals used at the facility.

Kevin O’Bryan worked for NuSil from 2006 to May 2016 at its facility in Bakersfield. O’Bryan’s work duties necessitated exposure to hazardous chemicals. NuSil provided training to O’Bryan about the chemicals he worked with and the use of personal protective equipment. Those trainings did not address formaldehyde. None of the material safety data sheets provided by NuSil mentioned formaldehyde.

In 2009, O’Bryan expressed concern to his supervisor about being exposed to chemicals. Around 2011 or 2012, O’Bryan again expressed concern about exposure to chemicals and was issued a full-face respirator. In 2013, O’Bryan’s doctor diagnosed him with “problems” that caused O’Bryan to be concerned about his workplace exposure. Around 2013, O’Bryan complained to the manufacturing supervisor about swelling and numbness in his hands, as well as extreme fatigue.

At some time between 2013 and May 11, 2016, O’Bryan complained to the site manager, that he believed formaldehyde was being generated by the distillation column on process at the facility. O’Bryan assumed there was formaldehyde because the smell was like “at the mortuary.

On May 11, 2016, O’Bryan took a disability leave of absence from work due to health symptoms he attributed to chemical exposure in the workplace at NuSil.O’Bryan filed a workers’ compensation claim against NuSil on June 27, 2016, alleging a cumulative trauma injury through May 10, 2016, to his hands, head, joints, respiratory system, central nervous system, and circulatory system from “exposure to toxic chemicals.”

At some point, O’Bryan filed a complaint about NuSil to California’s Division of Occupational Safety and Health. In its report, OSHA cited NuSil based on its finding that employees worked with formaldehyde in manufacturing rooms at the facility. O’Bryan was unaware of the presence of formaldehyde at the facility prior to OSHA’s report and learned of the presence of formaldehyde in approximately “May[ or] June” of 2017.

On September 18, 2018, O’Bryan settled his workers’ compensation claim for $235,000 by compromise and release which “does not resolve (or affect) any civil action (or right) applicant (may bring forth against NuSil) regarding this claim.”

On January 17, 2019, the O’Bryans filed a complaint against NuSil alleging two causes of action: fraudulent concealment on behalf of O’Bryan and loss of consortium on behalf of Tiffany O’Bryan. NuSil raised several affirmative defenses in its answer including that the claims were barred by the statute of limitations.

The parties stipulated and the trial court agreed to bifurcate the issues and try NuSil’s statute of limitations defense in a bench trial before trying the remaining issues. On July 1, 2022, “[p]hase 1” of the bench trial was conducted on the sole issue of the statute of limitations.The O’Bryans’ counsel conceded during closing argument that the applicable statute of limitations for the fraudulent concealment claim is two years.

On July 27, 2022, the trial court entered judgment for NuSil against the O’Bryans on “all claims in Plaintiffs’ Complaint in its entirety.” The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court in the unpublished case of O’Bryan v. NuSil Technology -F084899 (April 2024).

An employee injured during the course of employment is generally limited to remedies available under the Workers’ Compensation Act. Certain types of injurious employer conduct bring the employee outside the compensation bargain. One exception to the exclusive remedy rule was identified by our Supreme Court in Johns-Manville Products Corp. v. Superior Court (1980) 27 Cal.3d 465.

The fraudulent concealment exception outlined in Johns-Manville was codified in 1982 as Labor Code section 3602, subdivision (b)(2). This statutory subdivision allows a civil suit “[w]here the employee’s injury is aggravated by the employer’s fraudulent concealment of the existence of the injury and its connection with the employment, in which case the employer’s liability shall be limited to those damages proximately caused by the aggravation.” (Lab. Code, § 3602, subd. (b)(2).).

A fraudulent concealment claim under Labor Code section 3602, subdivision (b)(2) requires the employee show three conditions: “(1) the employer must have concealed ‘the existence of the injury’; (2) the employer must have concealed the connection between the injury and the employment; and (3) the injury must have been aggravated following the concealment.” (Jensen v. Amgen Inc. (2003) 105 Cal.App.4th 1322.)

The parties agree the statute of limitations for the O’Bryans’ fraudulent concealment claim is two years pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 335.1. The question of when a “cause of action accrued is a mixed question of law and fact.” The O’Bryans filed their initial complaint on January 17, 2019. Thus, the O’Bryans’ cause of action was time-barred if all the elements of their fraudulent concealment claim accrued prior to January 17, 2017, absent an applicable exception to the general rule of accrual.

Here, O’Bryan suspected NuSil’s alleged wrongful conduct had injured him well before filing his civil complaint. By at least May 11, 2016, O’Bryan knew his health had been damaged by toxic chemical exposure at NuSil and suspected this exposure included formaldehyde, a chemical that was purportedly not being produced at the facility. At multiple times before May 11, 2016, O’Bryan expressed concern that his health was at risk from chemical exposure during his employment at NuSil.

The Court of Appeal rejected the O’Bryans’ contentions they could not assert their cause of action until the May 30, 2017 OSHA report confirmed the presence of formaldehyde at NuSil’s facility. This argument misapprehends the necessary facts to assert a cause of action. “A plaintiff need not be aware of the specific ‘facts’ necessary to establish the claim; that is a process contemplated by pretrial discovery.”