In the latest chapter of a long-running dispute concerning an agronomist’s damages claims for certain alleged health conditions, on June 28, 2024, Sepulvado, Madonado & Couret prevailed by persuading the Puerto Rico Court of Appeals to affirm a lower court decision dismissing all claims filed against Monsanto Company, Monsanto Caribe, LLC, and a Monsanto Company employee that oversaw research and development projects. The dispute dates back over a decade ago, when the plaintiff, a Puerto Rico-trained agronomist, served an extrajudicial claim letter upon defendants and, several years after obtaining thousands of pages of company documents, commenced an action in the Court of First Instance. Plaintiff asserted that she suffered from certain skin and respiratory conditions due to exposure to products allegedly manufactured by Monsanto Company.
Defendants consistently argued they did not manufacture the products that allegedly harmed plaintiff and were immune from the suit as insured employers under the Puerto Rico Compensation System for Work-Related Accidents Act (“PR Act 45-1935”). Plaintiff countered that two exceptions to the immunity granted by PR Act 45-1935 applied to this case.First, Monsanto Company allegedly fulfilled a dual role in the case because it was both the employer and a liable party as a manufacturer of the products. Second, she argued that the litigation should be allowed to move forward because the alleged injuries were produced by intentional acts. Plaintiff argued that she was entitled to perform discovery to develop these theories.
The Court of Appeals had previouslyrejected the “dual role” theory but ordered discovery to afford plaintiff the opportunity to try to further develop her “intentional acts exception” theory. After thorough discovery, further briefing, and oral arguments the lower court issued summary judgment dismissing all remaining claims against defendants.
In affirming the lower court’s decision, the Court of Appeals held that, after giving plaintiff the opportunity to perform discovery, the defendants had carried their burden to show that they were immune employers and that plaintiff lacked evidence to establish the “intentional acts” exception she claimed applied to this case.
Firm attorneys involved in the case: Elaine M. Maldonado Matías, Albéniz Couret Fuentes, and Lee R. Sepulvado Ramos.