# Joint Appendix — Chevron USA Inc. v. Echazabal > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385014_0454%3A05 ## Record - **Collection:** Supreme Court brief - **Document type:** Joint Appendix - **Published:** January 1, 2002 - **Citation:** 536 U.S. 73 ## Text “ILE \ | \D) . uy, Ep DEC 26 200, No. 00-1406 CLERK In the Supreme Court of the Anite CHEVRON U.S.A., iNC., PETITIONER, v. MARIO ECHAZABAL, RESPONDENT. On Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit JOINT APPENDIX STEPHEN M. SHAPIRO LARRY MINSKY Counsel of Record Counsel of Record Mayer, Brown & Platt Lemaire, Faunce, Pingel 190 South LaSalle Street & Singer, P.C. Chicago, Illinois 60603 17785 Center Court Drive, (312) 782-0600 Suite 250 Cerritos, CA 90703 (562) 916-7449 * Counsel for Petitioner Counsel for Respondent _——$—$——————————————— een PETITION FOR CERTIORARI FILED MARCH 9, 2001 CERTIORARI GRANTED OCTOBER 29, 2001 i TABLE OF CONTENTS Relevant Docket Entries in the United States District Court for the Central District of California Relevant Docket Entries in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit First Amended Complaint (April 8, 1997) Chevron’s Answer to First Amended Complaint (May 2, 1997) Declarations in Support of Chevron’s Motion for Summary Judgment (October 6, 1997): * Declaration of Julie L. Claydon * Declaration of Michael J. Nyeholt * Declaration of Patrick W. Beatty * Declaration of William L. Saner ¢ Declaration of Kenneth McGill, M.D. * Declaration of Ron Di Padua * Declaration of Dennis N. Leonard Exhibits in Support of Chevron’s Motion for Summary Judgment (October 6, 1997): * Exhibit 1, Chevron Job Bulletin (9/29/95) * Exhibit 3, Chevron letter to Echazabal (12/28/95) ... 55 * Exhibit 5, Chevron letter to Echazabal (2/6/96) * Exhibit 6, Chevron letter to Irwin (2/21/96) * Exhibit 16, Job Summary, GO-400 (1993) ¢ Exhibit 17, Physical/environmental demands, GO-308-ES (12/1/93) * Exhibit 20, Refinery Hepatotoxic Substance Inventory (6/30/97) * Exhibit 23, Tang deposition (excerpts) * Exhibit 27, Weingarten letter to Chevron’s Medical Department (1/10/96) ............45: 95 * Exhibit 28, McGill letter to Suchov (1/10/96) ...... 96 * Exhibit 29, Weingarten letter to McGill (2/28/96) ... 98 Declarations in Support of Plaintiff's Opposition to Chevron’s Motion for Summary Judgment (November 14, 1997): * Declaration of Marion Joseph Fedoruk, M.D. ...... 99 ¢ Declaration of Gary Gitnick, M.D. .............. 110 * Declaration of Mario Echazabal ................ 117 - Exhibit E to Declaration of Mario Echazabal (excerpts): Bia tothe? ep Bale CRESS occ ccvcucsescesunas 122 Suchov letter to Baily (11/10/93) .............. 124 Suchov letter to Chevron’s Medical Department (HOE ovccccssavecucen seu as ohaceaean 125 ¢ Exhibits to Declaration of Larry Minsky: - Exhibit J (Baily Deposition) (excerpts) ......... 126 - Exhibit M (McGill Deposition) (excerpts) ....... 128 - Exhibit N (Saner Deposition) (excerpts) ......... 143 - Exhibit O (Tang Deposition) (excerpts) ......... 155 Exhibits in Support of Irwin’s Motion for Summary Judgment (November 18, 1997): ¢ Exhibit 20, Baily Deposition (excerpts) .......... 157 ¢ Exhibit 21, McGill Deposition (excerpts)......... 160 Exhibit to Chevron’s Reply in Support of Summary Judgment (November 27, 1997): ¢ Saner Deposition (excerpts) ............000000- 170 District Court Order Granting Chevron’s Motion for Summary Judgment (C.D. Cal. January 5, 1998) .... 171 Order and Opinion (9th Cir. May 23, 2000, amended September 26, 2000) ............. 196 Memorandum (9th Cir. May 23, 2000) iil Supreme Court Order Granting Writ of Certiorari (October 29, 2001) l RELEVANT DOCKET ENTRIES IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, No. 97-CV-3498 No. Date General Description 19 20 5/8/97 5/8/97 5/8/97 5/8/97 7/7197 10/6/97 10/6/97 10/6/97 11/14/97 11/14/97 Notice of removal by defendant Chevron USA Inc. from LA Cnty Superior Court lst Amended Complaint Answer by defendant Chevron USA Inc. Joinder by defendant Irwin Industries Answer by defendant Irwin Industries Inc. Motion by defendant Chevron USA Inc. for summary judgment Lodged Chevron’s statement of uncontroverted facts Exhibits in support of Chevron’s summary judgment motion Plaintiff's memo in opposition to Chevron’s motion for summary judgment [17-1] Plaintiff s statement of general issues in opposition to Chevron’s motion for summary judgment [17-1] 2 3 No. Date General Description No. Date |§= General Description 21 11/14/97 Plaintiff's evidentiary objections in 32 12/4/97 Irwin’s reply brief in support of support of his opposition to summary motion for summary judgment [24-1] judgment [19-1] [24-2] 22 11/14/97 — Declaration of Marion Joseph Order by Judge Lourdes G. Baird Fedoruk MD, Gary Gitnick MD, FACG, Mario Echazabal and Larry Minsky in support of plaintiff's Grant in part Deny in part Irwin’s motion for partial summary judgment [24-1], Grant in part Deny in part opposition to summary judgment Irwin’s motion for summary 24 —«'11/18/97_—- Motion by defendant Irwin Industries we pay ag taper eee sateen ee causes of actn, but GR as to the issue 25 11/18/97 —_ Exhibits supporting Irwin’s motion of pun dams; granting Chevron’s for summary judgment pases iy “es ae eal - 26 11/24/97 Chevron’s reply to opposition to sian cee et maneitt-inieedas motion for summary judgment [17-2] 01/08/98] 28 12/1/97 Plaintiff's memo in opposition to Order by Judge Lourdes G. Baird Irwin’s motion for summary granting plaintiff's motion to certify judgment [24-2] order granting summary judgment to 29 12/1/97 ‘Plaintiff's evidentiary objection Chevron for immediate appeal [Entry supporting opposition to Irwin’s date 03/04/98] motion for summary judgment [24-2] Notice of Appeal 30 12/1/97 Plaintiff s statement of general issues . waist in opposition to Irwin’s motion for i eee summary judgment [24-1] include plaintiffs 6th cause of action 31 12/1/97 Plaintiff's supplemental declaration for Intentional Interference with of M Echazabal and L Minsky in support of opposition to Irwin’s motion for summary judgment [24-1] Contractual Relations [Entry date 05/18/98} 4 RELEVANT DOCKET ENTRIES IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT, No. 98-55551 Date 7/29/98 8/4/98 9/16/98 9/16/98 9/16/98 10/15/98 11/3/99 11/8/99 General Description Filed appellant Echazabal’s opening brief and excerpts of record in 3 volumes Filed EEOC’s amicus brief Rec’d Amicus Empioyers Group’s brief Rec’d Amicus Equal Employment Advisory Council & Chamber of Commerce’s brief Filed appellee Chevron’s brief Filed appellant Echazabal’s reply brief, and Suppl Exc of Rec in 1 volume Argued and submitted to Myron H. Bright, Stephen R. Reinhardt, Stephen S. Trott Filed order (Myron H. Bright, Stephen R. Reinhardt, Stephen S. Trott): The ct may consider the question whether the “direct threat” defense set forth in 42 USC § 12113(b) applies to threats to the health or safety of parties claiming discrimination or only to threats to the health or safety of “others.” If either of the parties to this appeal or the EEOC wishes to submit a supp’! brf on this question, it shall notify the ct of its intention to do so w/i 7 days from the date of this order, with svc on 12/14/99 12/15/99 12/16/99 12/16/99 1/25/00 5/23/00 5/23/00 5 General Description the parties and amici. If such ntc is given, the parties and amici shall each have the option of filing a supp’! brief. Any such brf shall be filed — w/i 28 days from the date of this order. A brf filed by a party or the EEOC shall not exceed 15 pages; a brf filed by any other amici shall not exceed 5 pages. Filed Amicus Equal Employment Advisory Council Chamber of Commerce supplemental brief Filed appellant’s supplemental brief Rec’d amicus EEOC’s ltr dated 12/15/99 re: they will not be filing a supp! brief Filed appellee Chevron’s supplemental brief Filed order (Myron H. Bright, Stephen R. Reinhardt & Stephen S. Trott): the case is ordered resubmitted. Filed Opinion: Reversed in part, vacated in part, and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. (Terminated on the Merits after Oral Hearing; Reversed; Written, Signed, Published. Myron H. Bright; Stephen R. Reinhardt; Stephen S. Trott) Filed entered judgment. Filed Memorandum Disposition: Reversed and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this disposition. (Terminated on the Merits after Oral Hearing; Reversed; Written, Un- signed, Unpublished. Myron H. Bright, Stephen 6 Date = General Description R. Reinhardt, Stephen S. Trott) Filed and entered judgment. 6/12/00 Filed appellee Chevron’s petition for rehearing with suggestion for rehearing en banc 6/16/00 Filed order (Myron H. Bright, Stephen R. Reinhardt & Stephen S. Trott) aplt is ordered to file a response to the petition for rehearing with suggestion for rehearing en banc 7/6/00 Filed aplt’s response to petition for rehearing with suggestion for rehearing enbanc rehearing 9/26/00 Filed order and amended opinion: The opinion filed on 5/23/00 is amended to include the attached dissent by Judge Trott. 12/12/00 Filed order: The petition for rehearing and petition for rehearing en banc are denied. 12/20/00 Mandate issued. Costs taxed. 7 [PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT’] SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES MARIO ECHAZABAL, an individual, Plaintiff, vs. CHEVRON U.S.A., INC.; a corporation; IRWIN INDUSTRIES, INC., a corporation; and DOES I through XXX, inclusive, Defendants. Case No: BC-166431 First Amended Complaint For Injunctive Relief And Damages For Employment Discrimination On The Basis Of Disability; Violation Of Constitutional Right Of Privacy; Violation Of The Confidentiality Of Medical Information Act; Intentional Interference With Contractual Relations Demand for Jury Trial [Filed April 8, 1997] 1. + [PARTIES] | 1. Plaintiff MARIO ECHAZABAL (Plaintiff) is and was at relevant times herein a resident of the County of Los Angeles * [Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint and all other materials in this Appendix are reproduced verbatim. Typographical errors have been preserved. } and an employee within the meaning of the various discrimination statutes alleged herein. 2. Plaintiff is informed, believes and thereupon alleges that at times relevant herein, Chevron Products Company, a successor to Chevron U.S.A. Products Company, was a wholly owned division of Defendant CHEVRON U.S.A., INC., a Pennsylvania corporation doing business within the state of California. At all times relevant herein, CHEVRON U.S.A., INC. controlled, managed, supervised, and was fully responsible for the acts, conduct and omissions as alleged herein of Chevron Products Company/Chevron USA Products Company’s oil refinery located at 324 West El Segundo Boulevard, El Segundo, California (Plant). Unless otherwise specified, Chevron Products Company and its successor, Chevron U.S.A. Products Company, and Chevron U.S.A.., Inc. shall be collectively referred to as Chevron. Plaintiff is informed, believes and thereupon alleges that at times relevant herein, Chevron was a federal contractor having contracts in excess of $50,000 and an employer within the meaning of § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, 29 U.S.C. §§ 794 et seq. (Section 504) and within the meaning of Titles I and II of the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990 as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101 et seq. (ADA) and within the meaning of California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA). 3. Defendant IRWIN INDUSTRIES, INC. (Irwin) is a California corporation qualified to do and doing business within the state of California and an employer within the meaning of the ADA and FEHA. 4. Defendants Does I Through XXX are sued herein under fictitious names because Plaintiff does not presently know their true names and capacities. Plaintiff will seek leave to amend this Complaint to allege their true names and capacities when ascertained. Plaintiff further alleges that each defendant, fictitious or otherwise, named herein was and is culpable in some manner or capacity for the events and illegal conduct 9 herein alleged or is/are a necessary party for obtaining appropriate relief. Defendants Chevron, Irwin and Does I through XXX shall at times herein be collectively referred to as Defendants. 5. Plaintiff is informed, believes and thereupon alleges that in carrying out each of the acts, conduct, omissions and violations alleged in this complaint, each defendant, fictitiously or individually named, acted as an agent, principal, and/or representative for each other defendant. Il. [EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES] 6. All procedural and jurisdictional conditions precedent to the filing and maintaining of this action have been exhausted to the extent any were required to be exhausted. On or about March 22, 1996, Plaintiff filed a charge of employment discrimination against Defendants Chevron and Irwin with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) alleging disability discrimination. Thereafter, Plaintiff was issued/notified by the Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH), by letter dated March 22, 1996, and by the EEOC by letter dated December 6, 1996 of his right to sue. On or about February 20, 1997, Plaintiff filed an additional charge of disability discrimination against Chevron with the DFEH and by letter dated March 12, 1997 the DFEH issued Plaintiff his right to sue. Ii. [EQUITY AND IRREPARABLE INJURY] 7. Plaintiff has no plain, adequate or complete remedy to redress the wrongs alleged herein and this suit for injunctive relief is his only means of securing said adequate relief. Plaintiff is presently suffering and will continue to suffer irreparable injury as a result of the acts, conduct and omissions of Defendants as alleged herein who have denied Plaintiff his right of privacy and his right to be free from illegal 10 discrimination and will continue to maintain said illegal practices and policies as alleged herein until and unless enjoined by this court. IV. [COMMON ALLEGATIONS OF FACT] 8. Plaintiff worked at the Plant from in or about 1972 through 1975 and again from in or about 1980 through on or about February 28, 1996, working in various jobs including maintenance worker, pipefitter, and on the “firewatch.” 9. Inorabout 1986, Irwin became a maintenance contractor for Chevron at the Plant. Plaintiff then became an Irwin employee. Plaintiff continued to perform the same or similar functions/jobs. 10. Plaintiff was hired by Irwin in or about 1986. 11. Throughout the period of his employment with Irwin and throughout the period of time that Plaintiff worked at the Plant, and specifically since at least in or about 1986, Plaintiff performed all of the essential functions of each and every position required of him in a competent and professional manner without injury to himself or others. 12.In or about the latter part of 1992, Plaintiff was diagnosed with having chronic active hepatitis. This information was provided directly to Chevron. Between the latter part of 1992 and approximately February of 1996, Chevron was advised of Plaintiff's ongoing medical condition and was provided with copies of medical reports from Plaintiff's physician(s) advising Chevron that despite his diagnosis of chronic active hepatitis that he did not pose a threat to himself or others and could, from a medical perspective, perform all of the essential functions for each job/position he was assigned. 11 13. On or about October 11, 1995, Plaintiff applied for employment directly with Chevron, seeking to be hired into the position of Plant Helper. Thereafter, by letter dated December 28, 1995, Chevron offered Plaintiff the position of Plant Helper, but that said offer was contingent upon Plaintiff completing a pre-employment physical examination. 14. On or about January 2, 1996, Plaintiff underwent the pre- employment physical examination required by Chevron. By letter dated February 6, 1996, Chevron advised Plaintiff that they had determined that Plaintiff's disability prevented/precluded Plaintiff from performing the tasks of the position of Plant Helper, and accordingly, Chevron was withdrawing its offer of employment. That same letter also advised Plaintiff that Chevron would keep the results of that pre-employment physical examination confidential. Thereafter, by letter dated February 21, 1996, Chevron advised Irwin that they had determined that Plaintiff's disability prevented/precluded Plaintiff from working anywhere within the Plant, and accordingly, Chevron requested/instructed Irwin to remove Plaintiff from performing any job within the Plant. 15. On or about February 28, 1996, Plaintiff was advised by Irwin that both Irwin and Chevron had determined that Plaintiff would no longer be permitted to perform any job at the Plant because of his disability even though Plaintiff was fully capable of performing the position of Plant Helper as well as other positions/jobs within the Plant without injury to himself or others. 16. On or about February 28, 1996, Plaintiff met with Irwin’s director of human resources, Manfred F. Kiesser, who affirmed that Plaintiff would no longer be permitted to perform any work at the Plant. 17. On or about March 8, 1996, Irwin’s medical advisor informed Irwin, who in turn informed Plaintiff, that Plaintiff would no longer be entitled to perform any work at the Plant or 12 any other refinery because Plaintiff had chronic active hepatitis. Furthermore, Plaintiff was informed that due to his training, knowledge, experience and disability, there was no other work available for him through Irwin. 18. Plaintiff is informed, believes and thereupon alleges that at no time did Plaintiff ever authorize Chevron or any other person or entity to provide any of his personnel and/or medical records to Irwin or any health care practitioner for Irwin. 19. As a direct and proximate result of the aforementioned acts, omissions and conduct of Defendants Irwin, Chevron, and Does I through XXX as alleged herein, Plaintiff has been deprived of his ability to continue employment in his chosen profession or other similar positions from Defendants, has lost and will continue to lose income and benefits from the date of his termination forward, together with prejudgment interest thereon in an amount to be proven at the time of trial. 20. As a further direct and proximate result of the aforementioned acts, conduct and omissions of Defendants Chevron, Irwin and Does I through XXX, Plaintiff has been damaged financially and professionally and particularly become emotionally upset, distressed, aggravated, and has suffered embarrassment, mortification, humiliation, dignity, and loss of reputation. Plaintiff claims damages therefrom including the cost of medical care, all in an amount to be proven at the time of trial. , 21. Defendants Chevron, Irwin and Does I through XXX intentionally, knowingly and illegally deprived Plaintiff of his rights, including illegally terminating his employment and thereafter or contemporaneously illegally violating his privacy rights/rights of confidentiality with the knowledge that he would be damaged thereby. At times relevant herein, Defendants Chevron, Irwin and Does I through XXX knew that Plaintiff would suffer severe financial and emotional injury by and through their wrongful, illegal and malicious acts and 13 conducts as alleged herein in denying, terminating, and thereafter interfering with Plaintiffs right of continued employment as well as by breaching his rights or privacy and 22. The acts, conduct and grossly negligent omissions taken together toward Plaintiff were carried out by managerial employees, officers, and agents of Defendants Chevron, Irwin, and Does I through XXX and were done in a deliberate, cold, callous and intentional manner in order to injure and damage Plaintiff. By and through their acts, conduct and omissions, Plaintiff has been injured thereby and Plaintiff is entitled to an award of punitive damages. V. [CLAIMS FOR RELIEF] A. [FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS] VIOLATION OF THE FAIR EMPLOYMENT AND HOUSING ACT: DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION (Cal. Gov’t Code §§12920 et seq.) 23. Plaintiff realleges each and every allegation of paragraphs one through and including twenty-two of this complaint and incorporates them herein by reference as allegations asserting a violation of the FEHA for disability ecsieninatl 24. At times relevant herein and especially as of the applicable dates of the aforementioned illegal discriminatory conduct as alleged herein, Plaintiff was a qualified individual with a disability within the meaning of the disability 25. At all times relevant to his employment with Irwin and at all times relevant to his application for employment with 14 Chevron, Plaintiff was able to perform in a professional and competent manner, with or without reasonable accommodation, all of the essential functions of each position/job function he preformed for Irwin at the Plant or for which he had applied with Chevron without injury to himself or others. 26. At all times relevant to his application process for employment with Chevron as a Plant Helper, Chevron was required to maintain all of Plaintiff's applications, personnel and medical records in strict confidence in accordance with provisions of law. At all times relevant to his employment with Irwin, Irwin was required to maintain all of Plaintiff's medical records in strict confidence in accordance with the provisions of law. 27. Plaintiff is informed, believes and thereupon alleges that in or about early 1996, without Plaintiff's authorization, Chevron failed to maintain Plaintiff's medical information/records/reports in a confidential manner as required by law and thereafter released said confidential personnel and medical records to unauthorized persons and entities including Defendant Irwin, its employees and agents. Plaintiff is informed, believes and thereupon alleges that at the time of said unauthorized release of personnel and medical information, Chevron knew or should have known that said medical and personnel information was confidential, could not be released without Plaintiff's authorization, and that Plaintiff had not provided Chevron with any such release. 28. The aforementioned acts and conduct of Defendant Chevron and Does I through XV was willful and intentional and constitutes illegal employment discrimination on the basis of disability in violation of Plaintiff's rights under FEHA. 29. The aforementioned acts and conduct of Defendants Irwin and Does XVI through XXX was intentional and willful and constitutes illegal employment discrimination on the basis of disability in violation of Plaintiff's rights under FEHA. 15 30. As a direct and proximate result of the aforementioned acts, conducts and omissions of Defendants Chevron, Irwin and Does I through XXX, Plaintiff has been damaged and is entitled to be made whole with respect to all terms and conditions of employment he would have enjoyed including an order to be hired or reinstated into the same or comparable position. As a further direct and proximate result of the aforementioned conduct, Plaintiff is entitled to prejudgment interest together with all other general, compensatory and punitive damages in an amount subject to proof at the time of trial. 31. Plaintiff is further entitled to an award of reasonable attorneys’ fees as provided by FEHA. B. [SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS} VIOLATION OF THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITY ACT (42 U.S.C. §§12101 et seq.) 32. Plaintiff realleges each and every allegation of saunas exe Gamudh end testaling Gitpens of Gis complaint and incorporates them herein by reference as asserting a claim for disability discrimination under Title I and Title II of the ADA as against Chevron and under Title I of the ADA as against Irwin. 33. The aforementioned acts and conduct of Defendant Chevron and Does | through XV in (a) rejecting/refusing to hire Plaintiff because of his disability and (b) refusing to permit Plaintiff to work in any position at the Plant because of his disability and (c) by failing to maintain in confidence and thereafter releasing privileged and confidential medical/personnel information without Plaintiff's proper authorization was intentional and willful and constitutes illegal employment discrimination on the basis of disability in violation of Plaintiff's rights under Titles I and II of the ADA. 16 34. The aforementioned acts and conduct of Defendants Irwin and Does XVI through XXX in terminating Plaintiffs employment and/or refusing to permit Plaintiff to continue to work at the Plant or at any other facility or refinery where Irwin employed persons such as Plaintiff was intentional and willful oO aenllity in violation of Plaintiff's rights under Title I of the pe tee eee result of the aforementioned acts, and omissions of Defendants i Does I through XXX, Plaintiff Sse mere tea to be made whole with respect to all terms and conditions of employment he would have enjoyed including an order to be hired or reinstated into the same or comparable position. As a further direct and proximate result of the aforementioned conduct, Plaintiff is entitled to prejudgment interest together with all other general, compensatory and punitive damages in an amount subject to proof at the time of trial. 36. Plaintiff is further entitled to an award of reasonable attorneys’ fees from said Defendants as permitted by the ADA. C. [THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST CHEVRON ONLY] VIOLATION OF SECTION 504, 29 U.S.C. §§794 et seq. 37. Plaintiff realleges each and every allegation of paragraphs one through and including thirty-six of this cede a nee Gam Besmn ty celia as > or disability discriminat; ‘ Chevron under Section 504. aa 38. The aforementioned conduct of Defendant Chevron in refusing to hire Plaintiff in or about February of 1996 and thereafter refusing to allow Plaintiff to perform any position within the Plant was intentional and willful and constitutes 17 illegal employment discrimination on the basis of his disability in violation of Plaintiff's rights under Section 504. 39. Asa direct and proximate result of Defendant Chevron’s acts, conduct and omissions as alleged herein, Plaintiff is entitled to an order requiring Chevron to hire Plaintiff into the position of Plant Helper or a comparable position with comparable pay and benefits and to be made whole from the date of his rejection of employment forward with respect to each and every term, condition and entitlement of the employment he would have enjoyed with Chevron had he been hired, together with prejudgment interest thereon together with other general, compensatory and punitive damages in an amount subject to proof at the time of the trial. 40. Plaintiff is further entitled to an award of reasonable attorneys’ fees as permitted by Section 504 as amended. D. [FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST CHEVRON} VIOLATION OF PLAINTIFF'S CONSTITUTIONAL 41. Plaintiff realleges each and every allegation of paragraphs one through five and seven through twenty-two of this complaint and incorporates them herein by reference as allegations asserting a violation of Plaintiff's right of privacy him under Article I of the California Constitution as against Chevron only. 42. At all times relevant to Plaintiff's applications for employment with Chevron, Article I of the California Constitution obligated Chevron to guarantee to Plaintiff that his personnel records, including all medical records pertaining to him would be maintained in a private and confidential manner in keeping with said privacy rights guarantees. At all times relevant herein, Plaintiff had an entitlement to and did 18 reasonably believe that his personnel files, including his medical records, would be maintained in strict confidence and that they would not be dispensed, transmitted, dispersed, discussed, nor any matters contained therein conveyed or communicated in any manner to any person or entity unless the disclosure of same was authorized by Plaintiff. 43. Atall times relevant herein, Defendant Chevron knew or should have known that any personnel records, including medical records, provided to Chevron by Plaintiff or created/generated/prepared in conjunction with Plaintiff's applications for employment with Chevron must be maintained in a confidential manner and could not be released without authorization by Plaintiff. 44. Plaintiff is informed, believes and thereupon alleges that on at least one occasion occurring in or about early 1996, Chevron and/or Does | through XV illegally and intentionally dispensed, disseminated, transmitted, mailed, transferred or in some manner communicated to agents, officers or employees of Irwin confidential medical/personnel records/information of or pertaining to Plaintiff which was within the control or possession of Chevron without first obtaining Plaintiff's authorization before disclosing said confidential information. The unauthorized release of said private and confidential information constitutes a serious invasion of Plaintiff s privacy rights. 45. As a direct and proximate result of said wrongful conduct as alleged herein, Plaintiff has been damaged and is entitled to an award of general, compensatory and punitive damages in an amount to be proven at the time of trial, together with prejudgment interest thereon. E. [FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST CHEVRON] VIOLATION OF THE CONFIDENTIALITY OF MEDICAL INFORMATION ACT (Cal. Civil Code §§56 et seq.) 19 46. Plaintiff realleges each and every allegation of paragraphs one through five and seven through twenty-two and forty-one through forty-five and incorporates them by reference as if fully set forth as allegations asserting a violation of California’ Confidentiality of Medical Information Act (CMIA) as against Chevron only. 47. Plaintiff is informed, believes and thereupon alleges that in or about early 1996, Defendant Chevron, without proper authorization by Plaintiff as required by the Confidentiality of Medical Information Act, California Civil Code §§56 et seq., disclosed, disseminated and in some manner communicated to Defendant Irwin, its agents, officers and/or employees confidential medical information/records within Chevron’s possession or under its control. Plaintiff is informed, believes and thereupon alleges that at times relevant herein, Defendant Chevron knew or should have know that the disclosure of said confidential medical information could not be released, disseminated, or communicated to others unless the disclosure of which had been authorized by Plaintiff. At all times relevant herein, Plaintiff had not authorized the disclosure of said medical information/records to Irwin. 48. As a direct and proximate result of the illegal disclosure of Plaintiff's medical information to Irwin and/or its agents in violation of CMIA, Plaintiff has been damaged and is entitled to an award of general, compensatory and punitive damages a permitted by law, all in an amount to be proven at the time of trial, together with prejudgment interest and attorneys’ fees as permitted by law. F. [SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST CHEVRON ONLY] INTENTIONAL INTERFERENCE WITH CONTRACTUAL RELATIONS 20 49. Plaintiff realleges each and every allegation of paragraphs one through five and seven through forty-seven of this complaint and incorporates them herein by reference as if fully set forth as allegations asserting a cause of action against Chevron for intentional interference with Plaintiffs contractual relations with Irwin. 50. At all times relevant herein, Defendant (Chevron knew that Plaintiff had a contract of employment with Irwin to work at the Plant and further that Plaintiff desired to continue to work at the Plant. 51. As a direct and proximate result of the aforementioned illegal acts and conduct of Defendant Chevron in directing, advising, and instructing Irwin to prohibit Plaintiff from continuing to work at the Plant, and thereafter by disclosing confidential medical records/information to officers, employees, and/or agents of Irwin which Defendant Chevron knew or should have known that the release/dissem- ination/communication of said confidential medical information would prevent Plaintiff from continuing to work for Irwin at the Plant or at any refinery, Defendant Chevron intentionally and illegally interfered with Plaintiffs contract of employment with Irwin. 52. As a direct and proximate result of the aforementioned acts and conduct of Defendant Chevron, Plaintiff has lost employment together with benefits and entitlements to employment with Irwin in an amount to be proven at the time of trial, together with such other general, compensatory and punitive damages in an amount to be proven at the time of trial, together with prejudgment interest thereon. V. [PRAYER FOR RELIEF] WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment from Defen- dants as follows: 21 1. INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AGAINST DEFENDANTS CHEVRON AND IRWIN: Plaintiff prays that this Court specifically enjoin Defendants Chevron and Irwin: (a) to expunge all personnel and/or medical records to the extent they state, suggest, or imply that Plaintiff is physically incapable of or should not or cannot perform the job for which he sought to be hired or for which he was hired and maintain said records in accordance with law; (b) to provide as to Chevron a clear written standard as to when Defendants may release confidential personnel and/or medical records and how said records must be maintained for any applicant or employee; (c) to order Defendant Chevron to hire Plaintiff into the position of Plant helper or the next comparable position with comparable pay and benefits; (d) in the event Chevron is not ordered to hire Plaintiff, to order Defendant Irwin to reinstate Plaintiff into the last position he held or the next comparable position with comparable pay and benefits. 2. ALL CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST DEFENDANTS CHEVRON AND DOES I THROUGH XV: Plaintiff prays to be made whole with respect to all lost wages and benefits as well as each term, condition and entitlement of employment he would have had with Defendant Chevron but for Chevron’s illegal rejection of his 1995/1996 application for employment from the date of his rejection forward, including but not limited to all front and back pay, retirement/pension, and medical benefits, together with prejudgment interest thereon in an amount subject to proof at the time of trial; 22 3. AS TO ALL CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST DEFENDANTS IRWIN AND DOES XVI THROUGH XXX: Plaintiff prays to be made whole with respect to all lost wages and benefits as well as each term, condition and entitlement of employment with Defendant Irwin but for Irwin’s illegal termination of his employment from the date of his termination forward, including but not limited to ali front and back pay, retirement/pension, and medical benefits, together with prejudgment interest thereon in an amount subject to proof at the time of trial; 4. AS TO THE FIRST AND SECOND CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS: Plaintiff prays for general, compensatory and punitive Camages according to proof in an amount to be established at tae time of trial; 5. AS TO THE THIRD, FOURTH, FIFTH AND SIXTH CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST __DEFENDANTS CHEVRON AND DOES I THROUGH XV: Plaintiff prays for general, compensatory and punitive damages as permitted by law according to proof in an amount to be established at the time of trial; 6. AS TO THE FIRST, SECOND AND THIRD CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS: Plaintiff prays for an award of reasonable attorneys’ fees; 7. AS TO THE FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST DEFENDANT CHEVRON: Plaintiff prays for an award of reasonable attorneys’ fees as permitted by law; 23 9. OTHER RELIEF: Costs of suit, prejudgment interest as permitted by law, together with such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper. Dated: April 8, 1997 Respectfully submitted, - SIEVERS & MINSKY By /s/ L. Minsky LARRY MINSKY Attorney for Plaintiff MARIO ECHAZABAL DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Plaintiff hereby demands trial by jury on all of the issued plead herein so triable and as otherwise permitted by law. Dated: April 8, 1997 Respectfully submitted, SIEVERS & MINSKY By /s/ L. Minsky _ LARRY MINSKY Attorney for Plaintiff MARIO ECHAZABAL 24 [DEFENDANT CHEVRON’S ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT} SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES [Title omitted in printing] CHEVRON’S ANSWER TO ECHAZABAL’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT [Filed May 2, 1997] To Plaintiff And Counsel: Defendant Chevron U.S.A. Inc. (“Chevron”) answers the “ Amended Complaint of plaintiff Mario Echazabal as ollows: 1. Chevron denies the material allegations of Echazabal’s First Amended Complaint pursuant to C.C.P. § 431.30. Chevron denies that Echazabal suffered, or will suffer, damages as a result of any act or omission by Chevron as alleged in the First Amended Complaint. FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Failure to Mitigate) 2. Chevron is not liable for any damages Echazabal could have prevented through reasonable measures available to him. 25 (Privilege) 3. Assuming arguendo that Chevron interfered with Echazabal’s contractual relations, its acts or omissions were privileged. (Health and Safety) 4. Chevron is not liable to Echazabal because, as a result of his medical condition, he could not perform his essential duties without endangering the health and safety of himself and his coworkers. FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Justification) -5. Assuming arguendo that Chevron breached Echazabal’s right to privacy, any invasion was justified because it substantially furthered one or more countervailing interests. FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Business Necessity) 6. Chevron is not liable to Echazabal because its job selection criteria are job-related and consistent with business necessity, and Echazabal cannot perform his job in the refinery environment without seriously endangering his own health. (Statutes of Limitation) 7. Echazabal’s claims are barred by C.C.P. §§ 339 and 340, Cal. Gov. Code §§ 12960 and 12965, and 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5. SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Unconstitutionality of Punitive Damages) 8. Any award of punitive damages is in violation of the California and federal constitutions. 26 EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Damages Limitations) . 9. The damages recoverable on Echazabal’s claims are limited by 42 U.S.C.A § 1981a and Cal. Civ. Code § 56.35. Chevron prays for judgment as follows: (1) That Echazabal takes nothing by reason of his First Amended Complaint; © (2) that Chevron be awarded costs of suit; and (3) for any further relief the Court deems just and proper. May 2, 1997 | HAWKINS, SCHNABEL, LINDAHL & BECK By: /s/ KG Kurt G. Gresenz, Attorneys for Defendant CHEVRON U.S.A. INC. © 27 [DECLARATIONS IN SUPPORT OF CHEVRON’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT} DECLARATION OF JULIE L. CLAYDON I, Julie L. Claydon, declare: 1. I am employed by Chevron Products Company as a safety technician. I work at Chevron’s E] Segundo refinery. | have been employed by Chevron since September 1990. The following matters are true of my own personal knowledge and if I was called as a witness I could competently testify to them. 2. My duties as a safety technician include record keeping for the safety section. In this capacity | maintain a database of chemicals used and stored at the refinery. The various sections at the refinery update me when new chemicals are introduced to the refinery and when existing chemicals are discontinued. This information is then inputted to our system. 3. In late May or early June 1996 I was asked to print a list of all chemicals at the refinery from 1992 through 1996, sorted by their work location. I requested the help of a systems administrator, who was able to search the database for the selected categories. Attached as Exhibit 22 is a true and correct copy of this chemical inventory. The left-hand column reflects the location at the refinery where the chemical is used or stored. The next column identifies the chemical. The “Start Date” column reflects when the chemical was first introduced to the refinery. The “End Date” column reflects when the chemical was discontinued. If there is no end date, the chemical is still used or stored at the refinery. 4. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the preceding matters are true and correct of my own personal knowledge. 28 Executed this 21 day of August, 1997, in El Segundo, California. /s/ Julie L. Claydon__ Julie L. Claydon i DECLARATION OF MICHAEL J. NYEHOLT I, Michael J. Nyeholt, declare: 1. lam employed by Chevron Products Company at the E] Segundo refinery. | started with Chevron in 1969 and have been working at the Chevron refinery in El Segundo since 1974. The following is true of my own personal knowledge, and if called as a witness I could competently testify to these matters. 2. I currently hold the position of industrial hygienist in the Environmental, Fire and Safety division at the Chevron El Segundo refinery. I started in that position in August 1996. My job duties include monitoring for harmful airborne exposures that an employee or contractor might encounter in the regular course of operations. One of the purposes of the monitoring is to help provide a safe working environment. The monitoring is generaily for typical exposures to employees in the workplace. 3. We conduct these tests refinery-wide. We perform two kinds of monitoring: area monitoring and personal monitoring. An area sample involves placing the testing device in a stationary position and monitoring for exposures in that area. A personal sample involves affixing the testing device to a worker and monitoring for exposures he or she encounters in the performance of his or her duties. 4. I am responsible for conducting the monitoring and maintaining the results. We maintain the monitoring results in 29 a computer database and are required to keep the results for 30 years. | was asked to print copies of our air monitoring results from 1992 through 1996. A true and correct copy of these results are attached as Exhibit 18. Each test identifies, in the first column, the sample number, the date of the test, whether it is an area or personal sample, a description of the task being performed, the refinery location (by division, and if applicable, the plant within the division where the test took place) and the tester’s description and/or comments concerning the test. The second column identifies the substance tested for (“contaminant”) and the results of the test (“conc. result”). The 5. For example, the second to the last sample on page 22 of Exhibit 18 translates as follows: It is sample number 262116, performed on 10/10/93, and is a personal sample. The job tested was that of a welder removing a lead lining on a flash vessel in a specific plant in the coker unit. The test was for lead exposure. An exposure of 210 micrograms per cubic meter of air was measured. The permissible exposure to lead is 50 micrograms per cubic meter of air. Thus, for this sample, the exposure exceeded the permissible exposure by more than 4 times. I am informed and believe that lead is a chemical dangerous to the liver. 6. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the state of California that the preceding is true and correct of my own personal knowledge. Executed on August 21, 1997, in El Segundo, California. /s/_ Michael J. Nyeholt_ Michael J. Nyeholt e 30 DECLARATION OF PATRICK W. BEATTY I, Patrick W. Beatty, declare: 1. I am employed by Chevron Research and Technology Company as a staff toxicologist. My job title is Team Leader — Petroleum Toxicology and Health Risk Assessment. I have been employed by Chevron since 1988 (in various operating divisions). The following matters are true of my own personal knowledge and if I was called as a witness I could competently testify to them. 2. I received an A.B. degree in Chemistry in 1972 from Transylvania University in Lexington, Kentucky. I received a Ph.D. in Bio-Chemistry in 1977 from Vanderbilt University in Nashville, Tennessee. I did post-doctoral research in the department of bio-chemistry and bio-physics for two and a half years at Oregon State University in Corvallis, Oregon, from 1977 to 1979. | am also a Diplomate of the American Board of Toxicology, certified in 1994. 3. Asastaff toxicologist, I provide consultation to Chevron companies and operating division regarding the evaluation of potential health effects to Chevron employees, customers and the general public arising from Chevron products and processes. inaedeetanbalanaditaiedetanen tienes hepatotoxicity which exist in a petroleum refinery environment. A true and accurate copy of this list is attached as Exhibit 19. I put together this list by consulting standard toxicological reference works and text books, and reviewing a literature search of medical and toxicological literature relevant to — hepatotoxicity. 4. After completing this list, | provided it to our industrial hygiene department and asked them to cross-reference my list against the chemical inventory of Chevron’s El Segundo refinery (Exhibit 22). The industrial hygiene department was asked to identify all substances at the refinery containing one or more of the hepatotoxic chemicals I listed on Exhibit 19. The 31 industrial hygiene department provided me with their results, | reviewed them and deleted from their list those substances which I did not consider to pose a realistic hepatotoxic risk in the refinery environment. A true and accurate copy of my final list is attached as Exhibit 20. 5. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the preceding matters are true and correct of may own personal knowledge. Executed this 2d day of September, 1997, in Richmond, /s/ Patrick W. Beatty _ Patrick W. Beatty ‘ California. » DECLARATION OF WILLIAM L. SANER I, William L. Saner, declare: 1. lamemployed by Chevron U.S.A. Products Company as the Manager of Human Resources at the El Segundo refinery. I have held that position since June 1, 1993. My duties include coordinating and administering all hiring for the El] Segundo refinery, providing management support and day-to-day supervision to all Human Resources staff. ~~ 2. I supervise the Human Resources staff which provides records retention in connection with job applications and related documents which are kept in the normal course of business related to hiring at the E] Segundo refinery and am familiar with our procedures. The exhibits referenced in this declaration are business records maintained in the ordinary course of our operations. 32 3. Attached as Exhibit | is a true and accurate copy of Chevron job bulletin no. 1595, dated September 29, 1995, listing job openings for plant helper positions at the refinery. Attached as Exhibit 2 is a true and accurate copy of the October 11, 1995. Among other things, it indicates that Mr. Echazabal was seeking employment as a Plant Helper - 3C. 4. Onor about December 28, 1995, I authorized an offer of employment to be extended to Mr. Echazabal as a plant helper subject to certain conditions. Attached as Exhibit 3 is a true and accurate copy of our December 28, 1995 letter to Mr. Echazatal confirming our verbal offer and its conditions. Mr. Echazabal was advised that the offer of employment was “contingent upon . . . completing a pre-employment physical examination.” 5. Attached as Exhibit 4 is a true and accurate copy of the Request for Medical Services form generated in connection with Mr. Echazabal’s exam. Most notably, with respect to Medical Classification, the examining physician, Dr. McGill, checked the box for “B. Work Limitations Required.” Dr. McGill wrote-in by hand the following notations: “because of uncorrectable abnormality” and “No exposure to solvents or other liver toxic chemicals.” 6. Idiscussed Mr. Echazabal’s offer with Dr. McGill and he advised me that, because of a medical condition, Mr. Echazabal should not be exposed to the hydrocarbons and other chemicals to which he would be routinely exposed if he were working as a plant helper at the refinery. 7. Attached as Exhibit 16 is a true and accurate copy of our Job Summary (form GO-400) for the positions of Coke Handler, Coker Plant Helper 1/C, 2/C, 3/C. It covers the position for which Mr. Echazabal applied. The Job Summary describes key job responsibilities. The accompanying Physical/Environmental Demands (form GO-308-ES), a true 33 and accurate copy of which is attached as Exhibit 17, also reviews what abilities/demands are placed on the employee and documents the airborne contaminants and chemicals in the work environment. These are noted for this position to be “Hydrocarbon Liquids & Vapors, Acid, Caustic, Refinery Waste Water and Sludge, Petroleum Solvents, Oils, Greases, Chlorine Bleach.” 8. Given my knowledge of the plant helper position, and my review of the Job Summary and Physical/Environmental Demands forms, I knew that exposure to hydrocarbons and chemicals is a necessary and inseparable part of the job. Based on this knowledge and Dr. McGill’s medical opinion that these exposures would be detrimental] to Mr. Echazabal’s health, | withdrew Chevron’s job offer to Mr. Echazabal. 9. Attached as Exhibit 5 is a true and accurate copy of my February 6, 1996 letter to Mr. Echazabal. My letter communicated to him that the results of his medical exarnination indicated he had a medical condition which would restrict him from performing the tasks of the position we had conditionally offered to him and that we were withdrawing that offer of employment. 10. I was advised that Mr. Echazabal was employed by Irwin Industries, Inc. (“Irwin”), a contractor who provides certain services at Chevron’s El Segundo refinery, and had been assigned by Irwin to work at the refinery. Given our medical evaluation that Mr. Echazabal should not be working in an environment where he would be exposed to hydrocarbons and chemicals of the type routinely encountered at the refinery, it was my judgment that we request Irwin to remove him from the refinery or place him in a position that would eliminate his exposure to solvents and chemicals. Chevron’s February 21, 1996 letter to Irwin, a true and accurate copy of which is attached as Exhibit 6, was sent under my direction. We advised Irwin that we had withdrawn our job offer to Mr. Echazabal based on a medical condition that restricted him from 34 performing the tasks of the position offered, and that the restriction required that he not be exposed to solvents and certain chemicals. This letter also asks that Mr. Echazabal be immediately removed from the refinery or placed in a position that would eliminate his exposure to solvents/chemicals. I did this to protect Mr. Echazabal based on my belief that the work environment posed a significant risk of causing him substantial harm. It was not my intention that Echazabal lose his job at Irwin. Rather, I expected Irwin would likely transfer him to another location that did not pose the same health hazards. 11. There is no way to modify the work environment at the El Segundo refinery to eliminate a plant helper’s exposure to hydrocarbons, chemicals and solvents. Nor do I see any possible way to modify the job duties of a plant helper to eliminate such exposures. This is especially true for an entry- level plant helper who is charged with much of the cleaning and maintenance responsibilities. It is a necessary and inherent part of the job duties of a plant helper to work in areas of the refinery which necessarily expose a plant helper to vapors and chemicals, including those which I am informed and believe are liver toxic. 12. Attached as Exhibit 25 is a true and correct copy of an Authorization For Release For Medical And Other Information (form GO-153). This form includes a release which provides as follows: I authorize the release of any and all information related to any diagnosis, treatment, and prognosis of my physical and mental condition, including information concerning the use of drugs or alcohol, by and between my healthcare providers, pharmacy, the Company, the Company’s employee benefit plan administrators, any insurers of the Company’s employee benefit plans or of its compliance with industrial injury or occupational safety and health laws, any organization retained by the Company to 35 assist in the administration of its employee benefit plans or its compliance with industrial injury or occupational safety and health laws, and any other private or governmental entity from whom I am or may be entitled to benefits. I further authorize the release of any other information by and between the above-named parties related to any benefits I may be entitled to other than from the Company. This shall include, but not be limited to, all information concerning any fact or upon which such benefits are based. Information I am releasing shall be used to administer the Company’s employee benefit plans, scheduled returns to work, and comply with industrial injury and occupational safety and health laws. This authorization is valid for two years from the date I sign it, or until you and my employer receive written notification of its revocation. A copy of this authorization is as valid as the original. This form was signed by Mr. Echazabal on January 2, 1996. (It is identical to an authorization signed by Mr. Echazabal in 1993 in connection with an earlier application for employment with Chevron, a true and accurate copy of which is attached as Exhibit 24.) I am informed and believe that at the time Mr. Echazabal executed the authorization, he was employed by Irwin, an entity from which he was receiving benefits. 13.1 did not release any information regarding Mr. Echazabal’s medical condition or its significance to Irwin, or any agent or employee of Irwin, other than the information communicated in my February 21, 1996 letter. To the best of my knowledge and belief, no other Chevron employee has done so either. The information in my letter relevant to Mr. Echazabal’s medical condition was my statement that he had a “medical condition” imposing the work restriction that he not be exposed to “solvents and certain chemicals.” 36 14. Mr. Echazabal never became a Chevron employee. His conditional job offer was withdrawn based on our finding that Mr. Echazabal could not perform the essential functions of a plant helper without subjecting himself to a significant risk of substantial harm, a risk that could not be eliminated through reasonable accommodation. 15. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct and that, if called as a witness, I could and would competently testify to the above. Executed August 21, 1997 at El Segundo, California. /s/_ William L. Saner William L. Saner » DE TIO TH McGILL, M.D. I, Kenneth McGill, M.D., declare: 1. I am a self-employed medical doctor working at the medical clinic at Chevron’s El Segundo Refinery. 2. I graduated from the University of Saskatchewan in 1954 with a Bachelor of Arts degree in Engineering and Arts. I graduated from the University of British Columbia Medical School with an M.D. degree in 1960. 3. I did an internship and residency at St. Mary’s Hospital in Long Beach from 1960 through 1962. My residency was rotating and included emergency care. I have also subsequently attended numerous professional seminars and conferences to continue my medical training. I have been licensed to practice medicine in California continuously since 1962. 37 4. From 1962 through 1980 I was self-employed and had a general and family medical practice in South Laguna, California. From 1980 through approximately 1986 I practiced industrial medicine working at various industrial clinics in Southern California. Industrial medicine includes treating injuries which occur on the job and biomedical testing for exposures to various chemicals and substances in the work- place. It includes such diverse things as treating chemical exposures, testing for hearing loss and treating accidents on the job. From approximately 1986 through approximately 1989 I worked as a medical doctor for the City of Los Angeles Department of Water & Power. I was the doctor on staff at the Water & Power clinic. Since approximately January 1988 I have worked at the Chevron El Segundo Refinery in the medical clinic. Since approximately July 1993 I have been the Clinical Doctor. 5. As Clinician at the El Segundo Refinery I am concerned both with treating injuries and accidents once they occur and, just as importantly, developing and implementing programs for the prevention of injuries. 6. One of my functions is to give pre-employment physical exams and assess applicants for employment at the refinery from a medical standpoint. This function typically includes taking a history from the applicant, assessing whether any past or current medical problems are likely to have an impact on what they will be asked to do and/or what they will be exposed to in the workplace and, when appropriate, investigating further to determine their ability to safely perform the position for which they are being considered. One of the things | take into account is whether the job the applicant is seeking is likely to aggravate a condition the person already has. For example, if an applicant has pre-existing pulmonary problems or allergies, we have to very carefully examine whether it would be appropriate to put that person in an environment where they are exposed to dust. 38 7. In the normal course of business the medical clinic maintains medical charts which record medical examinations, assessments and/or treatment of persons seen in the clinic. Mr. Echazabal was seen at the clinic several times between 1992 and 1996. Pursuant to our standard practice we maintained a chart concerning Mr. Echazabal. I reviewed that chart. Included in it are subsequent records concerning his chronic active hepatitis C. I personally saw Mr. Echazabal on some occasions, including January 2, 1996, when he came to the clinic, gave a medical history and underwent a physical examination as part of the employment process. Attached as Exhibit 15 is a true and accurate copy of the Medical History & Physical Examination form (GO-146) filled out at Mr. Echazabal’s January 2, 1996 visit. Mr. Echazabal disclosed in connection with the Medications inquiry that within the last twelve months he had taken Interferon for a liver condition. In connection with his Exposure History he answered “Yes” to questions about whether he had been regularly exposed to insulation materials, welding and soldering fumes and other dusts and fumes within the last six months. He specifically identified exposure to “coker dusts.” Mr. Echazabal also indicated that with respect to chemical agents, he had been exposed to solvents and cleaning fluids. Also, he had been exposed to engine exhaust and noise. Mr. Echazabal reported that all of these exposures were at work. Mr. Echazabal also answered “yes” to questions inquiring about a history of hepatitis or jaundice. He disclosed both that he had a liver condition and was undergoing liver treatment. My notes in connection with my January 2, 1996 examination indicate that Mr. Echazabal was to set-up an appointment for a current liver function test at his HMO. The purpose of this was to assist me in assessing his current liver function. 8. The refinery creates and maintains job summaries with respect to every position at the El Segundo Refinery. These include descriptions of what employees need to be able to do in particular jobs and, where appropriate, what environmental 39 conditions they will encounter. I knew Mr. Echazabal was applying for a position to become a coker plant helper so from our manual I obtained the summaries regarding that position. A true and accurate copy of the applicable Job Summary (Form GO-400) is attached as Exhibit 16. A true and accurate copy of Chevron’s Physical/Environmental Demands (form GO-308- ES) is attached as Exhibit 17. These summaries are prepared in the normal course of business and are used and relied upon by the medical clinic in connection with assessing whether applicants for jobs are capable of safely performing the required functions. The information in these two summaries were consistent with my general understanding and enhanced my knowledge of the coker plant helper position and its requirements. In particular, the Physical/Environmental Demands (form GO-308-ES), which was updated on December 1, 1993, addressed the issue of Airborne Contaminants & Chemicals in the work environment, listing: “Hydrocarbon Liquids & Vapors, Acid, Caustic, Refinery, Waste, Water and Sludge, Petroleum, Solvents, Oils, Greases, Chlorine, Bleach.” Given Mr. Echazabal’s medical history, his impaired liver function as evidenced by lab tests in his chart and his diagnosis of chronic active Hepatitis C, 1 was concerned about whether he could work in the environment at the coker unit and provide the services required of a plant helper without endangering his own health. A plant helper in the coker unit is exposed to chemicals and solvents including several that are hepatotoxic, that is, damaging to the liver. A healthy individual can be expected to withstand this exposure with no significant health risk. But given Mr. Echazabal’s history of a long term liver problem, his diagnosis of chronic active Hepatitis C, and significantly elevated liver enzymes over a period of years, he had a reduced liver function as demonstrated by lab test results, he would be far more at risk than a person who had normal liver function and was performing the duties of a plant helper. My concern was that further exposure to hepatotoxic chemicals and solvents would further damage his already reduced liver capacity and seriously endanger his health. Small exposures over a long 40 period of time would pose a health hazard for him. Also, a single event large exposure (for example, as a result of a ruptured pipe, a relief valve popping and venting, a fire, explosion or other emergency situation) could by itself significantly injure him and potentially cause death. In short, hepatotoxic exposure to a person like Mr. Echazabal with an already impaired liver suffering from a progressive liver disease such as chronic active hepatitis C could be fatal. One of the liver’s primary functions is to filter poisonous substances from the body. Given the existence of numerous potential toxic substances at the refinery, even if not specifically liver toxic, a person with an impaired liver would be less able to detoxify such an exposure. This circumstance by itself carries the risk of serous injury or death. 9. I received a letter dated January 10, 1996 from Zelman Weingarten, M.D., one of Mr. Echazabal’s personal physicians. A true and correct copy of this letter is attached as Exhibit 27. It advises that Mr. Echazabal had been followed in the Gl/Hepatology Department of Healthcare Partners Medical Group for several years with a history of chronic active Hepatitis secondary to Hepatitis C, and that he had been treated for extended periods with Interferon without clearance of the problem. Mr. Echazabal was described at that time as being asymptomatic. Dr. Weingarten advised that Mr. Echazabal did not pose a contagious problem, provided he did not donate blood, use needles, etc. I was concerned about whether his chronic active Hepatitis C would affect his ability to work as a plant helper in the coker unit without injuring himself as a result of exposures to chemicals and solvents. Dr. Weingarten’s letter did not address this additional issue. 10. Attached as Exhibit 28 is a true and accurate copy of my January 10, 1996 letter to Mordo Suchov, M.D., whom I knew to be one of his treating doctors at the Healthcare Partners Medical Group. I advised Dr. Suchov, among other things, that Mr. Echazabal had applied for a job that may entail exposure to 41 hepatotoxic hydrocarbons and asked his opinion as to whether this exposure would be a risk to Mr. Echazabal’s liver condition. 11. On January 24, 1996 I received a partial printout of blood tests results which I believe Mr. Echazabal brought into the clinic that day. A copy of that partial printout is attached as Exhibit 14. It reports tests on blood drawn on 1/5/96. The copy I was given did not go all the way to the bottom of the page and did not include the particular liver function tests | was interested in. On that date, I placed a phone call directly to the laboratory and spoke with a technician, my notes show he gave his name as Fred, who read me the additional test results that were not on the page I was provided. I was advised on that date, and noted in my chart, the following lab results: SGPT 329 SGOT 147 GGTP 170 Alpt 90 These results were markedly abnormal. These each show liver enzymes at values far above normal. These enzymes are intracellular enzymes which indicate liver cell damage. There is a normal range for these enzymes indicating normal clearance of liver cells. These results, however, combined with Mr. Echazabal’s history, show that his liver has already suffered significant damage. A normal healthy adult may only routinely need to use 50-60% of their liver capacity and has, in effect, excess capacity. Mr. Echazabal has a greatly decreased capacity to process toxins. Additionally, exposure specifically to hepatotoxins will further impair his already damaged liver and damage his health by continuing to degrade his liver’s ability to function. Given that his liver is already in effect impaired the prospect of further damage is quite serious and must be avoided. 42 12. From our chart we also had prior lab results regarding Mr. Echazabal which I was able to review and compare. A true and accurate copy of a report dated October 15, 1992 is attached as Exhibit 7. It shows: Reference Range G-Glutamy! Transpep 167.0 Units/L_ 1.00-94.0 Transaminase, SGO 118.0 IV/L 1.00-45.0 Transaminase, SGP 275.0 IV/L 1.00-60.0 On or about December 19, 1992, I received a letter from one of Mr. Echazabal’s physicians, a true and correct copy of which is attached as Exhibit 8, which reports the following results: G-Glutamy] Transpep 39.0 Transaminase, SGO 108.0 Transaminase, SGP 129.0 A true and accurate copy of a report dated January 6, 1993 is attached as Exhibit 9. It has the following information: Reference Range G-Glutamyl Transpep 142.0 Units/L__1.00-94.0 Transaminase, SGO 212.0 IV/L 1.00-45.0 Transaminase, SGP 469.0 IV/L 1.00-60.0 43 A true and accurate copy of another report dated March 26, 1993 is attached as Exhibit 10. It shows: Reference Range GGT 185 U/L 0-65 AST (SGOT) 145 U/L 0-50 ALT (SGPT) 406 U/L 0-55 On or about April 5, 1993, I received another letter from one of Mr. Echazabal’s physicians, a true and correct copy of which is attached as Exhibit 11, with the following results: GGT 181 SGOT 177 SGPT 494 A true and accurate copy of another lab report dated April 9, 1993, is attached as Exhibit 12. That report has the following entries: Reference Range G-Glutamyl Transpep 151.0 Units/L 1.00-94.0 Transaminase, SGO 120.0 IV/L 1.00-45.0 Transaminase, SGP 265.0 IV/L 1.00-60.0 A true and accurate copy of a report dated June 25, 1993 is attached as Exhibit 13. For the equivalent items it showed: Reference Range GGT 161 U/L 0-65 AST (SGOT) 214 U/L 0-50 ALT (SGPT) 513 U/L 0-55 44 13. Based on my review of Mr. Echazabal’s medical chart, taken on January 5, 1996, I noted that despite a history of having received aggressive Interferon treatment for a period of years, the liver enzyme levels still showed considerable impairment in liver function. 14. It is my professional opinion to a reasonable degree of medicai certainty that Mr. Echazabal’s chronic liver condition is uncorrectable. Based on my knowledge of the job requirements of plant helper in the coker unit, it was and remains my medical opinion that Mr. Echazabal could not safely perform that job. Working in that environment would present a danger to Mr. Echazabal and would potentially damage his liver and endanger his health to a significant degree. It was and remains my opinion that Mr. Echazabal should not be put in a position where he is working with solvents or other liver toxic chemicals. Based on my knowledge of the requirements of a plant helper in the coker unit, he should not be hired to perform that job. In fact, any job out in the refinery that exposed him to hydrocarbons, chemicals and solvents would not be appropriate. It was and remains my opinion that Mr. Echazabal faced a significant risk of substantial harm in the position conditionally offered to him. | am advised that Mr. Echazabal had worked for many years for Irwin Industries (and before that other employers) at the Chevron El Segundo Refinery. | have considered this fact, as well as his failure to respond to aggressive Interferon treatment, in reaching my opinion that it would pose a significant health risk for him to continue working around hepatotoxic chemicals and solvents. 15. On January 29, 1996 I also discussed this issue by telephone with Dr. T.L. Bridge, Chevron’s Medical Director in San Francisco. He agreed with my assessment that Mr. Echazabal could not safely work as a plant helper at the refinery. Thereafter I discussed this issue with William Saner, 45 head of Human Resources at the refinery, and provided him my assessment. 16. On January 29, 1996 I completed the bottom half of the REQUEST FOR MEDICAL SERVICE report, a true and accurate copy of which is attached as Exhibit 4. As noted on the form, if Mr. Echazabal were to be hired by Chevron, it would be subject to the work limitation imposed as a result of his uncorrectable abnormality. The work limitation was that there should be “no exposure to solvents or liver toxic chemicals.” Thereafter I discussed this issue with William Saner, head of Human Resources at the refinery. 17. I received a letter dated February 28, 1996 from Mr. Echazabal’s doctor, Zelman Weingarten, M.D., dated February 28, 1996. A true and accurate copy of that letter is attached as Exhibit 29. Dr. Weingarten noted that in a prior letter I had mentioned that Mr. Echazabal had applied for a job that “may entail exposure to hepatotoxic hydrocarbons.” Dr. Weingarten’s letter advised that, “this, of course, is recommended not to be the case.” In short, Mr. Echazabal’s own personal doctor concurred in my assessment that Mr. Echazabal should not be in a job involving exposure to hepatotoxic chemicals and solvents. This reinforced my earlier opinion. 18. Based on my knowledge of the job requirements of a plant helper in the coker unit and what they actually do on the job, I see no way to modify the essential duties of the position, or otherwise accommodate Mr. Echazabal, so that he could safely perform these functions. Working in that environment is a necessary and inherent part of the job. Because of Mr. Echazabal’s impaired liver function, he cannot work in that environment without significantly endangering his health. 19. At no time did I provide any of Mr. Echazabal’s medical records to Irwin or its agents. Nor am I aware of anyone at the medical clinic having done so. I have also reviewed our chart regarding Mr. Echazabal. Had we provided any of his medical 46 records to anyone, there would be a notation or cover letter reflecting this fact in the chart pursuant to our custom and practice in the clinic. For example, my communications with Mr. Echazabal’s treating physicians in the course of my assessment of his condition are all documented in the file (some of which are attached as exhibits to this motion). There is no record of any disclosure or communication between the clinic and Irwin. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct and that, if called as a witness, I could and would competently testify to the above. Executed this 25th day of August, 1997 at El Segundo, California. /s/_ Kenneth McGill, M.D. Kenneth McGill, M.D. » DECLARATION OF RON DIPADUA I, Ron Di Padua, declare: 1. Iam employed at the Chevron El Segundo Refinery as a Shift Supervisor in the Coker/Sulfur Acid Division, also referred to as the coker unit. During my shift, I am responsible for the day-to-day activities in my unit including supervising the personnel who work there. 2. The plant helper hired for the coker unit in January 1996 would be working under my supervision if assigned to my crew, or under the supervision of another shift supervisor if the was assigned to another crew. 3. One function of the coker unit is to thermally crack residium and extract distillates from it. The coker unit has three 47 furnaces and six coke drums. They are involved in a batch process with three drums typically being filled while the other three are in the recovery/cooling process for preparation of removal. The coke drums are large, permanently installed pressure vessels (approximately 27 feet in diameter and 97 feet tall). Residium is heated to between 550 degrees F to 915 degrees F and pumped into the coke drums. Under pressure and heat the residium is fractionized. Distillates are separated out and taken away. Corrosion inhibitors are added in the distillation section. This includes Nalco 5163 Corrosion Inhibitor and Nalco 5186 Corrosion Inhibitor. Nalco 5743 process Antifoam is injected into the coke drums while they are feeding towards the end of the feeding cycle. Hydrocarbons distilled from the coke include thermocracked naptha heavy, naptha light, and naptha sour. Sour water and other recyclable oils are also byproducts of the process. ' 4. One of our goals is to minimize leakage to the environment. But some weepage and escape of these chemicals and/or hydrocarbons occurs, in particular at flanges, block valves and flow valves. Air monitors regularly check for leaks. When a small leak is suspected the operators use Snoop Liquid Leak Detector to locate leaks. Plant helpers are not directly involved in these operations. But they are working in and around the area where these chemicals are stored and used and are occasionally exposed to leakage. There is also a risk of a major event, e.g., major leak, fire or explosion. These occur only very infrequently but can result in a plant helper in the coker unit having major exposure to the chemicals and products used and produced in these operations. 5. Once the thermocracking and distillation process in a particular coke drum has run its course, the next steps are to cool it, open the drum and empty the coke so the process can resume. Cooling involves flushing the still sealed coke drum with water. The water is drained and, as a result of having mixed with the coke and petroleum product in the drum, 48 contains contaminants such as manganese. While the coke drum is draining, plant helpers are directly involved in removing the heads, top and bottom, from the coke drums. This includes using an impact gun to remove bolts fastening the heads. They commonly may need to use products called Rust Buster or Master Mechanic (like a heavier duty version of WD40) to spray onto the bolts to loosen stuck bolts on the heads. As the heads are being removed and continuing thereafter, the plant helpers are exposed to steam coming off the petroleum coke containing 10-12% VCM (volatile combustible matter). The steam contains small amount of contaminants which it picked up from the coke. One of the plant helpers (called the driller) then uses a high pressure water spray (approximately 2,500 Ibs/sq inch) to actually cut the coke that is in the now opened coke drum. The driller drills or cuts through it so that it falls out of the drum and into an open coke pit. Sometimes the plant helper hits a “hot spot” and steam and coke fines blow back up to the top deck where he is working. Mixed in with the coke is also small amounts of lead, iron, manganese, selenium and other substances. Plant helpers also clean the heads, inlet lines, deck and associated equipment. The plant helper will also grease valves and start resealing the drum heads. This activity commonly requires th. plant helper to use “plumbers dope,” and various greases and oils to make it easier to thread flanges and bolts. A plant helper will commonly mix plumber’s dope with SS Jet Lube or GS68 oil and apply this to flanges and bolts. 6. Plant helpers are also involved in using a crane to lift coke out of the coke pit and put it on a conveyor belt which carries the coke to another area for loading onto trucks to be taken away from the refinery. A plant helper is typically assigned to monitor the conveyor belt and clean up when coke falls off the belt. Once the coke is cut out of the drums, it is open to the environment and plant helpers are exposed to coke dust. 49 7. When open-topped trucks are used to transport the coke, a solution including Corexit is automatically sprayed onto the load to suppress dust while the coke is being trucked. 8. From time to time we also halt processing operations and have a shutdown to allow maintenance or modifications to occur. During shutdowns there is typically a lot of welding going on in the unit. A plant helper working in the coke unit would necessarily be exposed to welding fumes when he is working nearby or downwind. 9. Plant helpers also use GS220 oil on gear boxes and winch motors, GS68 oil on joy motors, Quindlubic 822 oil for operating chutes, actuators and rams, and Duralith NLG1 #2 Grease for primary crusher and rollers on the belts as well as for greasing the crane bucket. 10. There is no way to perform the functions of a plant helper without being exposed to this environment including hydrocarbons, chemicals and solvents. Exposures to some of these substances arises from plant helpers using them directly. Additional exposure results from being in a work area when others are using them. I am informed and believe, based on a review of the Declaration of Kenneth McGill, M.D., which is being filed with the court together with this declaration, that a healthy individual can be expected to withstand this exposure with no significant health risk. But a person with a long term liver problem, a diagnosis of chronic active Hepatitis C and reduced liver function would be far more at risk than a person who had normal liver function and was performing the duties of a plant helper. 11. I have reviewed the Job Summary (Form GO-400) for the Coke Handler; Coker Plant Helper 1/C, 2/C, 3/C and the Physical/Environmental Demands (Form GO-308-ES), it accurately describes the plant helper position. I declare that the foregoing is true under penalty of perjury and, if called as a witness, I could and would testify to the 50 51 above based on my own personal knowledge, except where | have indicated I am relying on information and belief. Executed this 22 day of September, 1997 at El Segundo, California. /s/ Ron DiPadua Ron DiPadua accidental releases of listed toxic chemicals, as well as the maximum amount of the listed toxic chemicals on-site during the calendar year and the amount contained in wastes transferred off-site. The SARA/ECPRA reports cover the emission, escape, release, transfer and disposal of the designated substances from Chevron’s El Segundo refinery. 4. Under the SARA (§ 313(d)), chemicals are designated for reporting by the EPA when it determines any one of the following: (A) The chemical is known to cause or can reasonably be anticipated to cause significant adverse acute human health effects at concentration levels that are reasonably likely to exist beyond the facility site boundaries as a result of continuous, or frequently recurring, releases. (B) The chemical is known to cause or can reasonably be anticipated to cause in humans — (i) cancer or teratogenic effects, or (ii) serious or irreversible — (I) reproductive dysfunctions, (If) neurological disorders, (III) heritable genetic mutations, or (IV) other chronic health effects. » D IN N. IN I, Dennis N. Leonard, declare: 1. | am employed by Chevron Products Company. I have , worked for Chevron for the past seven and a half years, the entire time at the Chevron El Segundo refinery. My job title is Policy 530 Coordinator and I work in the Environmental, Fire and Safety division. The following matters are true of my own personal knowledge and if called as a witness I could competently testify to them. 2. Chevron is required to prepare Toxic Chemical Release Inventory reports in compliance with Section 313, Title III of the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 and the Pollution Prevention Act of 1990 (“SARA”), and filing them with the Emergency Planning and Community Right-To- Know (“ECPRA”) Reporting Center and the California Environmental Protection Agency. The reports cover substances determined by the Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) to pose environmental and/or health hazards. (C) The chemical is known to cause or can reasonably be anticipated to cause, because of — (i) its toxicity, (ii) its toxicity and persistence in the environment, or (iii) its toxicity and tendency to bioaccumulate in the environment, a significant adverse effect on the environment of sufficient seriousness to warrant... reporting. 5. My duties include gathering the data upon which these reports are based. I get this data from the various operating divisions within the refinery. I then assist with the preparation 3. Reporting is required to provide the public with information on the releases of listed toxic chemicals in their communities and to provide the EPA with release information to assist it in determining the need for future regulations. Facilities must report the quantities of both routine and 52 and submission of the SARA/ECPRA reports. My responsibilities also include filing and maintaining these reports internally at the refinery. Attached as Exhibit 21 are true and correct copies of Chevron’s SARA/ECPRA reports for 1995, the most recent compliance period. 6. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the state of California that the preceding matters are true and correct of my own personal knowledge. Executed on August 29, 1997, in El Segundo, California. /s/ Dennis N. Leonard Dennis N. Leonard 53 [EXHIBITS IN SUPPORT OF CHEVRON’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT] [EXHIBIT 1} BULLETIN No. 1595 Chevron Refining E] Segundo Refinery September 29, 1995 NOW HIRING FOR PLANT HELPER POSITIONS TO ALL EMPLOYEES: The Refinery is currently looking for entry level Plant Helpers for the Environmental, Fire and Security Division and the Coker-Sulfur/Acid Division. If you know of anyone whom you would consider for a plant helper position, please have the individual read our Sunday, October 1, 1995, Classified advertisement placed in the Daily Breeze and Los Angeles Times. The advertisement gives a brief job description along with instructions on how to set an appointment to complete a job application. Candidates may start calling our job line at (310) 615-5239, on Monday, October 2, 1995. The Classified Advertisement will read as follows: Chevron U.S.A. Products Co. El Segundo Refinery Chevron U.S.A. Products Co., one of the leading oil companies in the nation, is currently seeking individuals for our El Segundo Refining facility. Refinery experience preferred. For an appointment call (310) 615-5239 starting October 2nd through the 6th between the hours of 8:00 a.m. through 10:30 a.m. and 12:00 p.m. through 3:30 p.m. Please identify position by this number 25B or 25C when calling for your appointment. 54 Chevron offers an excellent salary, work environment, and benefit package including an on-site fitness center. Must be 18 years of age and possess a valid California Driver’s License. All applicants must pass a medical examination which includes drug screening. Chevron is an Equal Opportunity Employer PLANT HELPER-B 25B Requirements for the job include but are not limited to: Oral and written communications necessary for basic day-to-day job functions. Must be able to work at elevated heights and climb ladders and stairs, some of which are located on towers and columns in work area. Variety of activities involving day-to- day monitoring of refinery systems. Calibrate and maintain analyzers. Work closely with operation and maintenance personnel on repair of refinery equipment. PLANT HELPER-3C 25C Requirements for the job include, but are not limited to: Must work rotating 12 hour shifts (including weekends and holidays due to 24 hour/7 day a week operation). Oral and written communications necessary for basic day-to-day job functions. Must be able to work at elevated heights and climb ladders and stairs, some of which are located on towers and columns in work area. Checking mechanical equipment, safety inspections of equipment, head-up and un-head large process drums. As required lubricate, service and make repairs to drilling equipment. Operate large conveyor belts and truck loading systems. D.E. TORMEY GMM:spd/29 ALEX SLOAN Post until October 6, 1995 Bulletin - HRD 55 [EXHIBIT 3] Chevron U.S.A. Products Company El Segundo Refinery 324 W. El Segundo Boulevard El Segundo, CA 90245 (310) 615-5000 December 28, 1995 Mario Echazabal 455 E. 27th St. Los Angeles, CA 90011 Dear Mr. Echazabal: I am pleased to confirm our verbal job offer for the Plant Helper position at the Chevron U.S.A. Products Company, El Segundo Refinery in El Segundo, California. Your starting rate would be $17.29 per hour. Our offer of employment is contingent upon your providing Chevron with proof of your identity and eligibility to work in the United States according to the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, as well as completing a pre-employment physical examination. Please advise Anastasia Nakamura at (310) 615-5390 by December 29, 1995 of your decision to accept or decline employment. If you accept this job offer, you will need to complete a pre- employment physical examination and drug screen. Your appointment with the El] Segundo Clinic has been set up for January 2, 1996 at 9:30 a.m. You must arrive for your appointment 15 minutes prior to the actual examination to complete the required medical forms. 56 We look forward to hearing from you. If there are any questions, please contact Anastasia Nakamura on (310) 615-5390. Very truly yours, /s/ W.L. Saner/an eo [EXHIBIT 5] Chevron U.S.A. Products Company El] Segundo Refinery 324 W. El Segundo Boulevard El Segundo, CA 90245 (310) 615-5000 February 6, 1996 CERTIFIED MAIL Z 046 331 528 Mr. Mario Echazabal 455 E. 27th Street Los Angeles, CA 90011 Dear Mr. Echazabal: We have completed the review of your pre-employment physical examination. Unfortunately, the results of your examination indicate that you have a medical condition which would restrict you from performing the tasks of the position we offered. It is therefore, with regret, that we must now withdraw our offer of employment. The results of your recent test will be kept in confidence by Chevron’s Medical Department and will not be disclosed to any 57 other company. If you wish to discuss the results of the physical, please contact our Medical Department on (310) 615- 5259. We wish you the very best in your future endeavors. Sincerely, /s/ W.L. Saner cc’d Medical ® [EXHIBIT 6] Chevron U.S.A. Products Company El Segundo Refinery 324 W. El Segundo Boulevard El Segundo, CA 90245 (310) 615-5000 February 21, 1996 CERTIFIED MAIL P 321 119 448 2679 Redondo Ave. Long Beach, CA 90806 Dear Mr. Bud Miller: Your employee Mr. Mario Echazabal recently applied for employment at the Chevron U.S.A. Products Company. As a result of his application, we extended a job offer which was contingent on several conditions including his completing a physical examination. Unfortunately, the results of Mr. youlsy —~OSOD KC“ SCSYT:COCSRIONUYDA], SSad01g AsOUIZaY (Bip 9) GI Youtsog Dida “X_ Jo ouo suodey = ayqeyleay dja} feuonoun4 jestesddeay™ “Buljnpayss UOIBBA puke sUOIJoUNY [JOsAed SWOJJed ‘smold SojnpeYyos ‘poutes muMmey “KX idwiexg-uon KX Ajsadoid aye smadd sainsua puke suia|qosd jooysa;qnoy ‘sejpany SAOUISI 0} MOI SOddng ‘s}jnses WNWIxeWwW BuIAsdIyoR SI Boe = suOouNnj gop MONT” ~=—sdwiexg pouisse sunsus 0} diysiopea; puke Suryseod sapiaoig 4sOstAJadng €£ juswisce| dg sJosiasadng yoddns 0} suodey Surodey €B/ZI/E “LB/S/11 EQ O/Z sodjaH JUR]g ‘J2]|puB}{ BYOD peoejdoy qos Asauyey Opundas [J uoneso] = suoneedC/Suluysy uoIstaAiqjuoutedeg Ag peaoiddy juawace|d ANVdWOO SLONGOUd “V’S'N NOWAFHO Auedwo5 JUdUIade Id | O/E ‘D/Z ‘D/1 WAd TAH LNV 1d UIAOO “UATANVH FOO 00¢-OD Arewmuing of (91 LIGIHXa) 6S ee Mr. Mario Echazabal JS Nakamura 58 Echazabal’s examination indicate that he has a medical condition that would restrict him from performing the tasks of the position we offered. The restrictions require that Mr. him in a position that eliminates his exposure to solvents/chemicals. However, should Mr. Echazabal wish to pursue further analysis of his medical condition, we may immediately remove Mr. Echazabal from our Refinery or place Please contact our Senior Contracts Administrator, Ms. Fran Hsu, on (310) 615-5534 with any questions that you may have. It is therefore, with regret, that we have withdrawn our offer of employment to Mr. Echazabal. Further, we must ask you to Echazabal not be exposed to solvents and certain chemicals. cc: Medical Department /s/ W.L. Saner bec: FV Hsu Sincerely, a1eq | Ag pomatacy YyuWig “y “GAojAeg “y “gy Aq poyidwod BUD jeuonsun{ or Aiauyay Opundag [J ay) ye XajdWioD 1940 ay) Je YIOM SULIOJIEg Waxy ‘pestasadns peasy) Bed jo 139A E661 adoog aquoseq seekojdwiq “Ajuo gof siyy 0} aanefad ssojoey as—) {gol ay) si 31q MOH] adoog 19 ‘yuowidinbe Ayayes suone[n3os mu Aid ‘quowidinbe jo sydoys Ajayes auINos sxe - —" — Re aeneed waanls ope mipuey wy Azessacou se 1S}SsV - ‘pesin Sulaow 1ys ‘ Aseud pure sapeo] jayonq ‘auesd Buijaaey aesedO - SB 9409 oul pue Suryrys ‘saysno /| te "e pure ‘7 ‘| sUaWIUBISSYy Jo suoRoUNY suUO}sed pue ut Paysyenb st J2[pUEH 240d somipiqisuodsay gor Aa auL% “ON ‘Ksessacou ji AM pure MOY ‘SULI9} JB9]D “9SIDUOD UI! S2OP qof ayn aU suoijoun 4 09 ‘SoIqI[1oe} pajou 0} Jtedas pue sduBUsUTeUI BuIPNjoul “PoydoJIp SB YOM JUIO JO Butjpuey 940d [BOIWIOUDIS PUB JUSIOYJO ‘BJS JO} YOM JOU}O wuojied pue Joy2s9d0 GUBID SAdII[A1 PUB ISISSY - ‘sduins Wo199]]09 J9yeM Ul jUaWdinbs pue uonesedo Joyo - ‘dn-pying 2409 jo skemyjem 3/9q pue saynyo ZuIpeo] ‘sIoYSMID 1899 Pue S}}2q JOAVAUOD JO SpIsOpUN dU) WOH} Keme 3409 Ysem pur Je2j) - ‘uonjesodo pue uorestiqny Jodoud 103 si0jOU BALIP [|B JPY ‘wiaisfs pure ayes uorsafu! yuessaiddns ysnp yon. ayod JONUOUI PUR s[iej WaysAs SuIpeo] SeUIO;Ne usym Ajpenuew wiaysXs Surpeol YON} 2409 ayesedQ - "SOINIey 40 suiajqosd wiaysXs Aue jo joyesodG Ped} SY} SSIApe pue 499110) ‘wiaysXs J01]U0d JayNdwWOd jNo peo] Yons yoo pue suLe[e joued usaysXs 3J9q ‘sayndwsos Kappesg Ua|y JO SYSeYo suIINOI BxB\ ~ “Aytp1aeJ BBVIOYS 0} POLOAIP 9409 JO adeddoys syst 10 JOK9AU0d SB YONs SUIa|qold puke sNye}s Zuljpuey VyxOO JO poullojul soyesodeG pedp] daey - "Wa}SAS JNO PRO] O} Suipjing eBesoys ay) WI, 2409 Peo] Pue aBeIO}s JO SVD PLOAIES ‘syons} 0} 3409 JO MOL OIG - ‘ZUIP]INg BBVsO}s 9YOO dy} Ul sokaauod ajynys Burpnjout ssOA2Auod [|e ayei0dQ - ‘JQAOWINY SY} YIM SULIOJUOS }1 BINS VxBU 9} (‘d32 “S19{JOI JO[P! ‘s30}0UI SALIP ‘S}]9q “B"a) WaysAs JOK9Auod ul juawdinds peotuBysow YIeY “JOAoWINY 2A1999Y (HOTeISAD JOKSAUO)) ¢ JUSUIUSISSY ‘€|q ‘Zurppuwy VyYOO [BSIWOUOIS PUL JUDIOIJe “Jes 10} Ayesso0ou St YJOM JOJO ULOJ}I9d - ‘Suidaayasnoy poos pue daexdn 10} Auessaoou se Bunjured Joulw Suipnjou! ease ues pue yid BOO JO SSaUIJUBEIO UIEIUIRYY - ‘suedad JOUIW SYBW PUL I}BILIGN| ‘sjuauysnf(pe juouidinbe aye “suueye jaued ouesd YIeYD - sontjiqisuodsay gor Koy quit] % | “ON ‘Aressacau Ji AYM PUB MOY “SULI9} 1Ba{9 “AS}OUOO Ut soop gof oui UM suonoun4 Z adeq ponuyuo) 00¢-09 AsBUWIUUNS GOf WWE ‘O/T ‘O/1 WAdMTIH LNV 1d WAAOSD ‘WATGNVH 3AOO c9 x SIySI9H poeae|y x Buiyenbs x saoeds poduresp/poureyuod x Buljseu>y xX snyesreddy Suryyeosg-soyesidsoy x Buidoois $]2q199q x $B 12AQ-2SION x Bus x % (6 2A0g y-AyIPIUINH x BuryleAA "4 SSOUIO MA xX Buipueys GNYWad GNVW — pouinboy /ALIMEV pounbay | pasinboy Wav JON ‘SGNVWaAG V.LNAWNOWIAND/SALLITICV TVOISAHd ‘dn-pying 2409 Jo sKemyem 3/94 Pure saynyo Burjeso| SIOYSNID 189]9 7 S124 JOKQAUOd JO SpIsJapUN dy} WO Aeme a409 ysem 2 Je2]D ‘uorjeedo 79 UOHJBOIQN| sadoud 10} S10JOUW BALIP [JB 49°4D ‘wayscs pur ayes UOHOeLUt juessauddns ysnp yon) 9yOo JoyUOU! pur S|!eJ wiajsks Suipeo] SBWO Ne USYM Ayenuewl wioysXs Burpeoj YON} 9409 gyesodG ‘soinyiej JO suiajqosd wiaysAs $9 Aur jo s0yes0dQ peo} OY} SSIApe pur 3901105 -wuayskS JOsjUOS JayNdWOd INO PeO| yon} 9yOo pue suLIe|e jourd wiaisAs /9q ‘Jayndwos Aapesg wal JO $4949 auiynos oyey “Ay {!OBJ 98R10}S 0} POWoAip 9409 JO aseddojs yaysnd 10 JOA@AUOd SB YoNs swiajqoid pue snjeys Zurjpuey 2yOo JO peuojul soyesadG peop dee “miaysASs jno peoy 0} Burpying g8es0js Oy} WI 940 Peo] pue 38esOIS 10 SIBD PROITIEI “SYM OF 9YOO JO MOL IOI + ‘Burppuey BYOo [Bd!WOUdse pue JUSIOJo ‘ayes 10J Kyessadou SB YJOM JayjO WHOJIId -Zuidaoyasnoy poos pue daoydn 103 Aressaoou se Zunuied sour Surpnjoul ease guess pue yd 2x09 JO ssaut[UBe|9 urejureyy “sitedos JOU ayeul pue syedtIqQn} ‘syuauysn{pe yuoudinbs ayeul ‘suueye joued oueld Y9e4D -yuauidinba Ayajes JO as UO suoijejndei pue sajna yam Ajdwiod -juaudinbe yo syooyo Ayazes auijnos aye ‘sule}qoid wiaysAs yoo Buljpuey Ul Aressodou se ysissy “posinbod se 9409 Buiaow pue Buryiys “Joysr4o Axewitd pur sopeoj yox9Ng “euBIO Burjoaey aesodQ + ‘pouinbas se suredod Joulul QyeU pue sd1AJos “a}BOLGN| ‘suauidinbe Bund 9409 JO uonoedsul Ayayes wuojiod ‘gaued yoopiayut YoY “wWnap au) peoy-os ‘JadjoH Weld WIM ‘posedoid pur pouvojo Kysodosd oom Koy yeu} QUILLIO}OP 0} SedBJINS PUL sjoysed YOe49 ‘yo;810dG0 J24OD YM ‘(duind jaf umop INYs KauaZsouie ul) YOO Nd puke [jd ‘Buryynd JO} guvdoid pur peoyun “Burns 9409 105 Apeoi st wimp Yyoee SV * : ‘JOAOUINY SU} YPM SULIOJUOS J! GUNS BYBUI O} UOTENyS WINIP 9x09 pue juowidinbe jesuRBYyseu 49E4D ‘JOAOUWINY DAIZI9Y -Buimojjo} BY} 0} “Poy ut] JOU gue yng ‘apnyjou! Aew sainijiqisuodsa gol Kay S$ ,juaquindu| -AUVWWNS SUTUTIY/ OD SIuIpord UOIAST) LNAIWLYVdad/ANVdWOO SuoNesodO NOISIAIG Feel 1 soquiesed ALVA Ta JWVN Sa-80¢-09 - SANVWAG V.LNAaWNOUIANY/TV OISAHd [.1 LIGIHXal 99 Ag poyiduio5 "UOISIAIG] soomnosoy ULUIN}{ 24} Ul Poyed0] (0OP-OD) IRWIN gor Pap 2Aoge oY} 0} JaJad “UOHBULOJUT a40UT JO4 -(NOLLVWYONI TVNOLLIGGVY xX ssouAiq xX 4.00] 2A0QYy-iee}{ SUI9XA xX AOE MOjPQ-PIOD swulalixy Sulduejeg si1B}g-Buiquil| ssoppe]-Surquit|> # OO] - 2404 “Xe\-BuryiNd re ae ae oe i # OO0| - 20u04 “xepi-Surysng L9 4 # OS-IUBIOM) “XEW\-BuLAUED x # OS - BION “XEW-BUIY!T X UOIS! A JO}OD "4 uondasieg yidog 4 oBuey yooods-Suieep x JOAg7] ‘MO7] “YSIH “Buryowey x Buipeay-Bulse¢ x jueysiq-3ulse¢ xX Aisea|D Suryeeds Yowag SULO[YD ‘SeseaiH “S[IO “SIUeA/OS winajoyjed ‘eBpnig pue soyeA\ sen, AOUOY ‘gnsned ‘ploy ‘suode, 7 spinbr’] uoquescuphH x Ayayxag [enue] :JUSWIUOIIAUS YOM Ul S[ROIWAYD 7 SJUBUTUTEUOD BWOgITY x Yyono |, JO suas x auoly BurJoM x [ajqrdaq|! jeutsi0} x ajdoog YI M/punoly BUIYIONA x Bunsim | Apog 99 ZEPvILO ANIZNIG . sang nee LHOIVULS 086Z17SdD 00°001 LHOM “VHLHdVYN LHOM “VHLHdVYN ; £07169 00°01 INI TVHLHdVYN . SP6THLP9D €L97S ___ OLLWWOUV AAH WVOALLNV 00'0r WHLHd¥YN LN3A 10S SSIDOUd £PLS OOTWN OPES ANITIOZVGINI 00'0+ AUVLalddOud . £07169 . 00°01 INI TVHLHdYN NOLLOGS YAINOO LOd XddV GI LNANOdWOO/AWYN 9584 dl JONVLSANs AWYN LNANOdWOO /AWYN JONVLSENS NOLLVOO7T YOM p07 LUOdTu ~ L 0} dDUBIOIOY ssol.Z) ul AWANIdIY OGNNOAS 714 :Auyoey 69 SLO8ZS SP6TPLY9O YOLIGIHNI OLLVWOUV AAH NOISOWWOD 00'0+ ‘VHLHdVYN LNSATOS 981$ OOTVN €0Z169 OS'L ANA TVHLHdVN . L80£09899 DLNOO-OLLVWOUV 00'ss (OWLdd) VHLHAVN LOZOEEIO ANAZNIG OS'L TAHLAWIG/ANA TAX LeLsis YOLIGIHNI pl r0019 NOISOWYNOD 00'S I ANAZNAG TAHLA €9ISOOTWN NOLLOGS YANOO LOd XddV dl LNANOdWOO/AWYVN 9S4 GI JONV.LSANs AWYN LNANOdWOO /AWYVN JAONVLSENS NOLLVSO7 NM p07 LUOdg - L6/0£/90 0} BDUDIIJIY SSOID) AIOJUSAUT AUANIATY OGNNOAS 13 :A!Se4 [oz LIGIHX4] 89 9L7Z119D 00°86 TOOATO ANS TAHLAIL 99PI LID 00'1 JOOATS INF TAHLAIG . 9761S 0$001€SdO YOLOALIG 00'| JOOATO ANA TAHLA WVIT GINO! dOONS 8L0£8)9 07°0 ANAYAdLLNVONIANV-¥ 198LL) WONIWY (TAHLAWAXOUGAH) - 070 wind SPL S8IZELLO 00°86 WaLVM NOLLOAS AYAIAOD LOd XddV dl LNSNOdWOO/AWVN 9S4 di JONVLSENs aNVN LNINOdWOOD /AWVN JONVLSENS wae OM p07 LUYOdTe ~- L6/0£/90 0} 29Ud19j9yY SSOID AJOJUDAU] AMANIAaY OGNNOAS Ta :Auy!oe4 861L6%) 00°I ALVNOddvo WhIdos 79906919 aLVYORSONGAHVALAL 00°0 WNidOs £f€6El9 ULEL ININ VIA 070 ANF TAHLA WNIGosid ZT999PLEID 786S7S aGINVAOddsd Salus 0008-a 00°0 WNissv.LOd S.LAWSHS TONSHd ZEvILO 00'S aNIZNIG OZ1€8L899 GANSLAIMSNN LISSOOOONN 00°00! “WHLHdYN UNOS ‘WHLHdYN NOLLOAS YAHOO Ld XddV dil LNANOdWOO/AWVN 9S4 GI JONV.LSANs aJNVYN LNINOdWOO /AWYN JONVLSENS waa A M p07 LUOdTe ~ L6/0£/90 0} BdUdJIJ2yY SSOID AJOJUSAU] AMANIATY OGNNOAS Ta :Auy9e4 OL vis (FYN.LXIW) 00°! SNVLdVOUAW y90E8LLO (SZH) 00°01 aqid1NS NSDOYCAH S8IZELLO 00°82 WaLVM 9IZ9EEIO 00°1 aqIxXOUGAH WNINONWY ZELOIEID 00°01 aGIXOYGAH WNIGOS 1 €LE0000NN 7S68019 (ONINVaAG DLLSNVO) 00°1 ‘TONSHd YWaLVM UNOS NOLLOAS YAHOO LOd XddV¥ di LNINOdWOO/ANVYN 9S4 GI JONVLSENs SJWVN LNINOdWOS /AWYN JONVLSENS woe A OM p07 LUOdTY ~ L6/0£/90 0} BdUdIAJaY SSOID AJOJUDAU] AMANIdae OGNNDAS 13 *Aupoed €Z re viZZPS (FUN.LXIW) 00°! SNVLdVOUIN y90E8LLD (SZH) 00°01 acid INS NSDOUGAH S8IZELLO 00°82 WaLVM 9IZ9EEIO 00°01 aqgIXOUGAH WNINOWWY O€LEOO0ONN 7S68019 (ONINVad VINOWWY) 00°I ‘TONSHd . YWaLVM UNOS LO9ZIIO JOOATO 00°! ANA TAHLAVALAL NOLLOS YAHOO LOd XddV dI LNANOdWOO/AWVN 9S4 GI JONVLSANs JWVN LNAINOdWOD /AWVYN JONVLSENS peek NM p07 LUOdTe ~ L6/0£/90 0} BdUBIIJIY SSOID AJOJUSAU| AYANIAIY OGNNDAS Td *AnI!9e4 cL IL€60€19D (€O7dsd) AGIXO NOU 68£P7T71D JGIXOId NOVO OrPZOLOIO FCIXOId NS3DOULIN 01 LZ0000NN 9S 1870019 SaSVO SAWN4 (€0) NOZO ‘ONILLNOVONIG TAM S8IZELL9 00°06 YaLVM ZEPILO aNAZNad E 8PP9LP89)D YIHOIH GNV S79SIS 00°01 bO “SNOPUVIOUGAH STIO/SUALVM FLSVM = NOLLOAS YAHOO LOd XddV dI LNSNOdWOO/AWYN 9S4 dI JONVLSENs WYN LNINOdWOD /AWYN JONVLSENS NOILVOOT WHOM v0Z LYOdTe ~ L6/0£/90 0} BdUSJOJSy SSOID AJOJUSAU] AUMANISTY OGNNOGS Ta Ase SZ 6£81bL79D GaNAIVAD TVWAFHL 00°00! AAH ‘VWHLHdVN S787PIO aNVLdaH 6S9I 11D ANVLOO €888019D ANANTOL . €8e80l9D ANA TAX-W 911 SO0O00NN S€8L0l9D AAVGH ‘VHLHd¥N ANVLNad TAHLAW-7 GaNOVYOOWASHL NOLLOaS YAHOO LOd XddV d!I LNINOdWOO/AWYN 9S4 dI JONVLSANs aNVN LNAINOdNWOO /AWVN JONVLSENS Se p07 LAOdTY ~ L6/0£/90 0} BdUDIAJIY SSOID AJOUSAU] AYANIaY OGNNOAS Td *A1!9e84 bl y8r0rrlo LTVdO9 eLv0rvlo (1V.LAW) WNINOYHS ILE0vpLO NOOUV LELOvbLo (SGNNOdWOD aTaN TOS) NALSONNAL 0Z00¢bLD TAXOIN $966£¢L)O ASANVONVW . $0667¢L) WANINNTY NOILLOAS YAHOO LOd XddV dI LNSNOdWOO/ANVN 9S4 dI JONVLSANs aWVYN LNINOdWOO /AWYN JONVLSENS ee NM y07 LUOdAa ~ L6/0£/90 0} BdUDIIJOY SSOID AJOJUDAUT AYINIAIY OGNNOAS 14 ‘Au19e4 LL 08009) AGIXONOW NOddvo 88PP869190 saqrMon ti pSPL06tlO (pOUD) ALVWOUHSD + LLOEIPELO aqIxXO WNINVLLL CEIVIELO aCIXO ONIZ 166€1£19 ACIXO TAXMOIN y8P60t1O aqIXO WNISANOVW NOLLOAS YAAOD LOd XddV dI LNAINOdWOO/AWVN 9S4 CI JONVLSENs aJWVN LNANOdNWOD /AWYN FONV.LSENS ee M y07 LUOdaTe ~ L6/0£/90 0} DOUdIaJaYy SSOID AJOJUDAUT] AUANIATY OGNNOAS 74 ‘Aupioes 9L APPX PCT C7440508 C7440597 NITROGEN C7727379 NAME/COMPONENT ID HELIUM COMPONENT COPPER FUMES oss Reference to o REPORT 204 78 GUNDO REFINERY 06/30/97 - ES6 Facility: EL SE Inventory Cr SUBSTANCE NAME/ SUBSTANCE ID WORK LOCATION NAME COKER SECTION 79 [EXHIBIT 23] DEPOSITION OF CHARLES BRIAN TANG, M.D. JUNE 30, 1997 [Page 5:18 to 7:18] Q Do you have any knowledge about or knowledge of the medical examination that was purportedly done on March 8, 1996? A_ lam aware of the examination done on the individual, but I’m not sure of the date. I have to check the date you quoted. Q With the exception of the date, what’s the basis of your knowledge? A_ The basis of my knowledge is this gentleman came in for a pre-employment physical examination. He was examined by Dr. Socol, Harvey Socol, and we discussed his case with regard to some abnormalities on his physical examination which we felt would be of danger to him if he continued to work in a refinery envirenment. Q Do you know in fact Dr. Socol performed any kind of physical examination on Mr. Echazabal? A Yes, I know he did. Q How do you know that? A Because he told me. Q Other than his representations, do you have any independent knowledge that he performed an examination? A_ From what he told me, plus what he wrote on his medical records. 80 Q Were you present in the clinic on that day? A Yes, | was. Q Did you actually see Mr. Echazabal go into any kind of room with Dr. Socol? A No, 1! did not. Q Did Dr. Socol share his thoughts about the purported examination with you on or about the date of the examination? A Yes, around that approximate time, he did. Q Was that immediately after the examination, or before he wrote anything up? A_ Ican’t remember. Q Do you know if he talked to you about the examination of Mr. Echazabal before he wrote any kind of opinion regarding Mr. Echazabal’s condition? A He did talk to me about the examination before he wrote an opinion. Q Did you provide him with any input? A Yes, I did. Q Why don’t you tell me what input you provided? What did Dr. Socol say to you and what did you say to Dr. Socol? A Dr. Socol and I discussed his elevated liver enzymes and our concern about the cause of his liver enzymes being elevated, and if they remained elevated, he should not be exposed to potential hepatotoxins. 81 [Page 27:7 to 37:23] Q Is it your opinion that no one can work at a refinery if somebody has elevated enzyme levels? A It’s my opinion that a person should not work in a refinery if he is going to be exposed to hepatotoxins, but he can work in a refinery if he is not going to be exposed to hepatotoxics. Q Irrespective of their enzyme level? A That’s correct. If his liver enzymes are elevated, but he’s not going to be exposed to hepatotoxins, then he should be able to work in a refinery. But, if he is going to be exposed to hepatotoxins, and has elevated liver enzymes, he should not be working there. Q Irrespective of work he might be doing there; is that right? Mr. Kardassakis: Ambiguous. By Mr. Minsky: Q In other words, you said he shouldn’t be working in a refinery if his liver enzymes are elevated and he’s going to be exposed to certain kinds of toxins; is that right? A Yes. Q That’s true, irrespective of the amount or frequency with which he will be coming into contact with those toxins? A Yes. Q So just the slightest exposure and what would happen? A What is your definition of a slightest exposure? Q Well, you tell me what would cause, in your opinion — let’s back up. 82 If a person with elevated enzymes, in your opinion, should not be exposed to certain types of toxins, what first off, is the level at which you deem to be too high a level for that person not to be exposed to the chemicals, to the toxins? A_ I feel he should not be exposed to any hepatotoxins. Q My question is, at what level do you believe that a liver enzyme level is too high in order not to be exposed to hepatotoxins? A At the level where the liver enzymes are in their hundreds. Q_ So if the liver enzymes reach at least 100 or above? A Right. 100 or above I would seriously consider not exposing that individual to hepatotoxins. Q Does it matter the degree or the amount of exposure? In other words, once they are — enzyme levels are 100 or above, is it your opinion that there is no way in which that employee should be exposed to the chemicals — in other words, on an eight hour day, take an eight hour day. If one hour out of that eight hour day, they are going to be exposed to the chemicals, is that too much if the enzyme level is 100 or above? A Yes. Q Is there anything that could be done to ensure that a monitoring process for example, to ensure that if they are exposed, that we can pull that employee out of there? Mr. Kardassakis: Ambiguous. By Mr. Minsky: Q Would a monitoring process to check the enzyme levels be an appropriate way to determine whether or not it in fact is going to cause some risk of injury to the employee, if they are exposed to the hepatotoxic chemicals? 83 A_ I don’t understand the question. Q [ll try again. Take an employee who has got an enzyme level 100 and above. You put them as a risk category; correct? A Yes. Q_ Isevery individual going to be subjected to injury if they are exposed to the hepatotoxic chemicals if they have 100 and above? A Is every individual— Q Who has an enzyme level of 100 and above going to represent a risk of injury if they are exposed to hepatotoxic chemicals? A_ Notevery individual. Just like any individual who has no elevated liver enzymes. Q So just simply because you have a higher or elevated enzyme level doesn’t mean you have a risk of injury; is that right? If you are exposed to hepatotoxic chemicals? A_ Well, we have an individual who is injured already, with the liver disease, the elevated liver enzymes, so he is already injured, and we know hepatotoxins can make it fatal. Q Weare talking theoretically; correct? A_ No, theoretically. Realistically, yes. Q When you say realistically, how long will it take for an individual, such as Mr. Echazabal, to be exposed to those chemicals and toxins before they will show some sort of injury occurring? A Some people I know have died. Reported in the literature, have died in a few days. Others, it takes months and years to do that. 84 Q When will you start — as far as the literature goes, doctor — start seeing some sort of indication in the enzyme levels as a result of exposures to the chemicals and toxins? A_ It could be in a matter of a few hours as I mentioned, some people have died of massive hepatic failure in a few hours, and can also occur over months and years, too. Q Would it be fair to say somebody exposed to the chemicals over a ten year period should indicate some sort of change in their enzyme level? Mr. Kardassakis: Incomplete hypothetical. By Mr. Minsky: Q A person such as the plaintiff, Mr. Echazabal, who is exposed to the chemicals and toxins over a ten year period, would you anticipate seeing some sort of change in the enzyme level? Mr. Kardassakis: Incomplete hypothetical. You haven’t told him when he first had that, what treatment he had in the intervening time, or what his liver enzymes did over time. Mr. Turner: Join. By Mr. Minsky: Q You said that the literature reflects that it could be as short as a few hours; sometimes months, before any kind of effect will have om that individual; correct? A Yes, from exposure to hepatotoxins. Q You said Mr. Echazabal was an injured person, right? Isn’t that your testimony? A Yes. He has a chronic pote:.ially fatal illness, nght now. Q Are you aware that Mr. Echazabal had been working at the refinery for many years? 85 A_ I don’t know his entire history, how many years he was working. | don’t know. Q Do you have any idea as to how long in fact Mr. Echazabal had been diagnosed with having hepatitis? A Reviewing his records today, it appears that they knew it in about 1992. Q Would you anticipate that somebody with his chemical — excuse me — his enzyme level should have — there should have been some sort of reaction in terms of the enzyme level for his continued exposure to the hepatotoxic chemicals between 1992 and 1996? Mr. Turner: Objection, incomplete hypothetical. Calls for Mr. Minsky: Which facts? Mr. Turner: There is no evidence he’s actually been exposed. By Mr. Minsky: Q You can answer the question. Mr. Kardassakis: Do you want him to assume no treatment? He got treatment, but you haven't told him that in the hypotheticai. By Mr. Minsky: Q First off, doctor, do you know what the level of treatment was? A Well, first of all, I don’t know where he was, whether he — what type of work he’s been doing, whether he’s been exposed to hepatotoxins, what treatment he’s been getting, so I wouldn't know how to answer that question, presently. Q Is it your position that there is simply nothing that can be done for an individual to allow them to work im an environment 86 where there are hepatotoxic chemicals if they have an elevated enzyme level, meaning over 100? A I would not want anyone or myself to work in an environment where there are hepatotoxins with such elevated liver enzymes. Q What do you think the chance of risk of injury is? Would you say it’s 50 percent likely they will develop deterioration of their medical condition from exposure? A I don’t know. Q You don’t have any opinion, doctor? A Well, my opinion is, it’s individualistic, and it’s — all I know it occurs, and when it occurs, it’s the person that suffers that gets hurt. Q So you don’t have an opinion one way or the other, whether it’s a 50 percent chance or likelihood the person will develop a deterioration of the condition? Mr. Kardassakis: Incomplete hypothetical, calls for speculation. Mr. Turner: Join. By Mr. Minsky: Q You can answer. A I wouldn’t know how to answer it, except I am concerned about the individual, that he has a chronic illness which can be severely worsened by the hepatotoxins. Q What do you think the likelihood of that worsening is, greater than 50 percent? Mr. Kardassakis: Incomplete hypothetical, calls for speculation. 87 By Mr. Minsky: Q Mr. Echazabal was there. You have seen his medical chart. You know he was working at the refinery; correct? A As I recall, he was working at the refinery. Q All right. He’s working at the — what do you think his — you concurred in a report written by Dr. Socol saying no exposure to hepatotoxic chemicals; right? A Yes. Q What do you think the likelihood is of him developing any deterioration of his condition if he went and took that job? Mr. Kardassakis: Incomplete hypothetical. By Mr. Minsky: Q You can answer, doctor. A Depends on how much exposure he gets. Q Well, did you evaluate that? Did you ask any questions about that when you concurred with Dr. Socol? A We talked about it, but any exposure still could cause it as trace amounts could blow out his liver. Q What did you determine? In your opinion, once he walks in there, he’s got 100 percent chance that it’s absolutely going to happen and he’s going to deteriorate his condition; is that right? A There is a high probability. Q What would you say that probability is, greater than 50 percent? ' A I don’t put figures on that. 88 Q I would like you to put a figure on it; give me your best medical opinion what you think that probability is? A I don’t know. Q You don’t have the slightest idea? Mr. Kardassakis: Argumentative. He said “high probability”. He didn’t put numbers on it. You are raising your voice. By Mr. Minsky: Q High probability. Does it mean greater than 50 percent? A I’m not going to put numbers on it. Q I don’t know what you mean by “high”. What is “high”, doctor? Mr. Kardassakis: Argumentative. By Mr. Minsky: Q You can answer that. My voice is not elevated. Mr. Turner: I would join in the evaluation of plaintiff's counsel’s voice. By Mr. Minsky: Q What is “high”, doctor? Does doctor mean by “high”, greater than 50 percent, ten percent? What do you mean? A Any level above one percent is high for me when it’s a person’s life. Q Thank you, doctor. Did you think it was important to understand precisely what kind of job he would be doing in order to render your determination with Dr. Socol in telling Irwin Industries that Mr. Echazabal should not go to work at whatever job duties he was going to do? 89 Mr. Turner: Objection, misstates the findings. The Witness: Our recommendation is that he not be exposed to hepatotoxins, based on his physical examination and then the companies decide, based on our recommendation, if that job entailed that risk or not. If it does not entail any exposure to hepatotoxins, he’s hired. If he’s exposed to hepatotoxins, our recommendation is that he is not hired. I’m not involved in what his job is over there, because | don’t know. [Page 45:4 to 49:22] Q Any other formal training? A I have just attended residency courses at UCI. Rutgers University School of Medicine in New Jersey. Became board certified in occupational medicine in 1992. Q Are you also board certified in internal medicine? A No. Q Do you hold any other board certifications other than occupational medicine? A No. Q And you have been practicing as a doctor in private practice since 1978 in California? A Approximately around that time. I was licensed in California in 1974, I believe, but I didn’t come out here because I was in Africa, for a while. Q But since approximately 1978, have you been in private practice in California? A Actually, I opened up my office — yeah, about that time, "78, °79. 90 Q You said you teach at the USC School of Medicine. What do you teach? A I teach occupational preventive medicine. | teach the residents. Q In occupationa! preventive medicine, is one of the things you are concerned about, not exposing employees to circumstances or conditions that would endanger their health? A Yes. Q Now, Mr. Echazabal had, according to your review of the medical records, markedly increased liver enzymes, didn’t he? A Yes. Mr. Minsky: Objection. That’s not the testimony. By Mr. Kardassakis: Q Is one of the functions of the liver to help act as sort of a detoxification site for the body? A Yes. Q If you have markedly increased liver enzymes, does that tell you the liver is not fully functional? A Yes. Q Does that mean a person with increased liver enzymes would have less capacity to deal with toxins once they get into the body? A Yes. Q Does that mean the person is more at risk for death as a resuli of exposure to toxins? A Yes. 91 Q Do hepatotoxins not only potentially cause death, but also further damage to the liver itself? A Ayes. Mr. Minsky: Objection. Restate the question. (Record read) The Witness: Yes. By Mr. Kardassakis: What is the risk of puttifig a person with Mr. Echazabal’s liver enzyme tests into a refinery? Why would you not want to do that? Mr. Minsky: Objection. Incomplete hypothetical. The same problems you were referring to before, counsel. | The Witness: What’s the question again? By Mr. Kardassakis: Q Why would you not want to put Mr. Echazabal to go back to work in the refinery? What’s the concern? Mr. Minsky: Same objection. The Witness: The concern is as 1 mentioned to Mr. Minsky, is that I just don’t want this individual to be exposed to hepatotoxins. If he can work in a refinery without exposure, without exposure to hepatotoxins, he can work in a refinery, but if his work entails he will be exposed to hepatotoxins, I would not recommend that he do that. Q Why? A Why? Because he has a condition that will be worsened by such an exposure, causing probable death. Q When you have a person who is in his condition, and it may cause their death, would you recommend the employer play it conservatively on how much exposure they are going to allow or how much they are not going to allow? 92 Mr. Minsky: Objection, incomplete hypothetical; assumes facts not in evidence, lack of foundation. You are asking the doctor to speculate on things which the doctor already indicated he doesn’t want to speculate on. How can he answer a question he refuses to answer questions on, because he doesn’t like to give the numbers? The Witness: If he’s exposed to hepatotoxins, he should not be there. By Mr. Kardassakis: Q Period? A Right. Q You are not going to try to quantify how much exposure he can have during the course of the day? A Right. With his physical condition, he should not be exposed to hepatotoxins. Q That’s because with his condition, even a small amount of exposure can result in his death; is that right? A Yes. Mr. Kardassakis: No further questions. Examination (Resumed) By Mr. Minsky: Q Doctor, even a small amount you said can result in his death. Is that what you testified to? A Yes. Q You are saying, based upon what you have read in the report of Mr. Echazabal, you believe the slightest exposure to hepatotoxic chemicals will cause his death; is that right? 93 A It can. Q What is the probability of that cause, doctor? A In all due respect to me, you asked me that question last time, and I said I cannot put a number on that. Q So it’s all or nothing? In other words, either he not be exposed because if he is exposed, death is going to occur; is that right? A Death can occur. [Page 54:6 to 55:14] Q If Mr. Echazabal’s condition remains constant and he would be working in the refinery, did that play in at all in your opinion as to whether or not he should be allowed to continue to work in the refinery? Mr. Kardassakis: Without foundation. Mr. Turner: Same objection. Mr. Kardassakis: Without foundation, incomplete hypothet- ical. By Mr. Minsky: Q You can answer. A My answer to that is | didn’t think his condition was stable. He has chronic active hepatitis by diagnosis. At the time, his condition was not stable. Q Stable in the sense there hadn’t been any real changes there? A Well, his liver enzymes are markedly elevated, so there was a chronic destruction of his liver going on, chewing away at his liver inside, so the enzymes are always high. The only 94 time it’s stable is if the liver enzymes came down to normal, which I never got evidence of. Q When there is a deterioration in the liver, how does that affect — what do you actually see in terms of the effects of that on an individual? A The effects on an individual, sometimes are minimal, sometimes they are severe, but the point is, is that there is a chewing up of his liver. It’s slowly being destr_,ed and over time, it eventually requires a liver transplant, if there is one available. I understand interferon, which is trying to slow down the chewing up of the liver. Q Did that have any effect? A it didn’t appear to. His liver enzymes were still markedly elevated. 95 [EXHIBIT 27] Health Care Partners Medical Group January 10, 1996 Chevron Corporation Medical Department P.O. Box 97 El Segundo, CA 90245-9952 RE: ECHAZABAL, MARIO SS#: 524-70-7651 MR#: 1-H102214 To whom it may concern: Mr. Echazabal has been followed in the Gl/Hepatology Department for several years with a history of chronic active hepatitis, secondary to hepatitis C. He has been treated with extended periods with Interferon without clearance of the problem. At present, he is asymptomatic. The physical examination is unremarkable. He has no limitations. Our plan is to follow him closely in the Gl/Hepatology Clinic. He is able to return to regular duties without any limitations. He does not pose a contagious problem, provided he does not donate blood, use needles, etc. General measures have been explained to the patient in detail, but again, he is able to return to his usual duties at work. 96 If there are any questions about this, please do not hesitate to contact our office. Sincerely, /s/ Zelman Weingarten, M.D. 4 (EXHIBIT 28] Chevron U.S.A. Products Company El Segundo Refinery 324 W. El Segundo Boulevard El Segundo, CA 90245 (310) 615-5000 Medical Clinic January 10, 1996 MORDO SUCHOV, M.D. Health [Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.] --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385014_0454%3A05. Public record. Not legal advice.