Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Hall v. BP Exploration & Production, Inc.

United States District Court, E.D. Louisiana

June 26, 2019

CHARLIE LEON HALL III
v.
BP EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION, INC. ET AL. Related to: 12-968 BELO in MDL 10-2179

         SECTION “J” (2)

          REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

          JOSEPH C. WILKINSON, JR. UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.

         Plaintiff, Charlie Leon Hall III, was employed as a clean-up worker along the Mississippi Gulf Coast, where he also lived, after the BP/Deepwater Horizon explosion and oil spill on April 20, 2010. Complaint, Record Doc. No. 1. He filed this complaint pursuant to the Back-End Litigation Option (“BELO”) provisions of the BP/Deepwater Horizon Medical Benefits Class Action Settlement Agreement (“Medical Settlement Agreement”). Record Doc. Nos. 6427-1 and 8218 in MDL No. 10-md-2179.

         Hall seeks compensatory damages and related costs for later-manifested physical conditions (as defined in the Medical Settlement Agreement) that he allegedly suffered as a result of exposure to substances released after the oil spill. Record Doc. No. 1. Specifically, his complaint asserts the following conditions and/or symptoms: chronic rhinosinusitis with testing, chronic damage to conjunctiva, reactive airways dysfunction syndrome with testing, chronic dermatitis at site of contact and chronic sinusitis. Id. at ¶ 12.

         Defendants, BP Exploration & Production Inc. and BP America Production Company (collectively “BP”), moved to dismiss plaintiff's claim concerning one of his claimed physical conditions for which he did not satisfy the Medical Settlement Agreement's conditions precedent before filing the instant lawsuit. BP's memorandum, Record Doc. No. 4-3 at p. 1. Specifically, BP argues that Hall failed to fulfill the conditions precedent to bringing a BELO claim based on chronic sinusitis. Id.

         Local Rule 7.5 requires that a memorandum in opposition to a motion must be filed no later than eight days before the noticed submission date. No. memorandum in opposition to defendant's motion to dismiss plaintiff's complaint, Record Doc. No. 4, has been received. Accordingly, this motion is deemed unopposed.

         Having considered the motion, the complaint, the record and the applicable law, I recommend that BP's motion to dismiss be GRANTED and that plaintiff's complaint be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE as to his condition of chronic sinusitis, for the following reasons.

         ANALYSIS

         The Medical Settlement Agreement is an unambiguous, binding contract that cannot be modified or altered without the express written consent of the Medical Benefits Class Counsel and BP's counsel. Record Doc. No. 6427-1 at § XXX(C) in MDL No. 10-md-2179. The BELO lawsuit process is the exclusive remedy for class members who seek compensation for later-manifested physical conditions, as defined in the Medical Settlement Agreement. Id. at § II(VV).

         As a condition precedent to filing a BELO suit, a class member must submit a Notice of Intent to Sue to the Medical Settlement Agreement Claims Administrator (the “Claims Administrator”). Upon confirming that the notice of intent to sue is compliant with the conditions precedent, the Claims Administrator must transmit the notice to BP. BP then has 30 days to decide whether to mediate the claim. If, as in this case, BP chooses not to mediate, the claimant must file his BELO lawsuit within six months of being notified by the Claims Administrator of BP's election not to mediate. Id. at §§ VIII(A), (C)(1), (C)(2), (G)(1)(b).

         BP moves to dismiss Hall's complaint insofar as it concerns the claimed condition of chronic sinusitis pursuant to this court's BELO Cases Initial Proceedings Case Management Order (“CMO”). The CMO allows the parties to file a motion to dismiss without prejudice if the complainant fails “to complete the conditions precedent to filing such a complaint as required in the [Medical] Settlement Agreement.” CMO, Record Doc. No. 3 in this action, Record Doc. No. 14099 in MDL No. 10-md-2179, at § IV(1)(A).

         The Medical Settlement Agreement states in pertinent part:

A MEDICAL BENEFITS SETTLEMENT CLASS MEMBER seeking compensation from BP for a LATER-MANIFESTED PHYSICAL CONDITION must submit a NOTICE OF INTENT TO SUE, . . ., to the CLAIMS ADMINISTRATOR. The NOTICE OF INTENT TO SUE and materials submitted therewith must be submitted to the CLAIMS ADMINISTRATOR within 4 years after either the first diagnosis of that LATER-MANIFESTED PHYSICAL CONDITION or the EFFECTIVE DATE, whichever is later.

         Record Doc. No. 6427-1 at § VIII(A) in MDL No. 10-md-2179. A class member “may assert a claim against a BACK-END LITIGATION OPTION DEFENDANT in a BACK-END LITIGATION OPTION LAWSUIT only for the LATER-MANIFESTED PHYSICAL CONDITION for which he or she timely submitted a ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.