Dotson v. Niche Polymer LLC
| Decision Date | 24 June 2022 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action 2:21-cv-00110 |
| Parties | JEREMIAH D. DOTSON, Plaintiff, v. NICHE POLYMER LLC, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of West Virginia |
Pending before the Court is Defendant Niche Polymer LLC's (“Defendant” or “Niche Polymer”) Motion for Summary Judgment. (ECF No. 59.) For the reasons stated more fully below, the Court DENIES Niche Polymer's Motion.
This civil action arises out of an alleged workplace injury suffered by Plaintiff Jeremiah Dotson (“Plaintiff” or “Dotson”) while performing maintenance work on the floor of Niche Polymer's manufacturing and processing plant. Niche Polymer is a custom compounder of thermoplastic resins that operates a manufacturing and processing plant in Ravenswood, West Virginia. (ECF No. 60 at 2.) Niche Polymer produces customer-specific plastic polymers utilizing recycled plastic. (ECF No. 63 at 1.) At the time of his alleged injury, Dotson was employed by Niche Polymer as a maintenance technician at the Ravenswood plant, and was responsible for repairing and maintaining equipment on the plant floor. (ECF No. 60 at 2.)
To produce its customer-specific plastic polymers, Niche Polymer uses an extruder machine to melt recycled plastic which, in turn, uses the melted plastic to create several long plastic strands. (ECF No. 63 at 2.) These plastic strands are then fed through a pool of water for cooling before being sent through a “pelletizer.” (Id.) Niche Polymer's pelletizers are designed to cut the long strands of plastic into uniform, cylindrical pellets. To produce these pellets, the plastic strands are first pulled into the pelletizer via two feed rollers-an upper rubber roller and a lower metal roller-which grip the plastic strands as they are fed into the pelletizer. (ECF No. 60 at 2.) Next, the plastic strands are cut by a stationary blade and several rotating blades to form the uniform, cylindrical pellets. (Id.) Finally, the newly formed pellets are fed through an exhaust tube and into holding silos. (Id. at 2-3.) Each pelletizer is equipped with protective guards that prevent access to both rollers, as well as the blades. (Id. at 3.)
Over time, the pelletizers' rubber rollers form grooves from pulling the plastic strands produced by the extruder machine. (Id.) With these grooves, the rubber rollers cannot properly feed the plastic strands to the pelletizers' blades, resulting in the plastic strands not being uniformly cut. (Id.) To remedy this issue consistent with Niche Polymer's policies, maintenance technicians are tasked with either replacing the rubber roller, or removing it and shaving it down on a lathe. (Id.) Niche Polymer labels this task “evening the rollers.” (Id.)
Niche Polymer's pelletizers can also “clog” due to a number of different factors. Niche Polymer admits that, in some cases, clogs in the pelletizers can occur due to worn or uneven rollers. (Id.) In these cases, grooves in the rubber rollers prevent them from effectively pulling the plastic strands into the pelletizer, resulting in a clog at the front of the pelletizer due to the extruder's constant production of plastic strands. (ECF No. 63 at 2.) In many other cases, though, clogs result from residue buildup in a pelletizer's exhaust tube at the back of the pelletizer. (ECF No. 60 at 3.) In these cases, Niche Polymer claims that the obstruction can typically be removed with an air hose and without removing the protective guards, depending on the severity of the clog. (Id.) Niche Polymer labels this task “removing clogs.” (Id.)
Niche Polymer maintains that “evening the rollers” and “removing clogs” are “distinct mechanical tasks, employing different tools and protocols and requiring attention to entirely different sections of the pelletizer.” (Id.) Therefore, according to Niche Polymer, “an instruction to fix an existing clog in the pelletizer is separate and distinct from an instruction to even or otherwise adjust the rollers.” (Id. at 4.) Dotson, however, asserts that an instruction to “clear a jam” in a pelletizer includes grinding down the pelletizer's rubber roller to level it out. (ECF No. 63 at 4.) Regardless of the task, however, both parties agree that Niche Polymer's written lockout/tagout policies require that maintenance technicians power down the pelletizer and isolate the equipment from its energy source before removing the pelletizer's protective guards and performing the required maintenance. (Id. at 3; ECF No. 63 at 2-3.)
Dotson alleges that former maintenance supervisor Jeremy Coleman[1] developed an alternative method to remedy pelletizer jams in contravention of Niche Polymer's written lockout/tagout policies. (ECF No. 63 at 3.) Dotson asserts that this alternative method involved the following steps: (1) remove the pelletizer's protective guard; (2) energize the pelletizer; and (3) utilize an “angle grinder” to grind the rubber roller down to make it even across its entire length. (Id.) According to Dotson, and at least one other current and one other former Niche Polymer employee,[2] this alternative method became “common practice” at Niche Polymer, and was known by everyone at the plant, including shift supervisors Ron Whited and Jason Adkins, plant manager Mike Litton, and other safety personnel. (Id.)
Dotson sustained the alleged injury on July 9, 2019 while performing maintenance work on Niche Polymer's Line 10 pelletizer. (Id. at 4.) Upon his arrival to work, Dotson alleges that Whited approached him and informed him that a “jam” had occurred at the Line 10 pelletizer.[3](Id.) After speaking with Whited, Dotson approached the Line 10 pelletizer-which was being operated by Joel Seabolt that day-and began performing maintenance on the machine, utilizing the alternative method of shaving down the pelletizer's rubber roller while the pelletizer was energized and operating. (Id.) Dotson alleges-and Whited confirmed in his deposition testimony and statement to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (“OSHA”)-that Whited suspected that Dotson was performing maintenance on the Line 10 pelletizer in contravention of Niche Polymer's written lockout/tagout policies, but that he did nothing in response. (Id. at 4-5.) Moreover, Seabolt and Carl Stamm-who was “trying to clear backed up plastic strand” from the Line 10 extruder at that time-observed Dotson performing maintenance on the Line 10 pelletizer while it was energized and operating. (Id. at 5.)
While Dotson was performing maintenance on the Line 10 pelletizer, his angle grinder “caught on the roller and destabilized him.” (Id.) Dotson then tried to catch himself with his right hand, which he alleges was immediately pulled into the pelletizer and exposed to the pelletizer's rotating blades. (Id.) The pelletizer then “shredded” Dotson's hand up to his middle finger. (Id.) After screaming in pain, Stamm ran over and unplugged the pelletizer. (Id.) After bleeding into the pelletizer for approximately 30 minutes while other maintenance personnel and co-workers attempted to free him, Dotson was finally freed and taken to the hospital. (Id.)
On November 4, 2020, Dotson filed his Complaint in the Circuit Court of Jackson County, West Virginia, alleging a single claim for deliberate intent under West Virginia law. (ECF No. 1 at 1.) Niche Polymer removed Dotson's action on the basis of diversity jurisdiction on February 21, 2021. (Id.)
Niche Polymer filed its Motion for Summary Judgment and accompanying Memorandum of Law in Support on March 28, 2022. (ECF Nos. 59, 60.) Dotson timely filed his Memorandum in Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment on April 11, 2022. (ECF No. 63.) Niche Polymer timely replied on April 18, 2022. (ECF No. 67.) Accordingly, Niche Polymer's Motion for Summary Judgment has been fully briefed, and is now ripe for adjudication.
Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure governs motions for summary judgment. This rule provides, in relevant part, that summary judgment should be granted if “there is no genuine issue as to any material fact.” Summary judgment is inappropriate, however, if there exist factual issues that reasonably may be resolved in favor of either party. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 250 (1986). “Facts are ‘material' when they might affect the outcome of the case, and a ‘genuine issue' exists when the evidence would allow a reasonable jury to return a verdict for the nonmoving party.” News & Observer Publ. Co. v. Raleigh-Durham Airport Auth., 597 F.3d 570, 576 (4th Cir. 2010). When evaluating such factual issues, the Court must view the evidence “in the light most favorable to the opposing party.” Adickes v. S. H. Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144, 157 (1970).
The moving party may meet its burden of showing that no genuine issue of fact exists by use of “depositions, answers to interrogatories, answers to requests for admission, and various documents submitted under request for production.” Barwick v. Celotex Corp., 736 F.2d 946, 958 (4th Cir. 1984). Once the moving party has met its burden, the burden shifts to the nonmoving party to “make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party's case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial.” Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986). If a party fails to make a sufficient showing on one element of that party's case, the failure of proof “necessarily renders all other facts immaterial.” Id. at 323.
“[A] party opposing a properly supported motion for summary judgment may not rest upon mere allegations or denials of his pleading, but must set forth...
To continue reading
Request your trial