An Indiana lawsuit takes up the issue of whether miners who were exposed to toxins on the job can sue the company that dumped those toxins. A group of Indiana miners filed suit against Alcoa in 2006, alleging that they were exposed to cancer-causing toxins and other dangerous substances while working in the mines, where Alcoa dumped toxic substances more than 20 years ago. They also argue that they weren't warned of the health risks and that the company should have done so.The lawsuit was originally filed in Indiana in 2006, but Alcoa unsuccessfully tried to have it moved to federal court. Alcoa argues that any workers who suffered an occupational illness as a result of working in the mine would be covered under the state's workers' compensation laws and therefore the lawsuit should be dismissed. The company also argues that the mine site is safe and that the workers' exposure didn't result "in an excess number of any medical condition," including cancer.
- The mine near Boonville, Ind. is the subject of two lawsuits filed by former mine employees. They allege that from 1965 through 1979, the company dumped 65 million gallons of cancer-causing coal tar pitch and 74 million cubic feet of chromium and chromium sludge and other toxic wastes into mine pits. They also allege that the toxins possibly were dumped onto haul roads and other areas of the 5,000-acre section of the mine called the North Field.
The mine workers claim that unlike Alcoa employees, they never were told about the waste content or that it was toxic and were not given any special safety instructions or protective clothing. Cassandra Collins, an Alcoa attorney, argued the mine was operated as a joint venture with Peabody Coal Co., making the workers employees of both companies. Because of this, she argued, Alcoa should be shielded from legal actions by immunity clauses in workers' compensation law. But attorney Peter Racher, who is representing the sick miners, said the two-year statute of limitations on compensation claims expired by the time workers realized they were having health problems that may have been linked to workplace exposures. He also argued many people other than the workers were exposed through recreational use of the property and exposure to contaminated soil brought home on the workers' clothing. Dozens of former workers and their family members have testified in recent years at various depositions and hearings related to the mining permit that they have experienced various cancers and other health issues.
