Exxon Benzene Exposure: Can You Sue for Leukemia Beyond Workers’ Comp?

For decades, Louisiana refinery workers were told that their health was a priority, even as they handled toxic chemicals like benzene every day. But when these workers are diagnosed with leukemia, corporations like Exxon often try to hide behind the ‘Workers’ Comp Bar’ to limit their liability. At the Berniard Law Firm, we utilize the ‘Intentional Tort’ exception to hold these giants fully accountable for the choices they made with your life.

The Benzene Connection: From Refinery Work to Acute Myelogenous Leukemia (AML)

Benzene is a well-documented human carcinogen found in crude oil and gasoline. For workers at facilities like the Exxon Mobil refinery in Baton Rouge, exposure often happens through inhalation or skin contact during maintenance, pipe-fitting, or laboratory testing. Unlike a sudden accident, benzene works slowly, damaging the bone marrow and eventually leading to Acute Myelogenous Leukemia (AML).

For decades, thousands of hard-working Louisianans at facilities like Exxon Mobil have been exposed to dangerous chemicals, including benzene. Tragically, long-term benzene exposure is directly linked to severe illnesses like acute myelogenous leukemia (AML). When a worker gets sick, massive corporations often try to hide behind the Louisiana Workers’ Compensation Act to avoid paying full damages. However, a recent lawsuit against Exxon proves that families can fight back and win when a company intentionally ignores safety risks.

If you or a loved one developed leukemia or mesothelioma after working at a Louisiana refinery or chemical plant, visit our main Louisiana Toxic Exposure Lawyer page for immediate legal assistance.

The Mulkey v. Exxon Precedent: Breaking the Workers’ Comp Bar

Normally, the Louisiana Workers’ Compensation Act (LWCA) protects employers from lawsuits, limiting victims to small weekly checks. However, the landmark case of Mulkey v. Exxon Mobil Corp. changed the game. The court ruled that if an employer knows an injury is “substantially certain” to occur and still fails to warn or protect the worker, it is no longer an “accident”—it is an Intentional Tort.

Susan Mulkey appealed a trial court judgment sustaining a peremptory exception dismissing her claims against Exxon Mobil Corporation for damages. Her case arose from the death of her husband, Michael Mulkey Sr., who was exposed to toxic chemicals during his time at Exxon. Mulkey Sr. worked at Exxon for thirty-five years, during which he was exposed to benzene. He was subsequently diagnosed with acute myelogenous leukemia. 

Mulkey Sr. claimed forty-one employees of Exxon were liable for his damages because of their negligence in properly safeguarding the work environment. When Mulkey Sr. died from leukemia, his wife and children filed a lawsuit for damages. Exxon filed a peremptory exception, claiming Mulkey failed to state a cause of action, which the trial court sustained. Exxon was eventually dismissed from the lawsuit, which Mulkey appealed. 

Exxon contended Mulkey’s claims were barred by the Louisiana Workers’ Compensation Act (LWCA). Mulkey claims she successfully alleged an intentional tort, an exception to the LWCA. To establish this, an employee must show the employer “1) consciously desired the physical result of his act, whatever the likelihood of that result happening from his conduct; or (2) knows that that result is substantially certain to follow from his conduct, whatever his desire may be as to that result.” See Cador v. Deep South Equipment Co., 166 So.3d 344, 347 (La. Ct. App. 2015). 

A plaintiff is allowed to show malice, intent and knowledge as part of the claim. The record showed Exxon knew of the risks of benzene exposure. Specifically, its potential to cause cancer. Mulkey showed Exxon employees knew of these problems. Even before Mulkey Sr. began working at Exxon, Exxon knew of benzene’s effect on the blood. Exxon knew prolonged exposure to benzene was incredibly dangerous. Despite this, Exxon exposed Mulkey to the benzene without warning him of its potential impact on his body. Mulkey thus alleged the exposure was without Mulkey Sr.’s consent, and exposure was done with intent. 

Proving Intent: What Exxon Knew and When They Knew It

In the Mulkey case, the key was Exxon’s internal knowledge. The plaintiffs successfully argued that Exxon knew the risks of benzene exposure to the blood even before the worker began his 35-year career. Because Exxon had this knowledge and still exposed the worker without his consent or proper protection, the court allowed the family to bypass the Workers’ Comp immunity. This opens the door for families to seek full recovery for pain, suffering, and loss of companionship.

The Louisiana Court of Appeal for the First Circuit found Mulkey’s claim sufficient in proving the element of intent for a tort action. Mulkey provided enough facts to support these findings. Exxon’s immunity under the LWCA therefore did not apply. The trial court’s judgment was reversed and remanded for further proceedings. 

This case is an important example of why it is imperative to have the necessary evidence required to state a claim. If a party does not have evidence to prove all elements of a claim, their lawsuit might be dismissed for lack of cause of action. Luckily, the plaintiff here was able to prove there was prior knowledge of the effects of benzene exposure. This evidence successfully proved the elements of the case. A lawyer who does his due diligence can successfully state a claim. 

When toxic exposure leads to a fatality, families must understand the damages available in a Louisiana wrongful death claim. Proving ‘Intent’ is as difficult as proving causation; see our guide on the evidence required in toxic exposure cases.

What This Means for Louisiana Refinery Workers

Generally, if you get hurt on the job, you are restricted to filing a Workers’ Compensation claim and cannot sue your employer directly. However, there is a major exception: The Intentional Tort. If we can prove that a company like Exxon knew exactly how dangerous benzene was, knew you were being exposed to it, and still failed to warn or protect you, they lose their Workers’ Comp immunity. This allows your family to seek the massive, full-scale compensation you actually deserve for your pain, suffering, and medical bills.

A leukemia diagnosis after a career at a refinery isn’t just bad luck—it’s often the result of corporate negligence. The Mulkey case proved that Exxon can be held accountable beyond the limits of workers’ compensation if they knew the dangers of benzene and did nothing. If you or a loved one worked at a Louisiana refinery and are now facing AML or leukemia, you need a team that knows how to break through corporate immunity. Contact the Berniard Law Firm today for a free review of your exposure history.

Written by Berniard Law Firm

Other Berniard Law Firm Articles on Benzene and Workers’ Compensation: Workers’ Compensation Suit Claiming Benzene Exposure Caused Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma Fails