Man exposed to toxic chemical at Intel plant settles High Court case

Read original article on independent.ie

A man who claimed he was exposed to a toxic and noxious chemical while working on a refurbishment job at the Intel Ireland plant in Kildare has settled a High Court action.

Seven years after the alleged exposure, the prognosis for 71-year old John Matthews, who suffers from shortness of breath, is chronic, his counsel Barney Quirke SC had told the court at the opening of the case.

The claims related to the refurbishment of a clean room where microchips are manufactured at the Intel plant and the pouring of a chemical sealant known as Penatron/ASTC 3003c.

The claims were denied.

Mr Matthews’ action was a test case for as many as 10 other actions being taken in the High Court in relation to alleged exposure. It is understood these cases will be mentioned before the court in the new year.

The terms of the settlement are confidential. Mr Justice Paul Coffey was told the case could be struck out.

Mr Quirke told the court previously the alleged exposure has had a cruel effect on the life of the father of four and his retirement is completely altered from what he expected.

Mr Matthews worked as a carpenter and was involved in what were called pop outs where the chemical Penatron was poured.

Mr Matthews, of Ardee Road, Dundalk, Co Louth, had sued his employer Ardmac Ltd with registered offices at Swords Business Campus, Balheary Rod, Swords, Co Dublin. He also sued Intel Ireland Ltd with registered offices at Simmonscourt House, Simmonscourt Road, Ballsbridge, Dublin. The refurbishments works on an Intel clean room were being carried out by Ardmac at the Intel Leixlip plant.

Mr Matthews had claimed between June 2013 and October 2014 he was exposed to toxic and noxious chemicals including Penatron/ASTC 3003c while he was working at the plant.

He further claimed there was a failure to have regard to the fact that the system of work devised. This allegedly involved Mr Matthews and his co-employees being exposed to a sensitising agent and they developed symptoms allegedly consistent with being exposed to noxious fumes or toxic chemical agents.

It was also claimed there was a failure to have regard that Mr Matthews and his co employees allegedly had symptoms which tended to improve when away from work and allegedly tended to recur or deteriorate on alleged exposure to the agent.

All the claims were denied.