Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, SAFETY—Mo. App.: Flavoring manufacturer’s challenges rejected as jury verdict upheld in worker’s lung disease case, (Apr 13, 2026)

By Pankhuri Bhatnagar, B.A. LL.B.

The judgment was affirmed as sufficient evidence supported the manufacturer’s liability for knowingly exposing workers to toxic chemicals and no error was found in the lower court’s evidentiary rulings.

In an action brought against a chemical flavoring manufacturer by a factory worker who allegedly developed a severe lung disease due to occupational exposure to certain chemicals, the Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed a jury verdict awarding compensatory and punitive damages. The court found that expert testimony on causation and exposure was properly admitted under Missouri’s reliability standards, that evidentiary rulings excluding alternative-causation theories and admitting prior similar incidents were not an abuse of discretion, that multiple appellate claims were unpreserved or improperly briefed, and that sufficient evidence supported both liability and a substantial punitive damages award given the manufacturer’s longstanding knowledge of toxicity and failure to warn (Graham v. Givaudan Flavors Corp., No. ED113318 (Mo. App. Apr. 7, 2026)).

Background. A man worked at a General Mills, a food manufacturing facility in Missouri from 2005 to 2011, which regularly used chemical flavorings supplied by Givaudan Flavors Corporation in production. These flavorings contained diacetyl and 2,3-pentanedione. Over time, the worker developed bronchiolitis obliterans, a permanent and progressive lung disease that significantly reduced his lung capacity and impaired daily functioning. He filed suit in 2020 alleging that prolonged exposure to the two chemicals caused his condition. A jury awarded him $2 million in compensatory damages and over $56 million in punitive damages, later reduced in part due to prior settlements. The manufacturer appealed, raising multiple challenges to expert testimony, evidentiary rulings, submissibility of claims, and the punitive damages award.

Environmental expert. An environmental health expert concluded that the concentration levels the worker was exposed to could cause bronchiolitis obliterans. The manufacturer argued that the expert's general causation opinions were unreliable since he did not reliably determine the man’s level of exposure at the plant. But the expert relied on extensive data, including workplace conditions, chemical quantities supplied, safety data sheets warning against inhalation, and peer-reviewed literature. He also applied established epidemiological tools such as the Bradford Hill criteria and thus relied on sufficient facts and data to form his opinions. The court rejected arguments that he failed to quantify precise exposure levels, noting that such mathematical precision is not required. Junk v. Terminix Int’l Co., 628 F.3d 439 (8th Cir. 2010). As for the argument that the expert lacked qualifications to opine on product safety or standard of care because he was not a “flavor scientist,” the court held that expertise is evaluated based on knowledge, training, and experience rather than labels. Given his background in toxicology, epidemiology, and regulatory investigations, including OSHA work on similar outbreaks, the court found him qualified. The challenge also failed procedurally because the manufacturer did not identify specific offending testimony, and courts will not act as advocates to construct arguments, citing Lexow v. Boeing Co., 643 S.W.3d 501 (Mo. banc 2022).

Medical causation. A pulmonologist testified that exposure to the chemicals caused or directly contributed to the worker’s disease, relying on a differential diagnosis. The court explained that differential diagnosis is a reliable method under Glastetter v. Novartis Pharm. Corp., 252 F.3d 986 (8th Cir. 2001), involving ruling in plausible causes and eliminating alternatives. Because the expert applied this method and relied on medical records and exposure data, his opinion was admissible. The manufacturer’s argument that the expert improperly relied on other experts’ opinions was also rejected. Under K.B. v. Oasis Foot Spa & Massage, LLC, 703 S.W.3d 606 (Mo. App. 2024), reliance on background information from other experts does not render testimony inadmissible and any deficiencies went to weight, not admissibility. The court found no abuse of discretion.

Alternative causes and relevance. Givaudan argued that the trial court improperly excluded evidence relating to other flavoring suppliers and alternative exposure sources. The appellate court rejected this argument, noting that the record showed evidence was admitted demonstrating that the manufacturer supplied only two percent of the total flavorings used at the facility. Thus, the claim that all non-party fault evidence was excluded was factually incorrect. The manufacturer also challenged the exclusion of evidence that cigarette smoke contains similar chemicals but is not associated with the disease. But the studies relied upon were found to be of limited probative value and risked confusing the jury because they did not directly address occupational exposure or causation. The court also noted the inconsistency in the manufacturer’s theory, which alternated between denying causation entirely and suggesting alternative sources. The exclusion was thus upheld as a proper exercise of discretion.

Similar incidents. The trial court admitted evidence that other workers at different facilities developed similar lung conditions after exposure to diacetyl. The appellate court upheld this ruling, explaining that such evidence is admissible to show notice if it involves substantially similar circumstances, citing Lopez v. Three Rivers Elec. Co-op., 26 S.W.3d 151 (Mo. banc 2000), and Emery v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 976 S.W.2d 439 (Mo. banc 1998). Here, prior incidents involved workers exposed to the same chemical in similar industrial settings, and internal company documents acknowledged the link between diacetyl and the disease. This evidence was relevant to establish knowledge and foreseeability.

Submissibility and preservation of error. The manufacturer’s challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence was dismissed because its appellate point improperly combined multiple independent arguments in violation of Rule 84.04(d). Citing City of Harrisonville v. Mo. Dep’t of Nat. Res., 681 S.W.3d 177 (Mo. banc 2023), the court held that such noncompliance preserves nothing for review. Even on the merits, the record contained sufficient evidence that the manufacturer supplied harmful chemicals, knew of the risks, and failed to warn, which supported the verdict.

Punitive damages—liability. The court reviewed the punitive damages award de novo under Schultz v. Great Plains Trucking, Inc., 707 S.W.3d 570 (Mo. banc 2025). A submissible case requires clear and convincing evidence of reckless disregard or conscious indifference, as stated in Howard v. City of Kansas City, 332 S.W.3d 772 (Mo. banc 2011). The evidence showed that the manufacturer had knowledge of toxicity dating back to the 1980s, documented cases of worker illness in the 1990s, and failed to disclose risks despite regulatory obligations. It continued to market the chemicals and even substituted one hazardous compound with another despite emerging evidence of similar or greater toxicity. The court held that a reasonable jury could find intentional disregard for worker safety.

Punitive damages—excessiveness. Applying due process guideposts from BMW of N. Am., Inc. v. Gore, 517 U.S. 559 (1996), the court found the award constitutional. On reprehensibility, the court emphasized physical harm, repeated conduct, and conscious disregard for safety. On ratio, it rejected arguments that the compensatory damages were “substantial,” noting that the severity of the injury justified the award and that higher ratios may be appropriate in egregious cases, citing Lewellen v. Franklin, 441 S.W.3d 136 (Mo. banc 2014). On comparable penalties, the court acknowledged limited statutory analogues but noted regulatory penalties under OSHA. The manufacturer’s net worth, exceeding one billion dollars, was also relevant to ensure deterrence. Poage v. Crane Co., 523 S.W.3d 496 (Mo. App. 2017).

Capping and interest. The court rejected application of Missouri’s statutory cap, holding that the claims were analogous to common law actions recognized in 1820, where punitive damages were available, relying on Lewellen and All Star Awards & Ad Specialties, Inc. v. HALO Branded Sols., Inc., 642 S.W.3d 281 (Mo. banc 2022). Finally, the court upheld the award of post-judgment interest on the entire judgment, including punitive damages, under Mo. Rev. Stat. § 408.040, finding that the full amount constituted the “judgment balance” regardless of any state lien interest. The circuit court’s judgment was affirmed in full.

The case is No. ED113318.

Judge: Torbitzky, J.

Attorneys: Michael Scott Ketchmark (Ketchmark & McCreight, PC) for James J. Graham. Thomas W. Hayde, Jr. (Spencer Fane LLP) for Givaudan Flavors Corp.

Companies: Givaudan Flavors Corp.

Cases: Safety StateLawClaims RemediesDamages MissouriNews