Court Opinion

ID: 9415111
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-02 18:20:10.039056+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:53.559465
License: Public Domain

PER CURIAM: *
The record as it now stands reflects a fact issue as to whether, on at least one of the claimed occasions in 2006, plaintiff-appellant Ballard, while inspecting the grain of defendant-appellee Bunge, suffered some compensable and more than wholly trivial adverse physical reaction, of at least some more than wholly momentary duration, as a result of her then exposure to the presence of phosphine gas or other toxic fumes in the grain being inspected. Accordingly, the district court erred in granting summary judgment dismissing Ballard’s suit with prejudice. We thus reverse the district court’s judgment and remand for further proceedings not inconsistent herewith.
REVERSED and REMANDED

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.