Decision could make it easier for the plaintiffs to win SANTA CLARA, Calif. — IBM Corp. will not face punitive damages in a lawsuit over the alleged exposure of some of its manufacturing employees to cancer-causing chemicals. Friday’s decision by the judge overseeing the case could make it easier for the plaintiffs to win.A lawsuit by two former employees, Alida Hernandez and James Moore, went before the jury last November. On Monday, the plaintiffs’ attorney, Richard Alexander of Alexander, Hawes and Audet LLP, went over the evidence presented since then and zeroed in on alleged concealment by the company, in a closing argument that lasted more than four hours.IBM knew Hernandez and Moore suffered health problems because of chemical exposure on the job at a San Jose, California, facility and didn’t tell them, sending them back into conditions that caused cancer, Alexander told the jury. He now has to prove only that it is “likely” that IBM fraudulently concealed the dangers to Moore and Hernandez. Before Friday, when the plaintiffs were seeking extra damages to punish IBM, the standard was for “clear and convincing evidence” — effectively, to prove it was “highly probable” IBM committed the fraud, Alexander said Monday. That should make it easier to win the case, he said.The judge, Robert Baines of the Superior Court for the state of California for the county of Santa Clara, on Friday ruled out instructions to the jury to determine punitive damages against IBM, attorneys for both sides said Monday. In his closing arguments, Alexander asked for only economic damages, such as medical expenses for the two plaintiffs, and general damages, such as compensation for pain and suffering.Removing the claim for punitive damages could significantly reduce the total damages against IBM if the jury decides the plaintiffs’ case has been proved, but general damages are a wild card because they would be determined by the jury. The largest component of economic damages laid out Monday was about $275,000 in lost wages for Moore, who is 62, and medical expenses for the two plaintiffs. However, general damages could dwarf those claims. Hernandez, 73, suffered cancer and underwent a mastectomy. Moore, who has active non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, probably has only four years to live, Alexander said. Both worked at IBM’s sprawling Cottle Road facility in San Jose during careers that spanned from the 1960s to the 1990s. Hernandez allegedly was exposed to harmful chemicals while working with hard-disk coating machines, and Moore while working in circuit board making and system assembly.Moore dismissed the significance of the claims for damages.“The main thing for me is to open up people’s eyes about what happened in the past and what could happen” to other working people, Moore said in an interview during a break Monday. Moore, who joined IBM in the 1960s, said he became disillusioned as he learned what IBM knew about the dangers of his work.“When I left in 1993, I still thought it was the best company in the world,” Moore said. “The more I learn, the angrier I get.”Although both plaintiffs reported symptoms of chemical poisoning, the company deliberately didn’t tell them that could be the cause, Alexander told the jury. “They were never told they had the signs and symptoms of systemic chemical injury,” Alexander said. “They were sent back to work with chemicals, and with chemicals that cause cancer.”While employees in some cases streamed into first aid stations at IBM with respiratory complaints similar to Moore’s, medical staffers regularly prescribed allergy medications to them and classified their symptoms as unrelated to the workplace, he said, citing the testimony of Audrey Crouch, a former IBM nurse. They concealed from the workers that they might be experiencing symptoms of poisoning from workplace conditions, she said, according to Alexander.Testimony by a doctor called as a witness by the plaintiffs established a strong link between chemicals at IBM and the plaintiffs’ cancers, Alexander said. Though there were other risk factors for both, the doctor estimated that 70 percent to 80 percent of Hernandez’s risk of liver damage and breast cancer came from exposure to materials in the coating room, and that 80 percent to 90 percent of Moore’s risk of suffering non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma came from his working conditions, Alexander said. IBM has argued that workers’ chemical exposure levels were well within legal limits and that the company informed workers about the hazards and took steps to protect their health.IBM’s attorney, Robert Weber of Jones Day, in Cleveland, will present closing arguments for the defendant on Tuesday.“The story that we heard today is a fundamental distortion,” Weber said following Alexander’s closing argument. Neither Hernandez nor Moore was ever diagnosed with systemic chemical poisoning in “real time” but rather during what he called “litigation time,” at a later date after the legal process had began, Weber said. In an interview after Monday’s session, Alexander downplayed the broader significance of the Santa Clara case, which has been called a bellwether for toxics claims in an industry that has been seen as relatively clean and safe.“All the defense lawyers want to pump this up as a major attack on the electronics industry … and that’s just wrong,” he said.An upcoming case against IBM in New York state may be more important nationally because California law stands out as especially lenient toward employers, he said. “California has the most arcane, stupid, bad law,” he said. “It’s gonna be much more interesting to see the facts unfold in New York.”John Roberts, a former Cottle Road worker who has attended some of the trial, said that in his opinion IBM probably knew more than it has let on. When he worked for IBM, for example, the company tracked both employees and products very closely.“They’re an information vacuum cleaner,” Roberts said. However, it has been hard to establish witnesses’ credibility in the lawsuit because of age and the passage of time, he added.“I’d love to see it win, but realistically, I don’t know,” he said. Security