Los Angeles – Gustavo Reyes Gonzalez, a stonecutter, now breathes with the aid of transplanted lungs, his own destroyed by years of inhaling fine particles from cutting engineered stone, a popular material for countertops. His harrowing experience opens the door to a legal battle in Los Angeles County, raising urgent questions about industry responsibilities and worker safety.
Reyes Gonzalez, a worker in Orange County’s fabrication shops, would spend his days slicing through slabs of the artificial stone, which, while aesthetically pleasing, contains dangerous levels of crystalline silica. Despite its durability and stain resistance, the engineered stone’s high silica content poses severe health risks, leading to conditions such as silicosis—an incurable lung disease that afflicted Reyes Gonzalez by the age of 33. After enduring severe hardship, a double lung transplant at 34 years old granted him somewhat of a reprieve. However, life post-transplant remains a struggle, fraught with constant medical care and diligent monitoring of his health.
Inside a Los Angeles courtroom, the critical issue is whether the manufacturers and distributors of the engineered stone should be held liable for the health crises affecting workers like Reyes Gonzalez. The outcome of this case could send shockwaves across the industry, according to Dr. Robert Harrison, a UC San Francisco professor specializing in occupational medicine. A verdict against the companies could signal to manufacturers their accountability for the health impacts of their products.
The trial is historic, marking the first time a worker with silicosis has brought such a lawsuit to court, according to Reyes Gonzalez’s legal team. Over a dozen Californian stonecutters have succumbed to the disease in recent years, spotlighting the high stakes of the legal confrontation.
Highlighting the crux of the trial, attorney Gilbert Purcell described the engineered stone as “terribly toxic and dangerous” and “defective in design.” He challenged the necessity of such a product, citing its devastating human toll. In stark contrast, defense lawyers, representing manufacturers like Cambria and Caesarstone, argued that the responsibility lies not with the stone itself, but with the practices in workshops where cutting occurs. They insist that the material can be safe when proper protocols are followed.
Testimonies revealed that Reyes Gonzalez often worked in dusty conditions, even as he employed water to minimize dust during cutting, suggesting lapses in workplace safety standards. Peter Strotz, representing Caesarstone, argued that adherence to their provided guidelines, including ventilation and wet cutting practices, could have prevented Reyes Gonzalez’s condition.
Marissa Bankert, Executive Director of the International Surface Fabricators Association, emphasized the trial’s significance irrespective of its outcome. She urged that all involved in surface fabrication must prioritize safety education and practices, pointing to the need for a broader industry commitment to worker welfare.
The legal debate extends beyond that courtroom. Globally, safety regulators have grappled with the risks posed by engineered stone. In response to similar worker health crises, the Australian government imposed a ban on the material. California, however, has so far tightened regulations rather than enact a full prohibition, though state officials hint that further measures, including a possible ban, might be considered if current policies do not sufficiently protect workers.
The ongoing trial not only shines a light on the conflict between economic interests and employee health but also encourages a dialogue about the ethical responsibilities of manufacturers in safeguarding the workers behind their products. As the jury deliberates, their decision could potentially redefine safety standards within the stone fabrication industry and beyond, affecting countless workers and businesses involved in similar manufacturing processes.