Man with disability sues construction company, GM

A man afflicted with several disabilities has sued a Saipan construction company, its general manager and its parent corporation for allegedly not renewing his contract after his condition came to light in a series of medical examinations.

Honorio G. Cambronero sued RJCL Corp., which owns RNV Construction, and Ruel R. Villacrusis, the general manager of RNV Construction.

Cambronero, through counsel, sued the defendants for violation of Title I under the Americans with Disabilities Act in U.S. District Court. The plaintiff was an electrician for the construction company.

Cambronero is asking the court to order the defendants to pay damages, attorney’s fees costs of medical care, and lost earnings. He also wants the court to issue an injunction preventing them from further discrimination based on disabilities.

According to the complaint, Cambronero suffers from chronic stable angina pectoris, ischemic heart disease, hypertension stage II, and impaired fasting glucose.

Sometime during August 2006, Cambronero began to feel chest pains and numbness in his left arm and sought treatment at Pacific Medical Center. He received initial treatment and was given medication, but Dr. Gabriel de Guzman recommended Cambronero seek further treatment in the Philippines, according to the complaint.

Cambronero reportedly informed Villacrusis of his need to travel to the Philippines.

“Villacrusis agreed to allow [Cambronero] to go to the Philippines for medical treatment and assured [him] that the company will shoulder all of [his] medical expenses,” the complaint stated.

Cambronero left for the Philippines on Oct. 4, 2006, with a roundtrip airline ticket he had won in a company Christmas raffle, and $500 as initial medical allowance given him by Villacrusis.

While there, Cambronero was diagnosed with acute coronary syndrome and new onset angina. Cardiologist Dr. Erwin D. Dizon, of the Philippine Heart Center, recommended coronary angiography and possible trans-coronary catheter therapy—treatments costing approximately $11,000, according to the complaint.

Cambronero instructed Dizon he would need to obtain permission from his employer. The plaintiff contacted Villacrusis by telephone. Villacrusis reportedly told Cambronero to “check other hospitals for a cheaper medical treatment.”

Cambronero then visited Philippine General Hospital where he was diagnosed by several doctors with chronic stable angina pectoris, ischemic heart disease, hypertension stage II, and impaired fasting glucose. Doctors recommended angioplasty or bypass surgery, costing approximately $10,000, according to the complaint.

After contacting Villacrusis, Cambronero was reportedly instructed to wait for the “go-signal” and promised the plaintiff he would visit him in the Philippines sometime in December 2006, both of which never happened, the complaint stated.

Cambronero then sough assistance with the Philippines Department of Foreign Affairs. The department contacted the Philippine Consulate General on Saipan who contacted Villacrusis. Villacrusis reportedly told the consular officials he would pay for the medical expenses. Cambronero waited for Villacrusis to contact him, as the Department of Foreign Affairs had instructed, but Villacrusis never contacted him, the complaint states.

Without Villacrusis’s consent, the plaintiff was not able to receive the treatment and returned to Saipan on Feb. 3, 2007.

According to the complaint, on or about March 22, 2007, Villacrusis informed Cambronero his employment contract would not be renewed upon its expiration on April 24, 2007, because of his heart condition.

Cambronero sought legal counsel who began communication with Villacrusis. After plaintiff’s lawyers filed two letters, Villacrusis agreed to negotiations in April 2007. According to the complaint, Villacrusis was telling other employees that the matter was closed as of June 2007.

On June 20, 2007, the plaintiff’s legal counsel wrote another letter to Villacrusis expressing hope that the matter was settled and he would meet Cambronero’s requests. In the letter, counsel asked Villacrusis to release Cambronero’s final paycheck, but asked the defendant not to force Cambronero to sign a clearance releasing the defendants from all claims because there had been no formal agreement executed by all parties.

The complaint states that in November 2007, Villacrusis agreed to meet with Cambronero’s lawyers “presumably to finalize a settlement agreement.”

“On the appointed day, Mr. Villacrusis requested to reschedule for the following week or a couple of days later,” the complaint states.

On Nov. 7, 2007, the counsel’s secretary contacted Villacrusis, reminding him of the rescheduled appointment.

“She was then told that there was ‘no need’ for Villacrusis to meet with plaintiff’s counsel because ‘we already got a lawyer,’” the complaint states.

On or about Feb. 8, 2008, Cambronero’s counsel received a letter from defendant’s counsel rejecting the settlement categorically, “’RNV Construction will not agree to pay any further medical expenses for Mr. Honorio Cambronero.’”

According to the complaint, Cambronero believes RNV Construction paid the medical expenses for other workers who got sick. Cambronero believes he was terminated in violation of public policy due to his medical expenses.