Insight

Pennsylvania Supreme Court Overturns Employers' Workers’ Compensation Exclusivity in Latent Disease Cases 

Pennsylvania Supreme Court Overturns Employers' Workers’ Compensation Exclusivity in Latent Disease Cases 

Andrew F. Susko

Andrew F. Susko

May 9, 2019 10:04 AM

By: Kathy O'Neill, Wesley Payne, Jerry Anders and Andy Susko

On November 22, 2013, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court issued an opinion in Tooey v. AK Steel Corp., et al., holding that the exclusivity provision of the Workers Compensation Act (“the Act”) does not apply to common law third-party claims made by employees for occupational diseases which manifest outside of the 300-week period prescribed by Section 301(c)(2) of the Act. Before this week, employers were protected by the Act's exclusivity provision from third-party claims by employees. The Supreme Court's decision in Tooey ended that protection in latent disease cases. [1]

This ruling overturns recent Pennsylvania Superior Court decisions upholding the exclusivity provision of Section 303(a) of the Act in latent disease cases, and exposes companies who own, or have owned, manufacturing and other plants in Pennsylvania to third-party liability for latent disease claims made by their former employees, including claims for asbestos-related diseases and latent diseases resulting from workplace exposure to chemicals and other substances.

Tooey involved consolidated appeals of two Plaintiffs exposed to asbestos during the course of their employment who developed mesothelioma more than a decade after the conclusion of that employment. They filed lawsuits against multiple defendants, including their employers, and the employers filed motions for summary judgment asserting the exclusivity provision of the Act. [2] The trial court denied the employers’ motions for summary judgment, and, on interlocutory appeal, the Superior Court reversed, based upon its precedent upholding employer immunity under the exclusivity provision of the Act.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court adopted the Plaintiffs’ argument that: (1) an occupational disease which first manifests more than 300 weeks after the last occupational exposure to the hazards which allegedly caused the disease does not fall within the definition of injury set forth in the Act, (2) therefore, compensation under the Act does not apply to employees seeking compensation for such diseases; and (3) accordingly, the exclusivity provision of Section 303(a) does not preclude an employee from seeking recovery for such disease through a common law action against an employer. Thus, the Supreme Court reversed the Superior Court and overturned its precedent.

This decision constitutes a major shift in Pennsylvania law. It significantly increases plant owners’ potential exposure to liability to their employees for latent diseases, and raises coverage issues under general liability and Workers’ Compensation insurance policies.

For more information regarding this News Alert, please contact Kathy O’Neill (215-864-7172; oneillk@whiteandwilliams.com), Wesley Payne (215-864-7076; paynew@whiteandwilliams.com), Jerry Anders (215-864- 7003; andersj@whiteandwilliams.com), or Andy Susko (217-864-6228; suskoa@whiteandwilliams.com)

[1] Section 301(c)(2) of the Act provides, in pertinent part:

The terms “injury,” “personal injury,” and “injury arising in the course of his employment,” as used in this act, shall include . . . occupational disease as defined in Section 108 of this act [i.e., 77 P.S. § 27.1]: Provided, That whenever occupational disease is the basis for compensation, for disability or death under this act, it shall apply only to disability or death resulting from such disease and occurring within three hundred weeks after the last date of employment in an occupation or industry to which he was exposed to hazards of such disease: And provided further, That if the employee’s compensable disability has occurred within such period, his subsequent death as a result of the disease shall likewise be compensable.

Tooey, Slip Op. at 7-8, quoting 77 P.S.§ 411(2) (emphasis added by Supreme Court).

[2] Section 303(a) of the Act provides:

The liability of an employer under this act shall be exclusive and in place of any and all other liability to such employees, his legal representative, husband or wife, parents, dependents, next of kin or anyone otherwise entitled to damages in any action at law or otherwise on account of any injury or death as defined in section 301(c)(1)) and (2) or occupational disease as defined in section 108.

Tooey, Slip Op. at 5, n.2 quoting 77 P.S. § 481(a)

Related Articles

Announcing the 2022 Best Lawyers: The Employment Law Issue


by Best Lawyers

Featuring the top legal talent from The Best Lawyers in America, Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch in America and “Lawyer of the Year” recipients for Labor and Employment Law, Workers’ Compensation Law, ERISA Law and Ethics and Professional Responsibility Law.

Best Lawyers Employment Law Publication

One Reason Why Uber Is Fighting to Classify Drivers as Contractors


by Stephen Hasner

How Workers' Compensation Is Setting Up a Legal Battle

 Why Uber Wants Drivers as Contractors

Teamwork and Strategy


by Justin Smulison

In 2018, Block O'Toole & Murphy continued to secure multimillion-dollar results for injured victims and workers.

Block O'Toole & Murphy Gets Results

Pennsylvania Supreme Court Issues Landmark Workers’ Compensation Decision


by Dave Brown

The claimants’ workers’ compensation bar in Pennsylvania scored a significant victory when the state’s high court issued its decision in Protz v. WCAB.

Pennsylvania Workers' Comp

Trending Articles

The Real Camille: An Interview with Johnny Depp’s Lawyer Camille Vasquez


by Rebecca Blackwell

Camille Vasquez, a young lawyer at Brown Rudnick, sat down with Best Lawyers CEO Phillip Greer to talk about her distinguished career, recently being named partner and what comes next for her.

Camille Vasquez in office

Johnny Depp and Amber Heard: The Best Lawyers Honorees Behind the Litigation


by Gregory Sirico

Best Lawyers takes a look at the recognized legal talent representing Johnny Depp and Amber Heard in their ongoing defamation trial.

Lawyers for Johnny Depp and Amber Heard

Announcing The Best Lawyers in The United Kingdom™ 2023


by Best Lawyers

The results include an elite field of top lawyers and firms from the United Kingdom.

The Best Lawyers in The United Kingdom 2023

Announcing The Best Lawyers in France™ 2023


by Best Lawyers

The results include an elite field of top lawyers and firms from France.

Blue, white and red strips

Announcing The Best Lawyers in Germany™ 2023


by Best Lawyers

The results include an elite field of top lawyers and firms from Germany.

Black, red and yellow stripes

Education by Trial: Cultivating Legal Expertise in the Courtroom


by Margo Pierce

The intricacies of complex lawsuits require extensive knowledge of the legal precedent. But they also demand a high level of skill in every discipline needed to succeed at trial, such as analyzing technical reports and deposing expert witnesses.

Cultivating Legal Expertise in the Courtroom

Announcing the 2022 Best Lawyers® in the United States


by Best Lawyers

The results include an elite field of top lawyers listed in the 28th Edition of The Best Lawyers in America® and in the 2nd Edition of Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch in America for 2022.

2022 Best Lawyers Listings for United States

Announcing The Best Lawyers in Belgium™ 2023


by Best Lawyers

The results include an elite field of top lawyers and firms from Belgium.

Black, yellow and red stripes

Announcing the 2022 Best Lawyers™ in France


by Best Lawyers

The results include an elite field of top lawyers and firms, including our inaugural Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch recipients.

Announcing the 2022 Best Lawyers™ in France

We Are Women, We Are Fearless


by Deborah S. Chang and Justin Smulison

Athea Trial Lawyers is a female owned and operated law firm specializing in civil litigation, catastrophic energy, wrongful death and product liability.

Athea Trial Law Female Leadership and Success

Choosing a Title Company: What a Seller Should Expect


by Roy D. Oppenheim

When it comes to choosing a title company, how much power exactly does a seller have?

Choosing the Title Company As Seller

Announcing the 2022 Best Lawyers™ in Germany


by Best Lawyers

The results include an elite field of top lawyers and firms, including our inaugural Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch recipients.

Announcing the 2022 Best Lawyers™ in Germany

What If Johnny Depp and Amber Heard Had a Premarital Agreement?


by John M. Goralka

Oh, the gritty details we’re learning from the latest court battle between Johnny Depp and Amber Heard. This unfortunate airing of dirty laundry may have been avoided with a prenup. Should you think about getting one yourself?

What If Johnny Depp & Amber Heard Had Prenup?

U.K. Introduces Revisions to Right-to-Work Scheme and Immigration Rules


by Gregory Sirico

Right-to-Work Scheme and Immigration Rules in

Destiny Fulfilled


by Sara Collin

Was Angela Reddock-Wright destined to become a lawyer? It sure seems that way. Yet her path was circuitous. This accomplished employment attorney, turned mediator, arbitrator and ADR specialist nonpareil discusses her career, the role of attorneys in society, the new world of post-pandemic work and why new Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson represents the future.

Interview with Lawyer Angela Reddock-Wright

What the Courts Say About Recording in the Classroom


by Christina Henagen Peer and Peter Zawadski

Students and parents are increasingly asking to use audio devices to record what's being said in the classroom. But is it legal? A recent ruling offer gives the answer to a question confusing parents and administrators alike.

Is It Legal for Students to Record Teachers?