January 30, 2015

Workers’ Compensation “Exclusivity” Provision May Not Be So Exclusive in Third Party Actions

 Under the Pennsylvania Workers’ Compensation Act, an employer’s liability to an employee, legal representative, husband or wife, parents, dependents, next of kin, or anyone otherwise entitled to damages for injuries suffered by an employee in the course of employment is limited to the damages provisions as set forth in the Act. However, U.S. District Senior Judge Mary A. McLaughlin of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania has ruled that the “exclusivity provision” of the Act may not afford the protection to employers as once thought.

 In Mbodj v. U-Haul, the wife of an employee who was killed in the course of his employment with U-Haul brought suit against U-Haul in state court on behalf of her minor children for negligence and negligent infliction of emotional distress (NIED). The plaintiff’s minor children witnessed their father’s death. U-Haul removed the lawsuit to federal court on the premise that U-Haul had already paid workers’ compensation benefits to the deceased employee’s family.

 In her Motion to Remand, the plaintiff argued that the children’s NIED claim was not barred by the Act because their injuries amounted to independent causes of action and were not sufficiently “related to” or a “resultant effect” of their father’s death. In granting the plaintiff’s Motion to Remand, the court recognized that this issue was a case of first impression in Pennsylvania and that U-Haul had failed to establish that the children’s NIED claim could not proceed against U-Haul. Judge McLaughlin did not weigh in on the merits of the children’s NIED claim, but instead stated that the plaintiff should be allowed to assert a colorable ground for liability on behalf of the children.

 Following remand and additional discovery, the parties ultimately reached a $1.25 million settlement to be split between the plaintiff’s minor children.

What It Means to You

 The plaintiff’s counsel stated it best when he said that this case “opens the door for people to think about and file lawsuits for family members to overcome the workers’ compensation bar.” While the facts of this case are unique in that the plaintiff’s minor children actually witnessed the death of their father and future cases are likely to be decided on a case-by-case basis, Mbodj v. U-Haul has provided potential plaintiffs with a roadmap to circumventing the liability exclusivity afforded to employers under the Workers’ Compensation Act. More than ever, it is now incumbent on Pennsylvania employers to assess all potential claims and claimants when faced with the injury or death to an employee in the course of employment.

If your company is faced with a claim previously deemed barred by the liability exclusivity of the Workers’ Compensation Act, please contact the attorneys at Cipriani & Werner, P.C.

Sources

Mbodj v. U-Haul, PICS No. 14-889