Exclusivity provision of the Workers’ Compensation Act precludes employee bitten by a dog at work from filing suit against the employer for negligent acts and omissions that denied employee an opportunity to file a third-party suit against the dog owner.
The plaintiff, an employee of a Home Depot store, was bitten by a customer’s dog. The plaintiff reported the bite to her supervisors. An investigation was conducted, but the the plaintiff was barred from having any further contact or interaction with the dog owner or any witnesses. Also, the dog’s owner was permitted to leave the store without giving identifying information.
The plaintiff was later diagnosed with cubital tunnel syndrome and required surgery. She also received workers’ compensation benefits. The plaintiff filed suit against the defendants, alleging a failure to investigate the incident sufficiently and negligently allowing the dog owner and witnesses to leave without obtaining necessary information.
The defendants filed a motion for summary judgment at the trial court level, asserting immunity under the Workers’ Compensation Act’s exclusivity provision. The trial court denied the motion, concluding that a genuine question as to whether the failure to obtain information rises to the level of negligence. The Pennsylvania Superior Court affirmed, noting that the exclusivity provision of the Act is not absolute under all circumstances.
The defendants appealed to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, which reversed the decisions of the underlying courts. According to the Supreme Court, the plain language of the Act precludes a defendant’s liability beyond that provided by the Act. The court rejected the plaintiff’s assertion that the defendants had a duty to protect and preserve her interests in a third-party claim arising out of a work place injury. The court pointed out that allowing such a suit to proceed would result in litigation absurdities, such as forcing defendants to defend a claim in the dog owner’s stead, requiring litigation of precisely the sort that the Act was supposed to prevent. Moreover, permitting the suit would create perverse incentives for employees when injuries caused by a third party occur on the job, opening up employers to lawsuits by employees if information about the third party is not obtained.
What’s Hot in Workers’ Comp, Vol. 27, No. 5, May 2023, is prepared by Marshall Dennehey to provide information on recent legal developments of interest to our readers. This publication is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship. We would be pleased to provide such legal assistance as you require on these and other subjects when called upon. ATTORNEY ADVERTISING pursuant to New York RPC 7.1 Copyright © 2023 Marshall Dennehey, all rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm. For reprints or inquiries, or if you wish to be removed from this mailing list, contact tamontemuro@mdwcg.com.