# Sedlacek v. A.O. Smith Corp. > Superior Court of Pennsylvania · February 25, 2010 · 2010 Pa. Super. 25 URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9638295 ## Case - **Full name:** Mary Kay SEDLACEK, Executrix of the Estate of Edward Sedlacek, and Mary Kay Sedlacek in Her Own Right, Appellants v. A.O. SMITH CORPORATION, A.W. Chesterton, Alcoa, Inc., Allied Glove Corporation, American Optical Corporation, Anchor Packing Company, Argo Packing Company, Atlas Industries, Inc., B.F. Goodrich Company, Cashco, Inc., CBS Corporation, Crane Co., Crown Cork & Seal, Dana Corporation, Dezurik, Inc., Durabla Manufacturing Co., E.W. Bliss Company, Earl B. Beach Company, Eichleay Corporation, F.B. Wright Company of Pittsburgh, Flowserve Corporation, F/K/A Byron Jackson, Foster Wheeler, the Gage Company, Garlock Inc., General Electric Company, General Refractories Co., George v. Hamilton, Inc., Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, Gould Pumps, Inc., Green Tweed & Company, Hinchliffe & Keener, Inc., Honeywell, Inc., Hunter Sales, I.U. North America, Industrial Holdings Company, Ingersoll Rand, ITT Industries, Kentile Floors, Inc., M.S. Jacobs & Associates, Inc., McCarls, Inc., Melrath Supply & Gasket Co., Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, Mobile Oil Corporation, Nagle Pumps, Owen-Illinois, Power Piping, Safety First Industries, Inc., the Sager Corporation, Sealite, Inc., Sepco Corporation, Stockham Valves & Fittings, Taylored Industries, Union Carbide Corp., Uniroyal, Inc., Viacom, Washington Group International; Mary Lou Crooks, Executrix of the Estate of Frank C. Crooks, Deceased, and Mary Lou Crooks, in Her Own Right, Appellants v. A.O. Smith Corporation, Alcoa, Inc., Allied Glove Corporation, American Optical Corporation, Anchor Packing Company, Argo Packing Company, Atlas Industries, Inc., B.F. Goodrich Company, Borg-Warner, Cashco, Inc., Certainteed Corporation, Crane Co., Crown Cork & Seal, Dana Corporation, Dezurik, Inc., Durabla Manufacturing Co., E.W. Bliss Company, Earl B. Beach Company, Eichleay Corporation, F.B. Wright Company of Pittsburgh, Flowserve Corporation, F/K/A Byron Jackson, Garlock Inc., General Electric Company, General Refractories Co., George v. Hamilton, Inc., Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, Gould Pumps, Inc., Greene Tweed & Company, Hinchliffe & Keener, Inc., Honeywell, Inc., Hunter Sales, I.U. North America, Industrial Holdings Company, Ingersoll Rand, ITT Industries, Kentile Floors, Inc., M.S. Jacobs & Associates, Inc., McCarls, Inc., Melrath Supply & Gasket Co., Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, Mobile Oil Corporation, Nagle Pumps, Oglebay Norton, Owens-Illinois, Power Piping, Safety First Industries, Inc., the Sager Corporation, Sealite, Inc., Sepco Corporation, Stockham Valves & Fittings, Taylored Industries, Union Carbide Corp., Uniroyal, Inc., Viacom, Washington Group International - **Court:** Superior Court of Pennsylvania - **Decided:** February 25, 2010 - **Citations:** 2010 Pa. Super. 25; 990 A.2d 801; 2010 Pa. Super. LEXIS 48; 2010 WL 654294 - **Precedential status:** Published - **Opinion:** Concurrence by Donohue - **Judges:** Elliott, Donohue, Colville - **Cited by:** 7 later opinions in the Frix Law Library ## Citator (automated) - **Red flag:** Abrogated on other grounds by Tooey v. AK Steel Corp., 623 Pa. 60 (2013). - Negative treatments: 1 - Distinguished by: 0 - Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9638295 ## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction) - stating that although the plaintiff’s common law tort action for his mesothelioma had been abolished by the WCA, and his claim was time-barred under the WCA, the WCA did not deny access to the courts, it limited the plaintiff’s ability to recover for his claim - holding that temporal limitations to compensation under the WCA and ODA did not alter the exclusive remedy doctrine - observing that this Court has sometimes been imprecise in its terminology by using terms such as coverage, cognizability, recovery, and relief interchangeably ## Opinion text CONCURRING OPINION BY DONOHUE, J.: ¶ 1 I agree with the result reached by the Majority because we are bound by the opinion of another panel of this Court in Ranalli v. Rohm and Haas Co., 983 A.2d 732 (Pa.Super.2009). I write separately to note that I would not reach Appellants’ argument regarding Article 1, Section 11 of the Pennsylvania Constitution because Article 3, Section 18 sanctions the statutory exclusive remedy provisions that Appellants challenge as unconstitutional. ¶ 2 Article 3, Section 18 of the Pennsylvania Constitution provides, The General Assembly may enact laws requiring the payment by employers, or employers and employes jointly, of reasonable compensation for injuries to employes arising in the course of their employment, and for occupational diseases of employes, whether or not such injuries or diseases result in death, and regardless of fault of employer or employe, and fixing the basis of ascertainment of such compensation and the maximum and minimum limits thereof, and providing special or general remedies for the collection thereof; but in no other cases shall the General Assembly limit the amount to be recovered for injuries resulting in death, or for injuries to persons or property, and in case of death from such injuries, the right of action shall survive, and the General Assembly shall prescribe for whose benefit such actions shall be prosecuted. No act shall prescribe any limitations of time within which suits may be brought against corporations for injuries to persons or property, or for other causes different from those fixed by general laws regulating actions against natural persons, and such acts now existing are avoided. Pennsylvania Constitution, Article 3, § 18. ¶ 3 As noted in this Court’s decision in Ranalli , “[i]t is only because of Article 3, Section [18] and the agreement of the parties that the limited recovery in a Workman’s Compensation case is valid.” Ranalli , at ¶ 7 (citing Anderson v. Carnegie Steel Co., 255 Pa. 33, 99 A. 215 (1916)). ¶4 Accordingly, because of Article 3, Section 18, an Article 1, Section 11 analysis is unnecessary. 1 . The Occupational Disease Act, 77 P.S. § 1201 et seq. ("ODA”), like the WCA, gov- *813 ems payment to employees for injuries suffered in the course of employment in exchange for no-fault compensation. Like the Workers’ Compensation Act ("WCA”), the ODA also limits compensation for injuries to that which is provided by statute. Thus, Article 3, Section 18 of the Pennsylvania Constitution, by its terms, applies equally to the WCA and the ODA. See Grosser v. L.E. Smith Glass Co., 95 Pa.Cmwlth. 450 , 505 A.2d 1093, 1096-97 (1986). --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9638295. Public record. Not legal advice.