holding employee could proceed against employer in action for fraudulent misrepresentation where employee’s complaint alleged, inter alia, employee was regularly exposed to lead fumes and dust at place of employment, employer tested employee’s blood to monitor lead levels, employer willfully and intentionally withheld employee’s test results which showed employee had developed lead-related diseases, and employer subsequently altered those results to induce employee to continue working for employer; employee further alleged employer’s concealment of employee’s condition prevented employee from reducing his exposure to lead and obstructed him from receiving appropriate medical treatment, and that delay in treatment resulted in aggravation of employee’s injury
How later courts described this case
- holding employee could proceed against employer in action for fraudulent misrepresentation where employee’s complaint alleged, inter alia, employee was regularly exposed to lead fumes and dust at place of employment, employer tested employee’s blood to monitor lead levels, employer willfully and intentionally withheld employee’s test results which showed employee had developed lead-related diseases, and employer subsequently altered those results to induce employee to continue working for employer; employee further alleged employer’s concealment of employee’s condition prevented employee from reducing his exposure to lead and obstructed him from receiving appropriate medical treatment, and that delay in treatment resulted in aggravation of employee’s injury
- holding a complaint satisfies the requirement of Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1019(b) that fraud must be averred with particularity if it (1) “adequately explain[s] the nature of the claim to the opposing party so as to permit the preparation of a defense” and (2) is “sufficient to convince the court that the averments are not merely subterfuge”
- holding employee’s claim of fraudulent misrepresentation was actionable at common law and not barred by exclusivity provision of WCA where employee was not seeking damages for injuries caused by exposure to lead and dust in workplace, which were covered by WCA; instead, employee sought damages for aggravation to lead-related injuries due to employer’s failure to communicate test results evincing employee’s actual condition
- allowing common law recovery for a fraudulent representation made directly to the injured employee that caused aggravation of a pre-existing workplace injury
Written by the judges who cited it.
Distinguished
Distinguished by Wendler v. Design Decorators, Inc., 2001 Pa. Super. 57 (2001)
As-such, the exception found in Martin is inapplicable.
The opinion
*21 FLAHERTY, Justice,
dissenting.
I dissent. The exclusivity provision of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 77 P.S. § 481(a) states: “The liability of an employer under this act shall be exclusive and in place of any and all other liability to such employes----” (Emphasis added). This language could not be more clear and unambiguous in its limitation of employer liability. We have, until the present, consistently applied this provision in accordance with its plain meaning, thus limiting an employer’s liability in accordance with the legislature’s express mandate. Poyser v. Newman & Co., 514 Pa. 32 , 522 A.2d 548 (1987) (even intentional wrongdoing by employers falls within the exclusivity provision of the Workmen’s Compensation Act). See also Barber v. Pittsburgh Corning Corp., 521 Pa. 29 , 555 A.2d 766 (1989). The present case likewise falls clearly within the scope of immunity granted employers under the Workmen’s Compensation Act. The decision of the Superior Court, holding that the present action against the employer can proceed, should be reversed.
NIX, C.J., joins this dissenting opinion.