95 F.4th 475
7th Cir.2024Background
- Rodney Martin was exposed to vinyl chloride monomer (VCM) while working for Goodrich Corporation between 1966 and 1974; he retired in 2012.
- Martin was diagnosed with angiosarcoma of the liver in 2019, a disease allegedly linked to his workplace VCM exposure, and died in 2020.
- Martin's widow, Candice Martin, brought a lawsuit against Goodrich Corporation and PolyOne Corporation, seeking damages for wrongful death and relying on a statutory exception to workers’ compensation exclusivity.
- The District Court denied defendants’ motions to dismiss (personal jurisdiction and statutory exclusivity), allowing the case to proceed to trial; the court then certified two key legal questions for interlocutory appeal to the Seventh Circuit.
- The case centers on whether Martin's claim is barred by the Workers’ Occupational Diseases Act (ODA) exclusivity and timeliness provisions in light of a 2019 statutory amendment (Exception 1.1).
- The Seventh Circuit, uncertain on key issues of state law, certified three questions to the Illinois Supreme Court for guidance.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is ODA § 1(f) a statute of repose for Exception 1.1? | 1(f) should be treated as a statute of repose, triggering Exception 1.1 and allowing a civil suit. | 1(f) is not a statute of repose; Exception 1.1 does not apply so the claim remains barred by exclusivity. | Certified to Illinois Supreme Court; no definitive ruling. |
| Temporal reach of Exception 1.1—does it apply retroactively to Martin’s case? | Exception 1.1 applies retroactively, covering conduct and exposure predating its enactment. | Exception 1.1 does not apply to pre-enactment conduct; Section 4 of the Statute on Statutes limits retroactivity. | Certified to Illinois Supreme Court; no definitive ruling. |
| Would retroactive application violate Illinois’s due process guarantee? | Defendant's rights didn't vest to bar the claim until the claim accrued; so no due process violation. | Goodrich’s right not to be sued vested when the claim was statutorily time-barred, so retroactive application would violate due process. | Certified to Illinois Supreme Court; no definitive ruling. |
Key Cases Cited
- Folta v. Ferro Eng’g, 43 N.E.3d 108 (Ill. 2015) (Illinois Supreme Court held statutory repose for asbestos claims under ODA bars civil lawsuits; catalyst for Exception 1.1)
- Collier v. Wagner Castings Co., 408 N.E.2d 198 (Ill. 1980) (exclusivity provisions of Illinois ODA and exceptions thereto)
- Meerbrey v. Marshall Field & Co., Inc., 564 N.E.2d 1222 (Ill. 1990) (outlines exceptions to exclusivity under workers’ compensation statutes)
- Perry v. Department of Finance and Professional Regulation, 106 N.E.3d 1016 (Ill. 2018) (Illinois retroactivity analysis—steps for statutory temporal reach)
- Commonwealth Edison Co. v. Will County Collector, 749 N.E.2d 964 (Ill. 2001) (articulates retroactivity analytical framework)
- Evanston Ins. Co. v. Riseborough, 5 N.E.3d 158 (Ill. 2014) (defines what constitutes a statute of repose)
- Henrich v. Libertyville High School, 712 N.E.2d 298 (Ill. 1998) (when immunity defenses vest)
- Doe A. v. Diocese of Dallas, 917 N.E.2d 475 (Ill. 2009) (legislative revival of time-barred claims and due process concerns)