Doe v. United States
2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 76466
| D.D.C. | 2011Background
- Plaintiff John Doe, a former RSI scientist, alleges exposure to mad-cow disease during an experiment conducted for NRL-related work in DC.
- Plaintiff asserts negligence, intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress, strict liability, and Fifth Amendment constitutional torts; seeks $15 million and medical monitoring.
- Defendants RSI and PSI move to dismiss for failure to state a claim; PSI separately moves for lack of personal jurisdiction.
- Court treats RSI/PSI motions as addressing Rule 12(b)(6) and (b)(2); Court ultimately finds WCA preemption dispositive.
- Court cites that RSI’s employment-related injuries are within exclusive remedy of DC WCA; if applicable, claims against RSI/PSI fail.
- Court indicates that even if veil-piercing were possible to reach PSI, the WCA would still bar claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the WCA preempts the claims against RSI. | Doe argues WCA does not preclude his non-wage-based claims. | Defendants contend WCA exclusivity bars all workplace-injury claims. | Yes; WCA exclusivity bars RSI claims. |
| Whether PSI can be sued given personal jurisdiction and/or veil-piercing. | Doe seeks to pierce PSI’s veil to reach the court's jurisdiction. | PSI challenges jurisdiction; even if veil-piercing applied, WCA precludes the claims. | No; even with veil-piercing, WCA bars claims against PSI. |
| Whether the court must address personal jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(2) given WCA preemption. | Doe argues for jurisdiction over PSI independent of WCA. | WCA preemption resolves the action, rendering jurisdiction analysis unnecessary. | WCA preempts the action; no need to decide jurisdiction. |
Key Cases Cited
- Vanzant v. WMATA, 557 F. Supp. 2d 113 (D.D.C. 2008) (WCA exclusive remedy for workplace injury; broad preemption)
- Tredway v. District of Columbia, 403 A.2d 732 (D.C. 1979) (WCA exclusivity; sole remedy replaces common-law damages)
- Myco, Inc. v. Super Concrete Co., 565 A.2d 293 (D.C. 1989) (WCA exclusivity applies to emotional distress when underlying injury covered)
- Estate of Underwood v. National Credit Union Admin., 665 A.2d 621 (D.C. 1995) (emotional distress claims precluded when underlying injury covered by WCA)
- Chung v. Lee, 852 F. Supp. 43 (D.D.C. 1994) (injury vs. disability under WCA; wage loss required for disability remedy; not governing injury)
- District of Columbia v. Thompson, 570 A.2d 277 (D.C. 1990) (some aspects of injury/disability under WCA; not a broad exemption from WCA)
- Grillo v. Natl. Bank of Wash., 540 A.2d 743 (D.C. 1988) (veil-piercing and employer intent considerations; limited circumstances to avoid WCA)