Louise Blanyar v. Genova Products Inc
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 11685
| 3rd Cir. | 2017Background
- Genova operated a vinyl pipe/PVC plant in Hazleton, PA (1975–2012); appellants are former employees who left between 1987 and 2009.
- Appellants sued in 2015 seeking medical monitoring (no present injuries alleged), asserting workplace exposure to VC/PVC and other chemicals increased their risk of latent disease.
- Appellants later obtained Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDSs) they say revealed undisclosed toxic hazards and regulatory violations (e.g., OSHA).
- Pennsylvania law sets a two‑year statute of limitations for medical monitoring claims; Genova moved to dismiss as time‑barred.
- Appellants argued the discovery rule tolled accrual until they learned of the hazard from MSDSs; District Court rejected tolling because hazards of VC/PVC were long publicly documented.
- District Court granted dismissal without prejudice; appellants appealed but did not amend their complaint to address pleading defects the court noted.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the two‑year SOL for medical monitoring was tolled by the discovery rule | Blanyar: discovery rule delays accrual until plaintiffs reasonably discovered toxicity (via MSDSs) | Genova: information on VC/PVC risks was widely available for decades; plaintiffs were on inquiry notice | Court: discovery rule does not apply; plaintiffs should have known of risks earlier, SOL expired |
| Whether plaintiffs exercised reasonable diligence to discover injury and cause | Plaintiffs: could not reasonably discover claim before receiving MSDSs | Genova: plaintiffs failed to exercise due diligence and were on inquiry notice long before suit | Court: as a matter of law reasonable minds would not differ—plaintiffs lacked required diligence |
| Fraudulent concealment tolling | Plaintiffs asserted fraudulent concealment below | Genova disputed tolling; District Court found no reasonable diligence to support tolling | Plaintiffs abandoned on appeal; court did not apply fraudulent concealment |
| Applicability of workers’ compensation/Tooey or pleading sufficiency (raised on appeal) | Plaintiffs invoked WCA/Tooey to argue timeliness or alternative remedy | Genova raised WCA exclusivity and Twombly/Iqbal pleading defects | Both arguments were waived on appeal (parties conceded SOL and failed to press WCA exclusivity below); court did not decide these issues |
Key Cases Cited
- Barnes v. American Tobacco Co., 161 F.3d 127 (3d Cir.) (medical monitoring claim accrues when plaintiff is placed at significantly increased risk)
- Redland Soccer Club, Inc. v. Department of the Army, 696 A.2d 137 (Pa.) (definition of increased risk for medical monitoring accrual)
- Fine v. Checcio, 870 A.2d 850 (Pa.) (discovery rule/fraudulent concealment standard and when court may decide diligence as matter of law)
- Sheridan v. NGK Metals Corp., 609 F.3d 239 (3d Cir.) (elements of Pennsylvania medical monitoring claim)