The Illinois Supreme Court’s decision in Martin v. Goodrich, 25 IL 130509, provides a new legal remedy for claimants diagnosed with an occupational disease after 2019, even if their Workers’ Compensation claim was otherwise barred by the 25-year maximum timeframe for filing a Workers’ Compensation claim. These claimants may now file a civil action outside of the Workers’ Compensation framework of laws, even if exposed to hazardous materials in the workplace years prior.
Section 1(f) and 6(c) of the Workers’ Occupational Diseases Act (“WODA”) both require an employee to seek compensation within 25 years of the alleged exposure. The court previously ruled that section 6(c) was a statute of repose, but this case brought into question whether section 1(f) was a statute of repose as well. A statute of repose begins to run when a specific event occurs, regardless of whether an action has accrued or whether any injury has resulted. The purpose of a repose period would be to terminate liability after a defined period of time.
BACKGROUND
Martin worked for Goodrich from 1966 to 2012 and was exposed to vinyl chloride until 1974. He was diagnosed with angiosarcoma of the liver and passed away in 2020. His widow tried to invoke section 1.1 of the WODA, passed in 2019, which avoids WODA’s exclusivity provisions for work-related exposures to hazardous materials. Section 1.1 allows claimants to file a civil lawsuit for diseases in the workplace that manifest long after exposure, rather than file a suit through the framework of the Workers’ Compensation and WODA laws. Goodrich, on the other hand, argued that the time-limiting section 1(f) of WODA was not a statute of repose, thus it did not bar Martin’s claim, and therefore argued Martin should file under the WODA rather than file a separate civil action.
COURT'S KEY RULINGS
The Court addressed two main questions:
- Is Section 1(f) a statute of repose?
The Court responded affirmatively. Like Section 6(c), it bars claims after 25 years, regardless of when an injury is discovered. Since Section 1(f) is a statute of repose, claimants can seek compensation under Section 1.1 through civil litigation even if WODA would have otherwise barred their claims.
- Does Section 1.1 apply prospectively?
The Court responded affirmatively to this as well, per Section 4 of the Statute on Statutes. However, the parties disagreed on what "prospectively" meant. Martin argued it applied to new cases filed after 2019, while Goodrich contended it should not apply to Martin since his exposure occurred before the amendment.
IMPLICATIONS
The Court clarified that Section 1.1 did not revive Martin’s ability to file under WODA; rather, it provided an alternative civil remedy. Furthermore, an employer’s right to WODA’s exclusivity protections accrues when an employee discovers the injury, not at the time of exposure. Since Martin’s diagnosis and lawsuit occurred post-2019, Goodrich had no vested right to WODA’s exclusivity provisions in this case.
FUTURE IMPACT
This ruling is significant for claimants exposed to hazardous materials before 2019—such exposure to as asbestos, coal dust, and vinyl chloride —whose symptoms manifested much later. Even if section 1(f) of WODA bars their claims, claimants may still pursue a civil lawsuit. An increase in such civil actions is expected, but Section 1.1 applies only to claims filed after 2019, meaning it does not revive previously barred Workers’ Compensation claims.