Papa v. Franklin Mint Corp.
Cases that cite this one
12 later published cases cite this decision.
- Snyder v. Specialty Glass Products, Inc. (Pa. Super. Ct. 1995)
- Fried v. Sungard Recovery Services, Inc. (District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania 1995)
- Adams v. US Air, Inc. (Pa. Super. Ct. 1994)
- Grant v. GAF Corp. (Pa. Super. Ct. 1992)
- Rorrer v. Cleveland Steel Container (District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania 2010)
- Wendler v. Design Decorators, Inc. (Pa. Super. Ct. 2001)
- Pierce v. Montgomery County Opportunity Board, Inc. (District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania 1995)
- Wilcha v. First National Bank (Lackawanna County Court of Common Pleas 1995)
- King v. United Parcel Service Inc. (Delaware County Court of Common Pleas 1992)
- Hurst v. Beck (District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania 1991)
- In re: Estate of W. Herold; Apl of: Univ of Pgh. (Pa. 2025)
- Dugan v. Bell Telephone of Pennsylvania (District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania 1994)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion
OPINION
In this action to recover damages for depression and emotional distress alleged to have been inflicted upon the plaintiff intentionally by her employer and co-employees, the trial court entered judgment on the pleadings in favor of the defendant employer because of the exclusivity provisions of the Workmen’s Compensation Act. See: Workmen’s Compensation Act of June 2,1915, P.L. 736, § 481(a), as amended, 77 P.S. § 481(a). After careful review, we affirm.
The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania has held that there is no intentional tort exception to the exclusivity clause of the Workmen’s Compensation Law. See: Barber v. Pittsburgh Corning Corporation, 521 Pa. 29, 555 A.2d 766 (1989); Poyser v. Newman & Co., Inc., 514 Pa. 32, 522 A.2d 548 (1987). The exclusivity provision is not rendered ineffective merely because the claimant-employee, in proceedings to recover workmen’s compensation benefits, was unable to prove a compensable injury. 1 For injuries allegedly occurring during the course of employment, an employee’s remedy is limited to those provided by the Act. If the employee fails to prove a compensable injury in workmen’s compensation proceedings, such failure will not support a *360 second attempt to prove injury in a common law tort action against the same employer.
The judgment entered in favor of the Franklin Mint Corporation is affirmed.
. See: Papa v. Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board (Franklin Mint Corporation), 121 Pa.Commw. 10, 549 A.2d 1352 (1988).
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.