Opinion
J-A10032-19 No. 2713 EDA 2018
05-20-2019
SENETHAVISAY PHANSACKDY Appellant v. REILLY FOAM CORPORATION Appellee
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
Appeal from the Order Dated July 26, 2018
In the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County
Civil Division at No(s): 2017-19519 BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J.E., LAZARUS, J., and OTT, J. MEMORANDUM BY GANTMAN, P.J.E.:
Appellant, Senethavisay Phansackdy, appeals from the order entered in the Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas, which granted the motion of Appellee, Reilly Foam Corporation, for judgment on the pleadings. We affirm.
In its opinion, the trial court accurately set forth the relevant facts and procedural history of this case. Therefore, we have no reason to restate them.
Appellant raises one issue for our review:
WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION AND ERRED AS A MATTER OF LAW BY GRANTING [APPELLEE'S] MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS DESPITE [APPELLANT'S] ASSERTION THAT [APPELLEE] FLAGRANTLY AND INTENTIONALLY ALTERED MANUFACTURING EQUIPMENT TO INCREASE PRODUCTION AT THE EXPENSE OF WORKER SAFETY, AND PROVIDED NO TRAINING OR SAFETY INSTRUCTION TO WORKERS ASSIGNED TO WORK ON THE ALTERED AND DANGEROUS MACHINERY THEREBY ASSURING THAT A SERIOUS INJURY WAS LIKELY TO OCCUR, WHICH CONDUCT FAR EXCEEDS THE SCOPE AND
INTENT OF THE PENNSYLVANIA WORKERS' COMPENSATION ACT AS DETERMINED BY THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA, AND MUST QUALIFY FOR THE INTENTIONAL TORT EXCEPTION TO EMPLOYER IMMUNITY REGARDLESS OF WHETHER [APPELLANT'S] INJURY IS AN AGGRAVATION OF A PRIOR WORK INJURY OR A NEWLY SUSTAINED INJURY.(Appellant's Brief at 3-4).
After a thorough review of the record, the briefs of the parties, the applicable law, and the well-reasoned opinion of the Honorable Gail Weilheimer, we conclude Appellant's issue merits no relief. The trial court opinion comprehensively discusses and properly disposes of the question presented. ( See Trial Court Opinion, filed December 17, 2018, at 3-7) (finding: Appellant's claims against her employer are barred by exclusivity provision of Pennsylvania Workers' Compensation Act ("WCA"); exclusivity provision of WCA does not contain exception for intentional torts; Appellant's complaint sets forth that Appellee's conduct was intentional with knowledge that injury suffered by Appellant was likely to result from removal of safety interlock on piece of machinery; nevertheless, exclusivity is triggered where cause of action arises from employee who sustained injury while engaged in furtherance of business or affairs of employer; Appellant's claim of fraudulent misrepresentation also fails to pierce exclusivity provision of WCA because Appellant failed to aver that incident at issue aggravated any pre-existing condition). Accordingly, we affirm on the basis of the trial court's opinion.
Order affirmed. Judgment Entered. /s/_________
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary Date: 5/20/19
Image materials not available for display.