Plaintiff points out that a number of Illinois appellate courts have decided cases involving the Structural Work Act even after the date of its repeal. See, e.g., Duncan v. Church of the Living God, 278 Ill.App.3d 588, 215 Ill.Dec. 231, 662 N.E.2d 1371 (1st Dist. 1996); Natalino v. JMB Realty Corp., 277 Ill. App.3d 270, 213 Ill.Dec. 881, 660 N.E.2d 138 (1st Dist. 1995); Boyce v. Risch, 276 Ill.App.3d 274, 212 Ill.Dec. 800, 657 N.E.2d 1145 (1st Dist. 1995); Donovan v. Beloit Corp., 275 Ill.App.3d 25, 211 Ill.Dec. 410, 655 N.E.2d 313 (2d Dist. 1995). However, this Court is not obligated in a diversity case to follow the opinions of Illinois appellate courts; rather, the Court must divine what the Illinois Supreme Court would hold in such a situation.

In 1973, New York submitted a plan that received the Secretary's approval, but the plan was withdrawn two years later ( see, Berardi v Getty Ref. Mktg. Co., 107 Misc 2d 451, 457; see also, People v Rosen Sons, 79 Misc 2d 328, 330). Thus, New York is not presently among the States opting for "`reverse preemption'" of Federal standards through the development and implementation of an approved State plan ( Donovan v Beloit Corp., 275 111 App 3d 25, 28, 655 NE2d 313, 314; Drummonds, The Sister Sovereign States, op cit., at 495, 553). Grove Roofing contends that sections 18 (a) and (b) of the OSH Act impliedly preempt Industrial Code regulations adopted pursuant to the authorization of Labor Law § 241 (6) because those State regulations address issues of worker safety for which Federal standards are in effect and, further, that New York may only supplant the Federal standards pursuant to an approved State plan.