Legal Opinion

Ranalli v. Rohm and Haas Co.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Decided September 8, 2009No. 871 EDA 2008PublishedCited by 12 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion by

KLEIN, J.:

¶ 1 Rohm and Haas Company appeals from the trial court order denying preliminary objections 1 on the grounds that all of the claims against it are barred by the exclusivity provisions of the Workers’ Compensation Act, (“Act”), 77 P.S. § 481(a), and the Occupational Disease Act (“ODA”). 77 P.S. § 1208. Antonio Ranalli filed a wrongful death action against Rohm and Haas for damages resulting from the death of his wife, Olivia Ranalli, 2 who died of a brain tumor in 2007. Ranalli claimed his wife’s brain tumor, diagnosed in 2006, was a result of her exposure to vinyl chloride…

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. Poyser v. Newman & Co., Inc.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1987
  2. Martin v. Lancaster Battery Co., Inc.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1992
  3. Dolan v. Linton's LunchSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1959
  4. Kline v. Arden H. Verner Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1983
  5. Selected Risks Insurance Co. v. ThompsonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1989

8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by12 opinions

  1. Tooey v. AK Steel Corp.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2013
  2. Kostryckyj v. Pentron Laboratory Technologies, LLCSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2012
  3. Sedlacek v. A.O. Smith Corp.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 2010
  4. Allen v. County of WayneCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2013
  5. B.L. Herold v. Univ. of Pittsburgh - of Com. System of Higher Ed. & 3M Co.Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2023

7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API