We previously reported that the Illinois Supreme Court issued its long-awaited decision in Martin v. Goodrich Corp., upholding the constitutionality of a 2019 amendment to the Illinois Workers’ Occupational Diseases Act (the “Act”).1 Since then, the Seventh Circuit has recognized the Illinois Supreme Court’s ruling as an “unequivocal determination” of Illinois law and allowed a plaintiff’s tort claims to proceed as exempt from the Act’s exclusivity provisions.
Seventh Circuit’s Affirmation of Martin
After the Illinois Supreme Court accepted and answered the certified questions on January 24, 2025, the Seventh Circuit ordered the parties to “file statements of their positions about what action this court should take to complete the resolution of the appeal.”2
On February 13, 2025, Martin requested the Seventh Circuit affirm the District Court’s denial of Goodrich’s motion to dismiss and remand for further proceedings on the merits. Martin argued the basis for Goodrich’s interlocutory appeal—to reverse the denial of its motion to dismiss—lacked merit given the Illinois Supreme Court’s answers to the certified questions. On February 14, 2025, Goodrich stated “this appeal is resolved” because the Illinois Supreme Court’s answers addressed the issues and questions raised by the Seventh Circuit.
On February 28, 2025, the Seventh Circuit affirmed the District Court’s denial of Goodrich’s motion to dismiss, finding that the Illinois Supreme Court’s responses to the certified questions “make clear that the ODA does not bar Martin’s suit from proceeding.” The Seventh Circuit noted the undisputed fact that Martin’s last exposure occurred more than two years prior to his angiosarcoma diagnosis. Therefore, because “[t]he plain language of section 1(f)’s repose provision” bars Martin from seeking compensation from Goodrich under the Act, section 1.1 exempts her tort claims from the Act’s exclusivity provisions. Accordingly, her civil claims may proceed.
The Seventh Circuit echoed the Illinois Supreme Court’s holding that neither section 1.1’s “prospective sweep” nor the Illinois constitution’s due process clause bar this result. Martin’s diagnosis after the enactment of section 1.1 is sufficient to fall within section 1.1’s prospective scope. Further, because Goodrich did not have a vested right in an exclusivity defense under the Act, the enactment of an exception to that defense does not violate Goodrich’s due process rights. Thus, the Seventh Circuit remanded the case for further proceedings.