Skip to main content


Samantha Riemenschneider v. D. Sabatelli, Inc., 2022 Pa. Super. LEXIS 253 (June 7, 2022) (McLaughlin, J.)  David Scott Macleary was killed when the brakes failed on a dump truck he was operating and it began to roll.  He was within the course and scope of his employment.  A lawsuit was brought by his family, and it was dismissed based upon the exclusivity provision of the Workers’ Compensation Act.  Riemenschneider argued that she was within the class of individuals entitled to bring a claim under the Act.  The trial court determined that the exclusivity provision barred the suit and sustained POs.  The court relied upon Tooey v. AK Steel Corp., 81 A.3d 851 (2013).  Tooey held that injury that was outside the WCA’s statutory definition of a compensable injury could give rise to a suit in court.  Riemenschneider’s argument is that even though Macleary’s injury was compensable under the Workers’ Compensation Act, she ought to be allowed to bring suit in court because she is not among those claimants to whom the WCA provides benefits for that injury.  The WCA represents a legislative compromise under which employees injured in the course and scope of their employment and certain others may obtain benefits without a demonstration of fault.  The limitation on beneficiaries is one of the tradeoffs embodied in the WCA and Riemenschneider’s claim must yield to the statute’s plain language.