## Facts

- Johns-Manville Products Corporation employed Rudkin at its Pittsburg, California asbestos-related operations for approximately 29 years, during which he was continuously exposed to asbestos.
- Rudkin alleged he developed asbestos-related disease from workplace exposure.
- Rudkin sued his employer in superior court for intentional torts (fraud and conspiracy), alleging two categories of misconduct:
  - The employer knowingly required him to work under unsafe asbestos conditions while concealing the risk and failing to provide adequate protection.
  - After he had contracted an industrial disease, the employer deliberately concealed the existence of his condition and its occupational cause from him, his doctors, and the state, including by failing to file a required occupational injury report.
- Rudkin alleged the concealment caused him to continue harmful exposure and interfered with diagnosis and treatment, thereby worsening his condition.
- The employer asserted workers’ compensation exclusivity under Labor Code sections 3600 and 3601 and moved for judgment on the pleadings; the trial court denied the motion.
- The employer petitioned for a writ of mandate to compel judgment on the pleadings based on exclusivity.

## Issues

1. Whether workers’ compensation exclusivity bars an employee’s civil action against the employer for damages arising from the initial industrial disease allegedly caused by knowingly exposing the employee to unsafe conditions and concealing the risk.
2. Whether workers’ compensation exclusivity bars a civil action for additional harm where, after the disease is contracted, the employer fraudulently conceals the condition and its occupational cause and thereby aggravates the employee’s disease.

## Decision

- The California Supreme Court held that workers’ compensation exclusivity bars civil recovery for the initial industrial disease arising out of and in the course of employment.
- The court held that a separate tort cause of action may exist for the incremental aggravation of the disease caused by the employer’s post-injury fraudulent concealment of the condition and its occupational cause.
- The court denied mandate to the extent the petition sought to bar, as a matter of law, the aggravation claim based on fraudulent concealment; the case could proceed on that limited theory, subject to proof.
- A dissent argued that permitting such civil claims conflicts with the intended comprehensive exclusivity of the workers’ compensation system.

## Legal Principles

- When an injury or disease arises out of and in the course of employment and falls within the workers’ compensation system (Lab. Code §§ 3600, 3601), workers’ compensation is generally the employee’s exclusive remedy against the employer, even if the employer’s conduct is alleged to be intentional.
- The initial occupational disease caused by workplace exposure is a compensable industrial injury within the exclusive domain of workers’ compensation.
- Post-injury fraudulent concealment by the employer of the employee’s existing industrial disease and its work-related cause can constitute a separate and distinct wrong that is not treated as part of the original compensable injury for exclusivity purposes.
- A civil action may proceed only for the additional harm attributable to the concealment (the aggravation), not for the underlying industrial disease itself.
- At the pleading stage, allegations of post-injury concealment and resulting aggravation must be taken as true when evaluating judgment on the pleadings.

## Conclusion

Workers’ compensation provided the exclusive remedy for Rudkin’s initial asbestos-related disease, but the employer could still face civil liability for any additional injury caused by fraudulent concealment of the disease and its occupational cause that aggravated Rudkin’s condition.


Johns-Manville Prods. Corp. v. Superior Ct., 27 Cal. 3d 465, 612 P.2d 948 (Cal. 1980)