Candice Martin , individually and as Executrix of the Estate of Rodney Martin, deceased v. Goodrich Corporation , formerly known as B.F. GOODRICH COMPANY

In the
United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
____________________
No. 23-2343
C ANDICE M ARTIN , individually and as Executrix of the Estate
of Rodney Martin, deceased,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
GOODRICH C ORPORATION , formerly known as B.F. GOODRICH
C OMPANY and POLY O NE C ORPORATION , individually and as
Successor-By-Consolidation to the GEON C OMPANY ,
now known as A VIENT C ORPORATION ,
Defendants-Appellants.
____________________
Appeal from the United States District Court for the
Central District of Illinois.
No. 1:21-cv-01323 — James E. Shadid, Judge.
____________________
A RGUED F EBRUARY 14, 2024 — DECIDED F EBRUARY 28, 2025
____________________
Before SCUDDER , ST. EVE, and LEE, Circuit Judges.
ST. EVE, Circuit Judge. Rodney Martin was exposed to a car-
cinogen, vinyl chloride monomer, during his work for B.F.
Goodrich Company in the 1960s and ’70s. Many decades later,
he received a diagnosis of angiosarcoma of the liver, a rare

-- 1 of 7 --

2 No. 23-2343
cancer associated with vinyl chloride exposure. Eight months
after his diagnosis, Rodney died. His widow, Candace Mar-
tin, commenced this wrongful death and survivorship action
against Goodrich and its successors.
Recognizing that the viability of Martin’s claims depended
on novel and important questions of Illinois law, we certified
three questions to the Illinois Supreme Court. See Martin v.
Goodrich Corp., 95 F.4th 475 (7th Cir. 2024). Each of our ques-
tions invited the court to clarify how a recent amendment to
the Workers’ Occupational Diseases Act, 820 ILCS 310/1 et seq.
(the “ODA”), affects the ability of plaintiffs afflicted by latent
occupational diseases to bring civil actions for damages.
The Illinois Supreme Court’s responses to our certified
questions make clear that the ODA does not bar Martin’s suit
from proceeding. So we affirm the district court’s denial of the
defendants’ motion to dismiss and remand the case for fur-
ther proceedings.
I.
The ODA provides a framework for an Illinois employee
to seek compensation for a disease “arising out of and in the
course of [his or her] employment.” 820 ILCS 310/1(d). Akin
to a workers’ compensation program, the ODA creates a sys-
tem of “no-fault liability” for employers but imposes limita-
tions on recovery for injured employees. See Folta v. Ferro
Eng’g, 43 N.E.3d 108, 112 (Ill. 2015).
Among the ODA’s restrictions are two provisions barring
employees from seeking compensation outside of the ODA’s
administrative scheme: 820 ILCS 310/5 (“section 5”) (“there is
no common law or statutory right to recover compensation or
damages from the employer … other than for the

-- 2 of 7 --

No. 23-2343 3
compensation herein provided”) and 820 ILCS 310/11 (“sec-
tion 11”) (“the compensation herein provided for shall be the
full, complete and only measure of the liability of the em-
ployer … in place of any and all other civil liability”).
An additional two provisions place time limits on com-
pensation under the ODA. The first, 820 ILCS 310/1(f), (“sub-
section 1(f)”), declares that:
No compensation shall be payable for or on account of
any occupational disease unless disablement, as herein
defined, occurs within two years after the last day of
the last exposure to the hazards of the disease….
The second provision, 820 ILCS 310/6(c) (“subsection 6(c)”),
provides that for most injuries or deaths, the claimant must
file with the ODA Commission within three years of the em-
ployee’s disablement.
Prior to 2019, the combined effect of these provisions was
to bar employees afflicted by occupational diseases with la-
tency periods of more than two years from obtaining injury
compensation from their employers. See Folta, 43 N.E.3d at
117–18. But in May of 2019, six months prior to Rodney’s can-
cer diagnosis, the Illinois legislature amended the ODA.
The legislature’s 2019 amendment added an exception to
the ODA’s section 5 and section 11 exclusivity provisions.
Pursuant to the new exception:
Section 5 and Section 11 do not apply to any injury or
death resulting from an occupational disease as to
which the recovery of compensation benefits under
this Act would be precluded due to the operation of
any period of repose or repose provision.

-- 3 of 7 --

4 No. 23-2343
820 ILCS 310/1.1, (“section 1.1”). So, for “any such occupa-
tional disease,” employees and their heirs may bring civil ac-
tions, “including an action for wrongful death and [survivor-
ship actions].” Id.
Relying upon the newly enacted section 1.1, Martin filed
suit against Goodrich and its successors in federal court. Mar-
tin asserted that subsection 1(f)—which bars compensation
for occupational diseases with latency periods of more than
two years—was a repose provision that precluded her from
seeking compensation under the ODA. As a result, section 1.1
excepted her claims from the Act’s exclusivity provisions.
Goodrich moved to dismiss the suit for failure to state a claim,
contending that subsection 1(f) was a condition precedent to
recovery, not a repose provision, and section 1.1 therefore did
not apply. In the alternative, Goodrich argued that construing
section 1.1 to exempt Martin’s claims from the ODA’s exclu-
sivity provisions would violate its due process rights under
the Illinois constitution.
The district court rejected Goodrich’s arguments and de-
nied its motion to dismiss. Goodrich then requested the court
certify its legal questions to us, pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1292(b). The district court granted its request and we ac-
cepted the interlocutory appeal, agreeing that appellate juris-
diction was proper. Martin, 95 F.4th at 478.
II.
The questions of law presented by Goodrich’s appeal were
challenging and novel. See id. at 481. Recognizing how many
litigants our decision could impact, we declined to risk unset-
tling the ODA’s intricate compensation apparatus without in-
put from our esteemed colleagues in Illinois. Id. at 478. We

-- 4 of 7 --

No. 23-2343 5
thus certified the following questions to the Illinois Supreme
Court:
(1) Is 1(f) a “period of repose or repose provision” for
310/1.1 purposes?
(2) If 1(f) falls within Exception 1.1, what is its temporal
reach—either by its own terms or through Section 4 [of
Illinois’s Statute on Statutes]?
(3) Would the application of Exception 1.1 to past conduct
offend Illinois’s due process guarantee?
Id. at 482–84. The Illinois Supreme Court accepted our certifi-
cation. Martin v. Goodrich Corp., No. 130509, 2025 WL 287257
(Ill. Jan. 24, 2025).
In answer to our first question, the Illinois Supreme Court
held that subsection 1(f) “by its plain language . . . is a statute
of repose.” Id. at *6. The court observed that it had previously
found subsection 6(c) of the ODA to be a repose provision and
reasoned that subsection 1(f) was no different. See id. at *5–6
(citing Folta, 43 N.E.3d at 116). Like subsection 6(c), subsection
1(f)’s timing “does not relate to the accrual of a cause of ac-
tion.” Id. at *6. Its clock “runs whether or not the employee
has discovered the injury or been diagnosed with a disease.”
Id. Furthermore, subsection 1(f) has the same practical effect
as subsection 6(c)—“extinguish[ing] an employee’s right to
file a claim under the statute.” Id. at *5.
The Illinois Supreme Court next considered the temporal
reach of section 1.1. All parties agreed that section 1.1 made a
substantive change to the ODA and therefore applied pro-
spectively, encompassing only diseases discovered after its
enactment. Id. at *8. But Goodrich argued that the occupa-
tional exposure alleged to cause the disease must also postdate

-- 5 of 7 --

6 No. 23-2343
section 1.1’s enactment to fall within its prospective sweep.
See id. The court rejected Goodrich’s contention, observing
that the Illinois legislature had amended the ODA to provide
employees at risk of latent occupational diseases with a means
of obtaining compensation. Id. at *9. Limiting section 1.1’s
scope to claims arising out of post-amendment occupational
exposures would undermine this legislative intent.
Finally, the court explained that the Illinois constitution’s
due process clause does not command a different understand-
ing of section 1.1’s reach. Id. The ODA’s exclusivity provisions
equip employers with an affirmative defense against civil
suits. But unlike a statute of limitations or repose, an ODA
exclusivity defense does not automatically extinguish liabil-
ity—“an employer’s potential for tort liability exists unless
and until the defense of the Workers’ Occupational Diseases
Act is established.” Id. at *9. The enactment of an exception to
the ODA’s exclusivity defense thus did not infringe employ-
ers’ due process rights under the state constitution because it
did not strip them of a vested right.
With this guidance from the Illinois Supreme Court in
hand, we now resolve the appeal.
III.
The parties do not dispute that Rodney’s last exposure to
vinyl chloride monomer occurred more than two years prior
to his angiosarcoma diagnosis. The plain language of section
1(f)’s repose provision therefore bars Martin from seeking
compensation under the ODA. Because Martin is precluded
from asserting an ODA claim against Goodrich “due to the
operation of any period of repose or repose provision,”

-- 6 of 7 --

No. 23-2343 7
section 1.1 exempts her tort claims from the ODA’s exclusiv-
ity provisions, 820 ILCS 310/1.1, and her claims may proceed.
As the Illinois Supreme Court unequivocally determined,
neither section 1.1’s prospective sweep nor the Illinois consti-
tution’s due process clause bar this result. Rodney was diag-
nosed with cancer after the enactment of section 1.1. That is
sufficient to fall within section 1.1’s prospective scope. And
because Goodrich did not have a vested right in an ODA ex-
clusivity defense, the enactment of an exception to that de-
fense does not violate its due process rights.
* * *
For the foregoing reasons, we AFFIRM the district court’s
denial of Goodrich’s motion to dismiss and REMAND the
case for further proceedings.

-- 7 of 7 --