Anderson’s complaint alleges that the appellees’ willful failure to maintain a safe working environment caused cellular damage due to his exposure to secondhand smoke. The appellees sought dismissal on the grounds that his claims are barred by the exclusivity provisions contained in the Utah Workers Compensation Act (UWCA), that there is no statutory or common law cause of action for the failure to maintain a safe work environment and that Anderson did not allege actionable harm. The Utah Court of Appeals ruled that “the district court correctly concluded that the exclusive remedy for the alleged harm from workplace exposure to cigarette smoke would be under the UWCA or UODA [Utah Occupational Disease Act].” The district court’s dismissal of the complaint is affirmed. See “Employee Doesn’t Get Benefits for Secondhand Smoke,” Workers’ Compensation Monitor, March 5, 2004.
2004 UT App. 12, 2004 Utah App. LEXIS 111