Opinion ID: 566997
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Post-Employment Duty to Warn

Text: 14 EPI also contends that the Government failed to warn its former employees of the hazards of asbestos after termination of employment. Supposedly, this resulted in aggravation of the employee's initial injuries because the employees failed to receive treatment and medical care they could have otherwise obtained. EPI claims that post-employment failure to warn constituted a separate tort occurring after employment terminated, thereby rendering FECA inapplicable to this claim. See 5 U.S.C. § 8102(a) (FECA applies to cover disability from personal injury sustained while in the performance of [ ] duty). 15 The district court concluded that, because there was no independent, post-employment tort, the Government's liability for this claim was provided for by FECA and, therefore, dismissed this claim for contribution because Washington law precluded the Government from being a joint tortfeasor. See Armstrong, 650 F.Supp. at 72-73; Wash.Rev.Code § 4.22.040(1). We find the district court's analysis of this issue to be persuasive. See Armstrong, 650 F.Supp. at 71-73. Thus, we affirm the district court's dismissal of EPI's claim for contribution based on a post-employment duty-to-warn theory for the reasons set forth in the thorough and well-reasoned opinion in Armstrong, 650 F.Supp. at 72-73. 16 Accordingly, the judgment of the district court dismissing EPI's claims for failure to state a cause of action is affirmed. 17 AFFIRMED.