The employees argued that they could not seek compensation under the WCA because their injuries did not manifest until 780 and 1300 weeks after their employment-based exposure to asbestos. Accordingly, they noted, if the court read the statute to preclude the occupational claims at issue, the WCA’s 300-week time provision essentially granted an employer “full immunity” against all mesothelioma claims. 14 . In Berda v. CBS Inc., 881 F.2d 20, 27 n. 8 (3d Cir.1989), the court stated that “substantially depends” and “inextricably intertwined” were equivalent and interchangeable. 15 . United Steelworkers of Am., AFL-CIO-CLC v. Rawson, 495 U.S. 362, 110 S.Ct. 1904, 109 L.Ed.2d 362 (1990). 16 . See, e.g., Richter v. Merchs. Fast Motor Lines, Inc., 83 F.3d 96, 97 (5th Cir.1996) (per curiam) (<HOLDING>). In Richter, the court noted that the CBA at
holding that former employees state law claim of fraud brought against his former employer was preempted by labor management relations act holding plaintiffs state law claims of inter alia tortious interference with contract are preempted by section 301 of lmra holding that lmra preempted plaintiffs state law claims against employer for sexual harassment slander tortious interference with economic relations conspiracy and intentional infliction of emotional distress holding that an employees claim against plan administrator for denied benefits is preempted holding employees negligence claim against his employer was preempted by the lmra