In Re: Estate of W. Herold; Apl of: Univ of Pgh.
22 WAP 2023
Pa.Jan 22, 2025Background
- The case involves Brad Lee Herold, on behalf of the estate of William L. Herold, suing the University of Pittsburgh and several corporate defendants regarding occupational disease exposure.
- The critical issue concerns whether workers whose occupational diseases manifest beyond 300 weeks after last exposure can bring tort suits against employers.
- The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania is reviewing the interplay between the Workers’ Compensation Act (WCA) and the Occupational Disease Act (ODA), specifically the exclusive remedy provisions and those statutes' time-bar requirements.
- Justice Brobson files a dissent, aligning with Justice Wecht's dissent from the main opinion, challenging the precedent set in Tooey v. AK Steel Corp.
- The dissent argues for a statutory interpretation that would bar tort suits even if a disease manifests after the 300-week period, based on unambiguous legislative language.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Can employees sue employers in tort for occupational diseases manifesting after 300 weeks? | Herold: WCA/ODA exclusivity ends at 300 weeks, allowing tort claims. | Univ. of Pittsburgh: Exclusive remedy applies regardless; no tort claims after time bar. | The dissent would deny tort claims and overrule Tooey. |
| Whether Tooey v. AK Steel Corp. was correctly decided | Herold: Tooey properly allows late-manifesting claims in tort. | Univ. of Pittsburgh: Tooey misinterpreted clear statutory language. | The dissent finds Tooey was wrongly decided. |
| Proper interpretation of exclusive remedy language in WCA and ODA | Herold: Ambiguity in WCA/ODA allows claim. | Univ. of Pittsburgh: Language unambiguously bars such suits. | The dissent finds the statutes are unambiguous; no suit allowed. |
| Appropriate role of legislative intent and statutory text | Herold: Purpose supports recovery for occupational diseases, even after 300 weeks. | Univ. of Pittsburgh: Text must be followed regardless of intent. | The dissent prioritizes the statute’s plain text over its spirit. |
Key Cases Cited
- Tooey v. AK Steel Corp., 81 A.3d 851 (Pa. 2013) (held that WCA exclusivity does not bar tort suits for occupational diseases manifesting beyond 300 weeks)
- Commonwealth v. Green, 291 A.3d 317 (Pa. 2023) (statutory interpretation must follow clear and unambiguous text)
- Commonwealth v. Alexander, 243 A.3d 177 (Pa. 2020) (articulates factors for overruling precedent)