Herold v. University of Pittsburgh - of the Commonwealth System of Higher Education and 3M Co.

1

BRAD LEE HEROLD, AS EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF WILLIAM L. HEROLD v. UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH - OF THE COMMONWEALTH SYSTEM OF HIGHER EDUCATION AND 3M COMPANY; ABB MOTORS AND MECHANICAL, INC. F/K/A BALDOR ELECTRIC COMPANY; ALLIED GLOVE CORPORATION; A.O. SMITH CORPORATION; ARMSTRONG INTERNATIONAL, INC.; AURORA PUMP COMPANY; BALTIMORE AIRCOIL COMPANY, INC.; BEAZER EAST, INC. INDIVIDUALLY AND AS SUCCESSOR TO KOPPERS COMPANY, INC., AND SUCCESSOR-IN INTEREST TO THIEM CORPORATION AND UNIVERSAL REFRACTORIES COMPANY; BMI REFRACTOR SERVICES, INC.; INDIVIDUALLY AND AS SUCCESSOR-IN-INTEREST TO PREMIER REFRACTORIES, INC., F/K/A ADIENCE, INC., SUCCESSOR-IN-INTEREST TO ADIENCE COMPANY, LP, AS SUCCESSOR TO BMI, INC.; BURNHAM BOILER CORPORATION N/D/B/A BURNHAM COMMERCIAL; BRYAN STEAM, LLC; CARRIER CORPORATION; CBS CORPORATION, A DELAWARE CORPORATION, F/K/A VIACOM INC., SUCCESSOR BY MERGER TO CBS CORPORATION, APENNSYLVANIA CORPORATION, F/K/A WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC CORPORATION AND WESTINGHOUSE AIR BRAKE COMPANY; CLEAVERBROOKS, INC., F/K/A AQUA-CHEM, INC. D/B/A CLEAVER BROOKS DIVISION; CRANE CO.; DELVAL EQUIPMENT CORPORATION; DEZURIK, INC.; DONALD MCKAY SMITH, INC.; DUNHAM-BUSH, INC.; E.E. ZIMMERMAN COMPANY; EATON CORPORATION IN ITS OWN RIGHT AND AS SUCCESSOR TO CUTLER-HAMMER,INCORPORATED; EICHLEAY CORPORATION; FERRO ENGINEERING DIVISION OF ON MARINE SERVICES COMPANY, LLC, F/K/A OGLEBAY NORTONCOMPANY;FLOWSERVE US, INC., INDIVIDUALLY AND AS SUCCESSOR TO BYRON JACKSON PUMPS,FLOWSERVEGESTRA, DURAMETALLIC CORP., ALDRICH PUMPS; CAMERON PUMPS; VOGT VALVES;WILSON-SNYDER CENTRIFUGAL PUMP; AND ROCKWELL VALVES; FMC CORPORATION, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS SUCCESSOR-IN-INTEREST TO PEERLESS PUMP COMPANY, CHICAGO PUMP COMPANY, STERLING FLUID SYSTEM, INC. AND FORMER SUBSIDIARY CROSBY VALVE, INC.; FOSECO, INC.; FOSTER WHEELER CORPORATION; GARDNER DENVER, INC.; GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY; GRINNELL LLC; GOULDS PUMPS, LLC; I.U. NORTH AMERICA, INC.; AMERICA, INC. AS SUCCESSOR-BY-MERGER TO THE GARP COMPANY, F/K/A THE GAGE COMPANY, F/K/A PITTSBURGH GAGE AND SUPPLY COMPANY; IMO INDUSTRIES, INC., F/K/A IMO DELAVAL, INC., F/K/A TRANSAMERICAN DELAVAL, INC., F/K/A DELAVAL TURBIN, INC., DELAVAL TURBIN, INC., DEVALCO CORPORATION; INGERSOLL-RAND COMPANY; INSUL COMPANY, INC.; ITT CORPORATION, F/K/A ITT INDUSTRIES, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS SUCCESSOR-IN-INTEREST TO BELL & GOSSETT DOMESTIC PUMP; J.H. FRANCE REFRACTORIES COMPANY; KRUMANEQUIPMENT COMPANY; MALLINCKRODT U.S. LLC, IN ITS OWN RIGHT AND AS SUCCESSOR-IN-INTEREST TO IMCERA GROUP, INC., AND INTERNATIONAL GROUP, INC., AND INTERNATIONAL MINERALS AND CHEMICALCORPORATION, AND AS SUCCESSOR-IN-INTEREST TO E.J. LAVINO; MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES COMPANY, LLC AS SUCCESSOR-IN-INTEREST BY MERGER WITH MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES COMPANY; MINNOTTE CONTRACTING CORPORATION; M.S. JACOBS & ASSOCIATES, INC.; NAGLE PUMPS, INC.; PEERLESS INDUSTRIES, INC.; POWER PIPING COMPANY; RILEY POWER INC.; SAFETY FIRST INDUSTRIES, INC., IN ITS OWN RIGHT AND AS SUCCESSOR-IN-INTEREST TO SAFETY-FIRST SUPPLY, INC.; SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC USA, INC. F/K/A SQUARE D COMPANY, IN ITS OWN RIGHT AND AS SUCCESSOR TO THE ELECTRIC CONTROLLER AND MANUFACTURING (EC&M); SPIRAX SARCO, INC.; SPX COOLING TECHNOLOGIES, INC., F/K/A MARLEY COOLING TECHNOLOGIES INC., F/K/A THE MARLEY COOLING COMPANY; TACO, INC. F/K/A TACO HEATERS, INC.; THE GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER COMPANY; THE GORDON-RUPP COMPANY; THE H.B. SMITH COMPANY, INC.; TRANE U.S. INC., SUCCESSOR-BY-MERGER TO AMERICAN STANDARD, INC., UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION; UNITED STATES STEEL CORPORATION; WARREN PUMPS LLC; WEIL-MCLAIN COMPANY, INC.; YORK INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION; AND ZURN INDUSTRIES, LLC F/K/A ZURN INDUSTRIES, INC. A/K/A ERIE CITY IRON WORKS

APPEAL OF: UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH - OF THE COMMONWEALTH SYSTEM OF HIGHER EDUCATION

No. 22 WAP 2023

J-28-2024

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

January 22, 2025

ARGUED: April 10, 2024

Appeal from the Order of the Commonwealth Court entered February 16 2023, at No. 998 CD 2021, affirming the Order of the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County entered May 17, 2021, at No GD-19-014532 and remanding.

TODD C.J., DONOHUE, DOUGHERTY, WECHT, MUNDY, BROBSON, McCAFFERY JJ.

OPINION

TODD CHIEF JUSTICE

In this appeal by allowance, we consider, inter alia, the breadth of the exclusive remedy provision of the Occupational Disease Act ("ODA")^[1] and whether a disability or death resulting from an occupational disease and which occurs beyond the four-year limitations period set forth in Section 1401(c) of the ODA, 77 P.S. § 1401(c), removes the claim from the purview of the ODA's exclusivity clause, 77 P.S. § 1403. For the reasons that follow, and giving fidelity to the "Grand Bargain" underlying our Commonwealth's laws providing compensation to injured workers, we hold that a common law action for relief for a disability or death resulting from an occupational disease covered by the ODA ― and which occurs beyond the four-year limitations period contained in the ODA, rendering such disability or death non-compensable ― does not fall within the purview of the ODA's exclusivity provision. Therefore, we find that the exclusivity provision does not preclude an injured worker from filing a common law action against his employer seeking compensation for his work-related disability or death. Accordingly, we affirm the decision of the Commonwealth Court.

William Herold ("Herold")^[2] worked for Appellant, the University of Pittsburgh ("University"), as a stationary engineer for approximately 40 years ― from 1976 until 2004 ― during which time he was exposed to asbestos. In 2004, Herold became a foreman, a position in which he was no longer exposed to asbestos. He retired from his employment with the University in 2015. In April 2019, approximately 15 years after his last exposure to asbestos, Herold was diagnosed with mesothelioma, a cancer in the lining of the lung.^[3] Expert evidence attributed the cause of Herold's mesothelioma to his asbestos exposures. Herold died on April 30, 2022, due to this cancer. His death was approximately 18 years after his last date of exposure to asbestos, and 7 years after his last date of employment with the University.

In October 2019, Herold commenced a common law negligence action against, inter alia, the University in the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas to recover damages arising from his exposure to asbestos and subsequent development of mesothelioma. In January 2021, the University sought summary judgment contending that the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over Herold's claim, as he suffered from mesothelioma, which the University asserted was an occupational disease under the ODA and subject to its "exclusivity provision." 77 P.S. § 1403. Section 1403 of the ODA is a provision which limits claims and compensation for an occupational disease to those provided under the ODA;^[4] such claims are processed exclusively by the "Workmen's Compensation Board" ("Board"). See 77 P.S. §§ 1207, 1510 (providing that claims for compensation under the ODA are presented to the Board).

On May 17, 2021, the trial court denied the University's motion for summary judgment, finding that the ODA defines an occupational disease as one that occurs within four years of last exposure to the hazards of such disease, and that Herold's last exposure to asbestos occurred far longer than the four-year limitations period defined in the ODA. Based on this foundation, the trial court explained that the only section of the ODA that could potentially apply to Herold's claim was the "savings clause," which provides relief beyond the four-year period for specific employees who contract certain enumerated diseases. 77 P.S. § 1401(i); Trial Ct. Op., 11/24/21, at 2. However, the court opined that the savings clause applied only to "silicosis, anthraco-silicosis, coal worker's pneumoconiosis, and asbestosis." Trial Ct. Op., 11/24/21, at 2 (citing 77 P.S. § 1401(i)).

According to the trial court, the savings clause was inapplicable, as Herold did not suffer from one of these enumerated occupational diseases. Therefore, the trial court concluded that, as the ODA did not apply to Herold, he did not need to pursue a claim before the Board before pursuing his civil claim, and, as a result, the court denied the University's motion for summary judgment. Id. at 3. After receiving permission to appeal the trial court's interlocutory order, the University argued before the Commonwealth Court that, inter alia, the ODA's exclusivity provision required Herold's claims to be adjudicated through the Board.

On appeal, a unanimous three-judge panel of the Commonwealth Court, in a published opinion authored by Judge Lori Dumas, affirmed and remanded for further proceedings. Herold v. University of Pittsburgh, 291 A.3d 489 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2023). As a preliminary matter, the court explained that the WCA and the ODA have together provided "a comprehensive, no-fault system of compensation for employees injured in the course of their employment." Id. at 496.^[5] Noting that both acts contain similar exclusivity provisions, the court observed that these provisions "reflect the historical quid pro quo between employers and employees," requiring employees who suffer from occupational disease to seek benefits for their diseases from the workers' compensation administrative process under the WCA or ODA. Id. Nevertheless, the court commented that "the statutory relief defined [in the WCA and the ODA] has not always fulfilled the promise that employees would secure a limited, though certain, recovery in exchange for the tort immunity accorded employers," highlighting the critical distinction between coverage and compensation under the acts. Id. at 497-98.

The court believed this distinction was most pronounced in the context of latent occupational diseases. In support thereof ...