University of Pittsburgh’s Effort to Stop Engineer’s Mesothelioma Claim Fails

The quest for justice following a diagnosis of malignant mesothelioma is always a challenge, but this can be especially true when the entity blamed for asbestos exposure is an employer. Though these cases can be difficult due to Workers Compensation laws, a case heard recently by the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court saw the family of an engineer who died from the rare form of cancer prevail in its claim against the University of Pittsburgh.

Mesothelioma Claims Engineer’s Life After Decades of Work at University of Pittsburgh

Mesothelioma victim William Herold spent the years between 1976 and 2015 working as an engineer for the University of Pittsburgh. Following his death, his family included the state school among the defendants in its lawsuit seeking compensation.

In response to the mesothelioma lawsuit, the school filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that the exclusivity provision of the Occupational Disease Law limited the family’s remedy against them to filing a Workers’ Compensation claim. This motion was denied by an Allegheny County, Pennsylvania court. The school then appealed that decision.

Appeals Court Denies University of Pittsburgh’s Attempt to Evade Mesothelioma Claim

Though Workers’ Compensation laws do usually protect employers from having to defend themselves against personal injury claims, the Pennsylvania Commonwealth court noted that the rules are different in cases of mesothelioma, where long latency periods are common.  The court said that Workers’ Compensation rules that protect employers from personal injury  litigation only apply to occupational illnesses that manifest within four years of workplace exposure.

The court explained that because Mr. Herold was diagnosed with mesothelioma in 2019 and that his claim was for exposure to asbestos-contaminated products that occurred prior to 2004, the case could proceed. In their ruling the judges wrote, “We conclude that the legislature did not intend for employees suffering from an occupational disease that manifests outside the ODA’s four-year limitations period to surrender their rights.”