In a recent decision, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled that the state's Occupational Disease Act (ODA) — which imposes a four-year limit for filing workplace injury claims — does not bar lawsuits from employees who develop asbestos-related diseases, such as mesothelioma, many years after exposure. The case involved the estate of William Herold, a former University of Pittsburgh employee diagnosed with mesothelioma 15 years post-exposure. The court's 5-2 decision allows his estate to proceed with the lawsuit against the university.

Justice Debra Todd, writing for the majority, emphasized that enforcing the four-year limit would leave affected employees without any remedy, undermining the balance between employer protections and worker rights that the Workers' Compensation Act was meant to establish. This ruling closely aligns with the court's 2013 decision in Tooey v. AK Steel Corp., which permitted employees to sue employers outside the Workers' Compensation framework when occupational diseases manifest beyond the statutory period.

Justice David Wecht and Justice Kevin Brobson both dissented. In his opinion, Justice Wecht argued that the majority's decision oversteps judicial boundaries by effectively rewriting clear legislative intent. He further contended that while the delayed manifestation of diseases such as mesothelioma present challenges, it is the legislature's role — not the judiciary's — to amend the law accordingly.

This ruling has significant implications for asbestos litigation in Pennsylvania, potentially increasing the number of lawsuits employers may face from former employees whose diseases manifest long after exposure. It also reinforces ongoing debate about whether courts should interpret or reshape legislative frameworks. 

KCIC will continue to track and evaluate how this ruling shapes asbestos litigation in Pennsylvania.