Do Not Buy Into These "Trends" About Railroad Lawsuit Aplastic Anemia

· 4 min read
Do Not Buy Into These "Trends" About Railroad Lawsuit Aplastic Anemia

How to File a Railroad Lawsuit For Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease

Rail workers suffering from occupational illnesses like cancer can file a lawsuit in accordance with the Federal Employers' Liability Act. However, it can be challenging to prove that the illness is related to work.

For instance, a worker could have signed a release after the settlement of an asbestos lawsuit. He later filed a lawsuit for cancer that was allegedly resulted from exposure to asbestos.

Statute of Limitations under the FELA

In many workers' compensation cases the clock begins in a claim at when an injury is discovered. However, FELA laws allow railroad employees to file a lawsuit against the development of lung disease or cancer, even years after the fact. This is why it's essential to file an FELA injury or illness report as soon as possible.

Unfortunately, the railroad will try to dismiss a case by arguing that an employee's actions were not within the three-year period of limitations. Courts typically use two Supreme Court cases to determine when the FELA clock starts.

First, they will consider whether the railroad employee has a reason to believe the symptoms are related to their work. If the railroad employee visits to a doctor, and the doctor affirms in a conclusive manner that the injuries have a connection to work then the claim isn't time-barred.


The other aspect is the amount of time before the railroad employee began to notice symptoms. If the railroad employee has had breathing issues for a long time and attributes the issue to his or her work on rails, then the statute of limitations will likely to apply. Contact us for a no-cost consultation should you have any questions regarding your FELA claims.

Employers' Negligence

FELA provides an legal foundation for railroad employees to ensure that negligent employers are held accountable. In contrast to other workers, who are bound by worker's compensation systems with set benefits, railroad employees are allowed to sue their employers for the full value of their injuries.

Our lawyers recently obtained the verdict in a FELA lawsuit filed by three retired Long Island Railroad machinists who developed COPD chronic bronchitis, COPD and Emphysema from their exposure to asbestos while working on locomotives. The jury awarded them $16,400,000 in damages.

The railroad claimed that the plaintiffs' cancer wasn't linked to their job on the railroad. They also claimed that the lawsuit was barred because it was more than three years since the plaintiffs discovered that their health issues were related to their railroad work. Our Doran & Murphy lawyers were able to show that the railroad never informed its employees of asbestos's dangers and diesel exhaust while working, and the railroad didn't have safety procedures in place to protect its workers from harmful chemicals.

While a worker can have up to three years from the date of their diagnosis to submit a FELA lawsuit It is always best to seek out a skilled lawyer as soon as possible. The sooner we can get our attorney started collecting witness statements, records, and other evidence, the better chance is of a successful claim.

Causation

In a personal-injury action plaintiffs must prove that the actions of a defendant caused their injuries.  railroad lawsuit  is known as legal causation. It is vital that an attorney carefully examines a claim before filing in the court.

Railroad workers are exposed to hundreds of chemicals, including carcinogens as well as other harmful substances, through diesel exhaust by itself. These microscopic particles get into the lung tissues, causing inflammation and damage. Over time, the damages build up and cause debilitating conditions such as chronic asthma and COPD.

One of our FELA case involves an ex-train conductor who developed chronic obstructive respiratory asthma and other respiratory diseases after spending years in cabs without any protection. Additionally, he was diagnosed with back pain that was debilitating as a result of his years of lifting, pushing and pulling. His doctor told him these problems were caused by decades of exposure to diesel fumes. He claims that this led to the aggravation of the other health issues.

Our lawyers were able retain favorable court rulings in trial and also a modest federal juror award for our client. The plaintiff alleged that the train derailment and the subsequent release of vinyl chloride from the rail yard affected his physical condition as well as his mental state, as he worried that he might develop cancer. The USSC determined that the defendant railroad was not to blame for the plaintiff's fear of cancer because the plaintiff had previously renounced his right to sue the railroad defendant in a previous lawsuit.

Damages

If you have been injured while working for an railroad, you could be eligible to pursue a lawsuit under the Federal Employers' Liability Act. You could receive damages for your injuries via this avenue, including the cost of medical bills as well as pain and suffering. However this process can be complicated and you should speak with an attorney who has handled train accidents to understand your options.

In a railroad dispute, the first step is to show the defendant had an obligation of good faith to the plaintiff. The plaintiff must show that the defendant breached the duty of care by failing to safeguard them from harm. In addition, the plaintiff must prove that the violation was the direct reason for their injury.

For instance railway workers who develops cancer as a result of their job on the railroad must prove that their employer did not adequately warn them about the dangers that they face in their work. They must also demonstrate that their cancer was directly caused by this negligence.

In one instance the railroad company was sued by a former worker who claimed his cancer was caused by exposure to diesel fumes and asbestos. We argued that the plaintiff's claim was time-barred, because he had signed a release in a previous suit against the defendant.