10 Facts About Railroad Lawsuit Aplastic Anemia That Will Instantly Put You In Good Mood

· 4 min read
10 Facts About Railroad Lawsuit Aplastic Anemia That Will Instantly Put You In Good Mood

How to File a Railroad Lawsuit For Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease

Railroad employees who are suffering from occupational diseases like cancer have the right to make a claim under the Federal Employers' Liability Act. It isn't always easy to prove that a condition is linked to work.

A worker, for instance could have signed a release after settlement of an asbestos claim. He then sued later for cancer he claimed was caused by those exposures.

Statute of Limitations under the FELA

In many workers' compensation cases, the clock starts to run on the claim when an injury is reported. FELA laws, however, allow railroad workers to sue for lung disease or cancer years after it has happened. This is why it is essential to file an FELA injury or illness report as quickly as possible.

Unfortunately, railroads will often try to dismiss a case by arguing that the employee did not perform the task within the three-year limitation period. Courts typically use two Supreme Court cases to determine when the FELA clock begins.

First, they will consider whether the railroad worker has a reason to believe that his or her ailments are related to their work. The claim is not void when the railroad employee goes to the doctor and the doctor is able to prove that the injuries are related to their job.

Another thing to consider is the length of time that has passed since the railroad employee began to notice symptoms. If the railroad employee has suffered from breathing issues for a while and attributes the issue to work on the rails then the statute of limitations will likely to apply. If you have questions about your FELA claim, you should schedule an appointment for a no-cost consultation with our lawyers.

Employers' Negligence


FELA provides a legal framework for railroad workers to bring employers who are negligent to account. Unlike most other workers, who are bound to worker's compensation systems that have fixed benefits, railroad employees can sue their employers for the full amount of their injuries.

Our lawyers won the verdict in a FELA case brought by retired Long Island Railroad machinists. They suffered from COPD chronic bronchitis and emphysema as a result of their asbestos exposure while working on locomotives. The jury awarded them $16,400,000 in damages.

The railroad claimed that the cancer of the plaintiffs was not linked to their jobs on the railroad and that the lawsuit was dismissed since it had been more than three years since the plaintiffs discovered that their health issues were related to their railroad jobs. Our Doran & Murphy attorneys were successful in proving that the railroad had never made its employees aware of the dangers of diesel exhaust and asbestos when they were working, and did not have safety measures to protect their workers from dangerous chemicals.

It is advisable to hire a lawyer with experience when you can even though a person may have up to three years to make a FELA suit from the date they were diagnosed. The sooner we can get our attorney started gathering witness statements, records, and other evidence, then the greater chance is of the success of a claim.

Causation

In a personal injury action the plaintiffs must prove that the defendant's actions are the cause of their injuries. This requirement is known as legal causation. It is important that an attorney thoroughly examines a claim before filing in the court.

Railroad workers are exposed to a myriad of chemicals, including carcinogens as well as other pollutants, through diesel exhaust by itself. These microscopic particles penetrate deeply into the lung tissue and cause inflammation and damage. As time passes, these damage can lead to debilitating illnesses such as chronic bronchitis or COPD.

One of our FELA cases is a former conductor who was diagnosed with debilitating asthma and chronic obstructive respiratory disease following years of working in train cabs without any protection. He also had back issues due to the years of pushing and lifting. His doctor told him that these issues were the result of his exposure to diesel fumes, which he believes aggravated the other health issues he was suffering from.

Our lawyers were able to keep favorable trial court rulings as well as a minimal federal juror award for our client. The plaintiff claimed that the derailment of the train and subsequent release of vinyl chloride into the rail yard affected both his physical and emotional condition, as he feared it would cause cancer. The USSC found that the railroad defendant was not at fault for the plaintiff's fears of cancer since the plaintiff previously waived his right to sue the defendant railroad in a previous lawsuit.

Damages

If you have been injured while working on the railroad, you could be able to pursue a lawsuit under the Federal Employers' Liability Act. Through this avenue, you can seek damages for your injuries, including compensation for your medical bills as well as for the pain and suffering you have endured as a result of your injury. This process is complex, and you should consult an attorney for train accidents to understand your options.

In a case involving railroads, the first step is to show the defendant had an obligation of good-faith to the plaintiff. The plaintiff must demonstrate that the defendant breached this duty of care by failing to safeguard them from harm. The plaintiff should then demonstrate that the defendant's breach of duty was a direct reason for their injury.

For instance a railroad worker who was diagnosed with cancer as a result of their work at the railroad has to prove that their employer failed to adequately warn them of the risks associated with their job. They must also prove that their negligence caused their cancer.

In  railroad cancer lawsuit  defended a railroad firm against a lawsuit brought by an employee who claimed that his cancer was caused by exposure to asbestos and diesel. We claimed that the plaintiff's claim was time-barred because he executed an earlier release in another suit against the same defendant.