There's Enough! 15 Things About Railroad Lawsuit Aplastic Anemia We're Fed Up Of Hearing

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 bring a lawsuit under the Federal Employers' Liability Act. It isn't easy to prove a disease is linked to work.

For instance workers may have signed an agreement to release himself when he settled an asbestos claim and later filed a lawsuit for cancer that was allegedly resulting from exposures.

FELA Statute of Limitations

In many workers' compensation cases, the clock begins to run on claims immediately after an injury is documented. However, FELA laws allow railroad employees to file a lawsuit for the development of lung disease or cancer long after the fact. It is important to make an FELA report as soon after accident or illness as soon as it is possible.

Unfortunately, the railroad will often try to dismiss a case by arguing that the employee failed to perform the task within the three-year limitation period. Courts often use two Supreme Court cases to determine when the FELA clock begins.

In the beginning, they will determine whether the railroad employee has reason to know that his or her symptoms are related to their job. The claim can be ruled out in the event that the railroad employee goes to a doctor and the doctor is able to prove that the injuries are linked to their job.

union pacific railroad lawsuit  to consider is the amount of time that has passed since the railroad employee began to notice symptoms. If the railroad employee has been having breathing issues for a long time, and attributes the problem to his or her work on the rails then the statute of limitations is likely to be applicable. If you have questions about your FELA claim, please schedule an appointment for a no-cost consultation with our lawyers.

Employers' Negligence

FELA lays out a legal foundation for railroad employees to hold negligent employers accountable. Unlike most other workers, who are governed by worker's compensation systems with defined benefits, railroad workers are able to sue their employers for the full value of their injuries.

Our attorneys obtained the verdict in a FELA case brought by retired Long Island Railroad machinists. They were diagnosed with COPD, chronic bronchitis, and emphysema because of their exposure to asbestos while working on locomotives. The jury awarded them damages of $16,400,000.

cancer lawsuits  claimed that the plaintiffs' cancer wasn't related to their jobs on the railroad, and that the lawsuit was thrown out because it was more than three years since they discovered their health problems were related to their work on the railroad. Our Doran & Murphy attorneys were able show that the railroad had never given its employees any information about the dangers of asbestos and diesel exhaust when they were working, and had no safety measures to protect their workers from dangerous chemicals.

It is better to hire an experienced lawyer immediately, even though a worker could have up to three years to make a FELA suit starting from the day they were diagnosed. The earlier our lawyer begins collecting witness statements, evidence, and other evidence, then the greater chance is of an effective claim.

Causation

In a personal-injury action, plaintiffs must prove that the actions of a defendant led to their injuries. This requirement is known as legal causation. This is why it's so important that an attorney thoroughly analyze a claim prior filing it in court.

Railroad workers are exposed to a myriad of chemicals, including carcinogens as well as other contaminants, via diesel exhaust by itself. These microscopic particles penetrate deep into the lung tissues, causing inflammation and damage. In time, these injuries can lead to debilitating illnesses like chronic bronchitis and COPD.

One of our FELA cases involves an ex-conductor who developed debilitating asthma and chronic obstructive lung disease after decades of working in train cabs without any protection. He also developed back problems due to his long hours of pushing and lifting. His doctor informed him that these problems were a result of long-term exposure to diesel fumes. He claims that this has aggravated all of his other health problems.

Our attorneys were able to keep favorable trial court rulings as well as a minimal federal juror award for our client. The plaintiff argued that the derailment of the train and subsequent release of vinyl chloride into the rail yard affected his physical and emotional condition because he was afraid his cancer would strike him. The USSC decided that the defendant railroad was not to blame for the plaintiff's fears of cancer, since the plaintiff had previously renounced his right sue the defendant railroad in a previous lawsuit.

Damages

If you've suffered an injury while working for a railroad company, you may qualify to file a lawsuit under the Federal Employers' Liability Act. By filing a lawsuit, you may be able to recover damages for your injuries, including the cost of medical bills as well as the suffering and pain you've suffered as a result of your injury. However, this process is complex and you should talk to a lawyer who handles train accidents to know your options.

In a railroad case the first step is to establish that the defendant owed the duty of good faith to the plaintiff. The plaintiff must then prove that the defendant breached this obligation by failing to protect the injured person from harm. The plaintiff must then prove that the breach of duty by the defendant was the direct cause of their injuries.

For example railway workers who contracted cancer due to their work on the railroad must prove that their employer failed to adequately warn them about the dangers associated with their job.  cancer lawsuits  must prove that their cancer was directly caused by the negligence of their employer.

In one case we defended a railroad against a suit brought by an employee who claimed that his cancer was the result of exposure to diesel and asbestos. We argued that the plaintiff's claim was time-barred, because the plaintiff had signed a release in a prior suit against the defendant.