24 Hours For Improving Railroad Lawsuit Aplastic Anemia

· 4 min read
24 Hours For Improving Railroad Lawsuit Aplastic Anemia

How to File a Railroad Lawsuit For Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease

Rail workers who suffer from occupational diseases such as cancer can sue in accordance with the Federal Employers' Liability Act. However, it can be challenging to prove that the condition is a result of work.

For  cancer lawsuit , a worker, may have signed a release following settling an asbestos claim. He later filed a lawsuit for cancer he claimed was caused by exposure to asbestos.

Statute of Limitations under the FELA

In many workers' compensation cases, the clock starts in a claim at the moment an injury is documented. FELA laws, however, allow railroad employees to file a lawsuit for lung disease or cancer years after the fact. It is essential to file a FELA report as shortly after an injury or illness as you can.

Unfortunately, the railroad will often attempt to dismiss a case by arguing that the employee failed to act within the three-year limitation period. To determine when the FELA "clock" begins courts usually look at two Supreme Court decisions.

They first have to determine if the railroad employee had reason to believe that the symptoms were related to their job. The claim will not be denied in the event that the railroad employee consults a doctor, and the doctor states conclusively that the injuries are related to their job.

The other aspect is the amount of time from the time that the railroad employee first began to notice symptoms. If the railroad employee has been having breathing issues for a number of years, and attributes the problem to his or her work on the rails then the statute of limitations will likely to apply. Contact us for a no-cost consultation should you have any questions about your FELA claims.

Employers' Negligence

FELA establishes the legal basis for railroad employees to hold negligent employers accountable. As opposed to other workers who are bound by the system of worker's compensation that has defined benefits, railroad workers can sue their employers for the full amount of their injuries.

Our attorneys recently won the verdict in a FELA lawsuit brought by three retired Long Island Railroad machinists who suffered from COPD, chronic bronchitis 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 cancer of the plaintiffs wasn't linked to their job at the railroad and the lawsuit was not allowed due to the fact that it had been three years since they discovered their health issues were linked to their work at the railroad. Our Doran & Murphy attorneys were capable of proving that the railroad did not given its employees any information about the dangers of diesel exhaust and asbestos while they worked and did not have any security measures to shield their employees from the dangers of hazardous chemicals.

Although a person has three years from the date of diagnosis to start a FELA lawsuit, it is always better to seek out a skilled lawyer as soon as possible.  cancer lawsuits  starts collecting witness statements, records and other evidence the more likely it is that a successful claim will be filed.

Causation

In a personal injury case plaintiffs must show that a defendant's actions caused their injuries. This is known as legal causation. This is the reason it's crucial that an attorney review a claim prior to filing it in the court.

Diesel exhaust is the only source that exposes railroad workers to hundreds of chemicals, including carcinogens pollution and other pollutants. These microscopic particles get into the lung tissue and cause inflammation and damage. As time passes, these 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 ailments and asthma after spending decades in the cabins with no protection. Additionally,  cancer lawsuit  developed back pain that was debilitating as a result of his long hours of lifting, pushing and pulling. His doctor informed him that these problems were the result of years of exposure to diesel fumes which he claimed aggravated his other health issues.

Our lawyers were able to secure favorable trial court rulings as well as a small federal jury verdict for our client in this case. The plaintiff claimed that the train derailment and subsequent release of vinyl chloride from the rail yard impacted his physical health as well as his mental state, as he worried that he might develop cancer. However, the USSC determined that the railroad defendant was not the sole cause of his anxiety about developing cancer since he had previously let go of the possibility of pursuing the claim in a previous lawsuit.


Damages

If you were injured while working for a railroad company then you could be able to file a lawsuit under the Federal Employers' Liability Act. With this option, you may be able to recover damages for your injuries, including reimbursement for medical expenses as well as for the suffering and pain you've endured as a result your injury. This process is complicated, and you should consult an attorney for train accidents to know your options.

In a railroad case the first step is to demonstrate that the defendant owed an obligation of good-faith to the plaintiff. The plaintiff has to show that the defendant violated this obligation by failing in protecting the injured person from harm. The plaintiff must then show that the defendant's breach of duty was the sole reason for their injury.

For example railway workers who develops cancer as a result of their working for the railroad has to prove that their employer failed to adequately warn them about the dangers that they face in their work. They must also prove that the negligence caused their cancer.

In one case, we defended a railroad corporation against a suit 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 barred because he had signed an earlier release in a separate suit against the same defendant.