This Week's Best Stories About Railroad Lawsuit Aplastic Anemia

This Week's Best Stories About Railroad Lawsuit Aplastic Anemia

How to File a Railroad Lawsuit For Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease

Railroad workers who suffer from occupational diseases, such as cancer, have the right to make a claim under the Federal Employers' Liability Act. It can be difficult to prove a disease is related to work.



For instance, a worker, may have signed a release following settlement of an asbestos claim. He then sued later for cancer he claimed was caused by the exposures.

Statute of Limitations under the FELA

In many workers' compensation cases the clock begins to run on a claim from the moment an injury is reported. FELA laws permit railroad workers to sue for lung disease or cancer long after it has happened. This is why it is vital to obtain a FELA injury or illness report as soon as possible.

Unfortunately, the railroad will try to dismiss a case the argument that an employee's actions were not within the timeframe of three years of limitations. Courts often use two Supreme Court cases to determine when the FELA clock starts.

The first thing they'll consider is whether the railroad employee has a reason to believe his or her ailments are a result of their work. The claim will not be denied if the railroad worker goes to the doctor and the doctor concludes that the injuries are linked to their job.

The other factor is the time between the moment that the railroad worker first began to notice symptoms. If the railroad employee has suffered from breathing problems for several years and attributes the problem to his or work on rails, then the statute of limitations will likely to apply. If  cancer lawsuits  have questions about your FELA claim, please schedule a free consultation with our lawyers.

Employers' Negligence

FELA lays out an legal foundation for railroad workers to ensure that negligent employers are held accountable. Railroad workers are able to sue their employers in full for injuries suffered in contrast to other workers who are tied to compensation programs for workers with fixed benefits.

Our attorneys secured a verdict recently in a FELA case brought by retired Long Island Railroad machinists. They developed COPD chronic bronchitis and emphysema as a result of their exposure to asbestos while working on locomotives.  cancer lawsuits  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 thrown out due to the fact that it had been three years since they discovered that their health issues were linked to their work at the railroad. Our Doran & Murphy attorneys were able show that the railroad had not informed its employees about the dangers of asbestos and diesel exhaust while they were at work and had no security measures to shield their workers from harmful chemicals.

It is advisable to hire a lawyer with experience immediately, even though a worker may have up to three years to submit an FELA suit from the date they were diagnosed. The earlier our lawyer begins collecting witness statements, documents and other evidence then the greater chance is of winning the case.

Causation

In a personal injury action plaintiffs must prove that the defendant's actions were responsible for their injuries. This is referred to as legal causation. This is the reason it's important that an attorney thoroughly study a claim prior to submitting it in court.

Railroad workers are exposed to a myriad of chemicals, including carcinogens and other pollutants, through diesel exhaust on its own. These microscopic particles penetrate deep into the lung tissue and cause inflammation and damage. In time, these injuries could lead to debilitating ailments like chronic bronchitis or COPD.

Bladder cancer lawsuit  of our FELA cases involves a former train conductor who developed chronic obstructive lung asthma and other respiratory diseases after spending years in cabins with no protection. In addition, he developed back pains that were debilitating due to his work in pulling, pushing and lifting. The doctor who treated him said that the issues were the result of decades of exposure to diesel fumes. He claims this exacerbated all of his other health problems.

Our lawyers were able to keep favorable trial court rulings as well as a small federal juror award for our client. The plaintiff argued that the derailment of the train and the subsequent release of vinyl chloride into the rail yard affected both his physical and psychological condition because he was afraid the possibility of developing cancer. The USSC determined that the defendant railroad was not to blame for the plaintiff's anxiety about cancer because the plaintiff had previously renounced his right to sue the defendant railroad in a previous lawsuit.

Damages

If you've been injured while working for a railroad it is possible to file a claim under the Federal Employers' Liability Act. You could receive damages for your injuries using this route, including the cost of medical bills as well as pain and suffering. However the process is complicated and you should speak with a lawyer who handles train accidents to learn more about your options.

In a railroad case the first step is to prove the defendant had an obligation of good faith to the plaintiff. The plaintiff then has to prove that the defendant breached this duty by failing to safeguard the injured person from injury. The plaintiff should then demonstrate that the breach of duty by the defendant was the direct cause of the injury.

For  cancer lawsuit  who contracted cancer as a result of their working for the railroad has to prove that their employer did not properly warn them of the risks associated with their job. They also must demonstrate that their cancer was directly caused by this negligence.

In one instance, we defended a railroad against a suit brought by a former employee who claimed that his cancer was the result of exposure to asbestos and diesel. We argued that plaintiff's lawsuit was not time-barred because the plaintiff had signed a release in a prior suit against the defendant.