Gaithersburg: 301-670-7030
Baltimore: 410-769-5400
Frederick: 301-668-2100
Contact Us For Legal Help

Railroad Injury Blog

Repetitive Trauma Injuries

Friday, June 29, 2012

The terms repetitive trauma injury refers to a disorder that can affect bones, muscles, tendons, nerves and other anatomical features. It develops when micro traumas, or minute injuries, occur repeatedly from overuse or misappropriate use of a body part or external force applied to the body. A study in 1993 found that repetitive trauma injuries accounted for one of every four lost time injuries reported in the United States.

Injuries to the shoulders, arms, hands and wrists such as tendinitis, carpal tunnel syndrome and ulnar neuropathy can be caused by repetitive trauma. Risk factors for the development of these types of injuries include performing repetitive and forceful work in an awkward position and the use of vibrating tools. Railroaders who routinely use both pneumatic and non-power hand tools, move and carry heavy equipment and couple air hoses are at an increased risk of developing upper extremity repetitive trauma injuries.

Injuries in the form of osteoarthritis to the hips, knees, feet and ankles can also be caused by repetitive trauma. Risk factors for the development of these types of injuries include walking on uneven surfaces, repeatedly bending and stooping and working in awkward postures. Railroaders who routinely walk long distances across ballast, climb rail cars, squat to throw switches and couple air hoses and in the past, dismounted moving equipment, are at an increased risk of developing lower extremity repetitive trauma injuries.

By Matt Darby

OSHA Affirms Whistleblower Protection For Non-Complainant Witnesses

Saturday, June 23, 2012

On June 1, 2012, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) made it clear that the identities of non-complainant individuals who cooperate in the Whistleblower complaint process shall remain confidential. In a letter to the Vice President and General Counsel of the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad, Charles W. Shewmake, David Michaels, Ph.D., Assistant Secretary for OSHA, indicated as follows:

“. . . the FRSA’s governing regulations explicitly state that “[i]nvestigations will be conducted in a manner that protects the confidentiality of any person who provides information on a confidential basis, other than the complainant” 29 C.F.R. 1982.104(d). Moreover, OSHA’s Whistleblower Investigations Manual (2011), available here, expressly provides for the confidentiality of non-management witness interviews and states that such interviews are to be conducted in private.”

More importantly, Dr. Michaels made it clear that non-complainant witnesses are covered by Whistleblower protection once they cooperate in an investigation. Regarding that protection, he stated in his letter as follows:

“We also wish to remind you that it is violation of the employee protections of FRSA to discharge, demote, suspend, reprimand, or in any other way retaliate against an employee who provides information to OSHA or otherwise assists OSHA in an investigation of a FRSA whistleblower complaint. OSHA takes allegations of such retaliation extremely seriously and will not tolerate retaliation against witnesses who cooperate in FRSA whistleblower protections.”

By Matt Darby

OSHA Decision Determines That A Firing In Retaliation For Filing A Whistleblower Claim Is A Serious Violation Of The FRSA

Sunday, April 29, 2012

On March 26, 2012, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) issued a decision in a Whistleblower case that requires CSX Transportation to pay punitive damages for dismissing a Railroader for filing a claim under the FRSA that alleged that he had been disciplined for raising various safety issues.

The case involved a dispatcher who was involved in a near miss incident that involved the misrouting of two trains. After the incident, the dispatcher cooperated in a meeting that involved CSXT and the FRA. During that meeting, the dispatcher raised various safety issues that he felt contributed to the near miss incident. The dispatcher was subsequently fired by CSXT. He then, with the approval of CSXT, exercised his seniority rights so that he could return to his previous craft within the Track Department. On his first day back to work as a trackman, he was fired. This was one day after CSXT received notification that he had filed a claim under the FRSA for his dismissal in connection with the near miss incident and its subsequent investigation.

CSXT was ordered to pay punitive damages in the amount of $100,000.00 for its dismissal of the Railroader. The OSHA opinion regarding that award indicated as follows:

“Respondent’s (CSXT) conduct in retaliation against an employee for filing a FRSA complaint with OSHA exhibited reckless disregard for the law and complete indifference to Complainant’s rights and the rights of Respondent’s other employees. Discharging an employee for claiming violations of FRSA functions to chill employees from exercising their most basic rights under FRSA.”

By Matt Darby

Whistleblower Decision Illustrates Elements Necessary For A Successful Claim

Friday, March 30, 2012

Several weeks ago, I posted the summary of case decided by Judge Theresa C. Timlin of the U.S. Deparment of Labor that discussed the idea that an absence from work for a non-work related medical resaons is a protected activity under the FRSA. Last fall, she issued a decision in another Whistleblower case that illustrates the elements necessary for a successful claim. The decision is also important because it indicated that the FRSA can be violated even when disciplinary charges are dismissed.

On September 23, 2011, Judge Timlin, after a two day evidentiary hearing, issued an Order directing the Port Authority Trans-Hudson Corporation (“PATH”) to pay a Railroader punitive damages and expunge from her personnel file any disciplinary and negative references concerning an on-the-job injury that was properly reported.

First, a little bit about the facts leading up to Judge Timlin’s involvement in the case. On April 1, 2009, the aggrieved Railroader was injured when she sat on a broken chair that collapsed. She filed an injury report right after the accident occurred. Shortly thereafter, the Railroad issued a letter notifying her that she was required to attend an investigative hearing to determine whether she had engaged in a rules violation for failing to inspect the chair prior to sitting on it. The investigative hearing was postponed and rescheduled several times. The charges against the Railroader were eventually dismissed.

Judge Timlin determined that the Railroad had violated the following elements of the Whistleblower Act. Each of these elements must be proven to recover under the Law.

Protected Activity

Judge Timlin determined that the Railroader had engaged in protected activity by filing the injury report. She indicated that “[T]hese reports are clearly methods by which an employee may notify an employer of a work-related personal injury or work related illness.” Judge Timlin also concluded that the Railroader, had in fact, sustained a personal injury.

Knowledge of Protected Activity

Judge Timlin indicated in her decision that a “decision-maker” who carries out the adverse action on behalf of the Railroad must be aware of the protected activity. It is no enough for the Railroad, as an entity, to know of the protected activity. This element was fulfilled as there was evidence that the Railroader’s supervisor, who brought the charges against her, was aware that the injury report was filed shortly after the accident.

Unfavorable Personnel Action

Judge Timlin determined that the Railroad had taken unfavorable personnel action against the Railroader despite the fact that the charges filed against her were ultimately dismissed. She indicated that the filing of such charges, and then dismissing them, “is likely to have a chilling effect on reasonable employees, who may be dissuaded from filing injury reports for fear of being charged with safety violations and being potentially disciplined.”

Contributing Factor

The Act requires that the protected activity must be a contributing factor to the unfavorable personnel action. Judge Timlin determined that the Railroader’s supervisor filed the charges against her because of “information provided in or lacking from the injury report.”

Judge Timlin summed up her decision that the Railroader had fulfilled the elements of her claim as follows: “Rather than investigating the matter first and filing charges only when a violation was substantiated, Respondent chose to file charges based on the information contained in the injury report. On the specific facts of this case, I find a clear causal connection between the filing of the Complainant’s injury report and the initiation of charges against her.”

By Matt Darby

Recent Whistleblower Decision Determines That Absence For Non-Work Related Medical Reasons Is A Protected Activity Under The FRSA

Friday, March 09, 2012

On February 10, 2012, Administrative Law Judge, Theresa C. Timlin, of the U.S. Department of Labor, issued an Order directing the Port Authority Trans-Hudson Corporation (PATH) to pay a Railroader back pay for a suspension imposed because he was absent from work pursuant to orders from his treating doctor for a non-work related injury.

First, a little bit about the facts leading up to Judge Timlin’s involvement in the case.

On June 22, 2008, the aggrieved Railroader sustained a low back injury while he was lifting boxes at his home. The next morning, he was evaluated by his family doctor and taken off work for a week. The Railroader immediately told his supervisor of his doctor’s orders. The Railroad then referred the Railroader to its own doctor who concurred with the opinion of the Railroader’s doctor regarding his inability to work. The Railroader informed his supervisor that the Railroad’s own physician determined that he was unable to work. The Railroader was issued a disciplinary charge letter for violating the Railroad’s attendance policy. After a hearing, the charges were affirmed and the Railroader was suspended for three days.

While it is undisputed that the Federal Rail Safety Act (FRSA) prohibits the discipline of railroad employees for following the orders or a treatment plans of a treating physician for work related injuries, Judge Timlin indicated that this protection goes further and stated as follows:

“After reviewing the Act’s text and purpose, I find it clear that § 20109(c)(2) exists not only to encourage employees suffering on-the-job injuries to report unsafe conditions to their superiors without fear of reprisal, but also to discourage sick or injured workers from returning to duty while their impairment poses a threat to the safety or railroad passengers and fellow employees. I thus find that § 20109(c)(2) applies equally to treatment plans arising out of on-duty and off-duty injuries.”

In sum, while it has always been the case that a railroad violates the FRSA if it disciplines an employee for following a doctor’s orders concerning a job-related injury, it is now clear that such protection covers non-work related injuries as well.

By Matt Darby

Boblitz v. SSP Railroad Holding, LLC, et al.

Saturday, February 18, 2012

Yesterday, in a case counseled by Matt and Pat, a Baltimore City Jury returned a verdict in the amount of $750,000.00 on behalf of a Conductor who slipped on snow and ice covered debris as he was cutting a line of rail cars. The Plaintiff injured his low back in that accident and as a result, underwent surgery. The Jury determined that the Plaintiff was unable to return to work in any capacity because of his back injury. In addition, despite finding his claim barred by limitations, determined that the Railroad was negligent in causing injuries to the Plaintiff’s knees. The jury determined that the Defendant had failed to eliminate certain job related risk factors known to cause injuries to the lower extremities.

By Matt Darby

Eubanks v. CSXT

Friday, January 27, 2012

In October, 2008, Matt and Pat were counsel in the case of Clifton Eubanks v. CSX Transportation, Inc., Case No. 24-C-07-007063 OT (Circuit Court for Baltimore City). That matter involved a 53 year old conductor who slipped and fell as he was crossing a section of track. Mr. Eubanks injured his right knee as a result of that slip and fall. That injury required arthroscopic surgery. The jury awarded Mr. Eubanks $569,660.00 in economic damages and $875,000.00 in non-economic pain and suffering damages. Mr. Eubanks was found to be 17 percent comparatively negligent and partially liable for his injuries. After accounting for that, his total award was $1,199,067.80.

By Matt Darby

Recent Whistleblower Decisions

Friday, January 20, 2012

The following are significant decisions that were recently issued by the U.S. Department of Labor pursuant to the Federal Railroad Safety Act (FRSA), 49 U.S.C. §20109.

  1. On August 22, 2011, the Department of Labor issued an Order directing the Union Pacific Railroad Company to pay back wages in the amount of $3,437.10, punitive damages in the amount of $150,000.00 and compensatory damages for pain and suffering in the amount of $10,000.00 to a  railroader who alleged and proved that he was pulled out of service, charged with rule violations and permanently dismissed from service in retaliation for reporting safety concerns on the Railroad’s safety hotline. The Railroad was also ordered to reinstate the railroader to his former position with all the pay, benefits, and rights he had before his discharge.
  2. On August 15, 2011, the Department of Labor directed the Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway Company to pay compensatory damages in the amount of $125,000.00 and punitive damages in the $150,000.00 to a railroader who alleged and proved that she had been suspended for 30 days without pay in retaliation for notifying the Railroad of a work-related personal injury. She also alleged and proved that the Railroad brought charges against her in a disciplinary proceeding in retaliation for requesting medical and/or first aid treatment and for following the orders and the treatment plan of her treating physician.
  3. On August 8, 2011, the Department of Labor issued an Order directing Norfolk Southern Railway Company to pay compensatory damages in the amount of $20,750.11 and punitive damages in the amount of $75,000.00 to a railroader who alleged and proved that he had been suspended in retaliation for reporting a workplace injury. 
  4. On August 5, 2011, the Department of Labor directed the Metro-North Commuter Railroad Company to pay compensatory damages in the amount of $5,000.00 and punitive damages in the amount of $125,000.00 to a railroader who alleged and proved that he suffered retaliation when he reported a workplace injury. The Railroad was also ordered to pay the railroader back pay and promote him to the position of Locomotive Engineer.

By Matt Darby

The McBride Decision

Monday, January 16, 2012

The Supreme Court issued its decision in CSX Transportation v. McBride on June 23, 2011. The Court in a 5-4 opinion authored by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg reaffirmed the relaxed causation standard in FELA cases that hold that a railroader must only show that his or her injury was the result “in whole or in part” of the negligence of the railroad. This holding was a direct rebuttal of the railroad’s attempt to make it more difficult for railroaders to prove their cases in court by requiring an injured railroader to prove proximate causation.

This is a very important decision that continues to protect the rights of injured railroad workers.

Link to the decision here.

By Matt Darby

Bickerstaff, et al. v. CSXT

Monday, January 16, 2012

In March, 2007, Matt was co-counsel in the case of Richard Bickerstaff, et al. v. CSX Transportation, Inc., Case No. 24-C-04-009479 (Circuit Court for Baltimore City). That matter involved a cluster of nine railroaders who alleged that they developed repetitive trauma injuries to their knees as a result of their employment with CSX Transportation, Inc. Those jobs required significant walking, throwing of railroad switches, coupling of air hoses and climbing cars. Most of the railroaders required surgery to repair the damage to their knees. At the close of trial, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the railroaders in the total amount of $19,300,000.00. Individually, those verdicts ranged from $765,000.00 awarded to a 52 year old trainman, who was still working at the time of trial, and claiming no future economic damages, to a verdict of $4,800,000.00 awarded to a 51 year old trainman who claimed that his work-life had been shortended because of the injuries to his knees.

By Matt Darby

Recent Posts


Tags


Archive

RSS

What Our Clients Say

Known for our unwavering commitment to clients, for our integrity, and for delivering the best results, our clients continue to refer their friends, families and neighbors to us for their legal needs.


"One year ago today I made the call to your office. The best decision I could make. I wanted to share with you how impressed I am with your staff and your professionalism."

Heather P.


"Craig did a great job representing me! He's the lawyer I have trusted with my legal needs because he's professional, knowledgeable, and keeps me informed about my case."

Jaclyn K.


"I would like to express my gratitude for your efforts and dedication for my disability case. It's has been quite a long and upsetting process but you have handled my case in an extremely competent and responsible manner."

Leo H.


"I have recommended Mr. Feldman to several of my friends and colleagues and have heard nothing but excellent reviews. He is the best lawyer I have ever used."

Martin


"I received the check today. I could not believe it until I saw the check. Thank you so much. You have improved my family's quality of life tenfold."

Mike F.


"These guys go above and beyond! They always have your best interest in mind."

Mike W.


"You have been kind throughout this process and I appreciate your professionalism as well as your gentle concern. Thanks for helping us and all the others who need your legal expertise. We are grateful."

Nancy F.


"Thanks to Mr. Shultz's aggressive and professional work ethic style I was able to receive the medical services and compensation pertaining to my case."

Navdeep C.


"I can honestly say this firm is simply TOP NOTCH! They not only have handled countless cases for my members that require their services, they also have gone well beyond their "scope" to help some of my folks in other areas of need. "

Rick H.


"The attention and professional care the staff has taken toward my needs has always been excellent. I have no complaints nor worries that my issues discussed are not addressed."

Tim T.


"I just got off the phone with Craig and let him know how thankful we are to you, him and Ken for all your efforts – you are all really terrific to work with!"

Val K.


Locations Throughout Maryland, Virginia & Washington DC

Gaithersburg Office

481 N. Frederick Avenue, Suite 300
Gaithersburg, MD 20877
301-670-7030 / 800-248-3352
Fax: 301-670-9492

Lutherville Office

1301 York Road, Suite 600
Lutherville, MD 21093
410-769-5400 / 800-248-3352
Fax: 410-769-9200

Frederick Office

30 W. Patrick Street, Suite 105
Frederick, MD 21701
301-668-2100 / 800-827-2667
Fax: 301-668-2000

Subscribe To Our Newsletter


TOP