As we discussed in Part 1, it should be obvious that the FRSA should and does protect railroad employees who follow their doctor’s orders for non-work related injuries, including time off work. That’s the safe thing to do for the employees and the public, and subsection (c)(2) of the FRSA seems clear on its face.
Well along comes the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. This is the federal appeals court that has jurisdiction over the states of Delaware, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and the Virgin Islands. In 2015, in a case sometimes referred to as Bala, and othertimes referred to as PATH, the Third Circuit took away the right of some injured railroad workers to follow their doctors’ treatment plans.
The Third Circuit held that injuries must be work-related in order to be covered by subsection (c)(2) of the FRSA. You can read subsection (c)(2) for yourself, it doesn’t say anything about a requirement than an injury be work related: “A railroad carrier…may not discipline…an employee…for following orders or a treatment plan of a treating physician…” But here is what the court said: “we think that subsection (b)(1)(A) must be read as having at least some work-related limitation, even though no such limitation appears on the face of the statute. And if a work-related limitation must be applied to subsection (b)(1)(A), it would be consistent to also apply a work-related limitation to subsection (c)(2).” They even admitted the statute does not have a work-related requirement! The decision of the Third Circuit was that only following your doctor’s orders for work-related injuries or conditions is covered by the FRSA.
Well then, everybody’s screwed, and no one who is ill or injured outside of work is protected – right? Wrong. We’ll see what went right in Part 3.
Call or email me with your questions:
H. David Leibensperger