Bnsf Railway Company v. James E. Phillips, 485 S.W.3d 908

James E. Phillips worked for BNSF (and predecessor) from 1974, riding locomotives for ~26 years and reporting ‘‘rough‑riding’’ locomotives and poorly maintained seats to coworkers/by radio.
Phillips sought chiropractic care in 1998 reporting spine soreness aggravated by rough‑riding engines; MRI in 2003 diagnosed degenerative spinal conditions including spondylolysis. A neurologist in 2005 confirmed severe spinal pathology.
Phillips sued BNSF under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act (FELA) and the Locomotive Inspection Act (LIA) on April 13, 2007. FELA’s statute of limitations is three years.
Under federal discovery‑rule accrual for latent occupational injuries, a claim accrues when the plaintiff knows or should know the injury is work‑related. A plaintiff bears the burden to prove timeliness.
The trial jury awarded Phillips damages; the court of appeals affirmed. BNSF petitioned to the Texas Supreme Court arguing no evidence supported a finding that Phillips’s suit was timely filed. The Texas Supreme Court granted review and reversed, rendering judgment that Phillips take nothing.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Phillips’s FELA/LIA claims accrued more than three years before filing (i.e., whether suit was timely)	Phillips contends he did not know his spinal condition was work‑related until around 2005 and thus suit filed in 2007 was timely	BNSF argues Phillips knew or should have known of a work relation by at least 2003 (or earlier) based on complaints, chiropractic intake, MRI/diagnosis, and ongoing treatment	Court held Phillips’s claim accrued no later than 2003; his 2007 suit was untimely and he failed to carry the burden of proving timeliness

Urie v. Thompson, 337 U.S. 163 (U.S. 1949) (adopted discovery‑rule accrual language for latent occupational injuries)
Bealer v. Mo. Pac. R.R. Co., 951 F.2d 38 (5th Cir. 1991) (FELA plaintiff must prove timeliness; accrual when plaintiff knows or should know work causation; accrual can be established as matter of law)
Albertson v. T.J. Stevenson & Co., 749 F.2d 223 (5th Cir. 1984) (application of discovery rule to latent injuries)
Crisman v. Odeco, Inc., 932 F.2d 413 (5th Cir. 1991) (accrual may be decided as a matter of law where evidence overwhelmingly shows claim is time‑barred)
City of Keller v. Wilson, 168 S.W.3d 802 (Tex. 2005) (standards for reviewing whether evidence supports a jury finding)
Mancorp, Inc. v. Culpepper, 802 S.W.2d 226 (Tex. 1990) (courts review only evidence supporting the verdict, viewing it in the light most favorable)
Childs v. Haussecker, 974 S.W.2d 31 (Tex. 1998) (diligence requirement for discovery rule; mere suspicion without investigation is insufficient)