Brenner v. Consolidated Rail Corp.
2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 41663
E.D. Pa.2011Background
- Brenner filed a FELA action against Consolidated Rail Corp. and CSX Transportation, Inc. for knee injuries alleged to be caused by cumulative occupational trauma.
- Plaintiff worked as a trackman and machine operator from 1976–1999 with Conrail, then 1999–present with CSXT.
- Plaintiff alleges injuries from repetitive climbing, bending, stooping, and walking on uneven ballast, requiring left knee surgery.
- Defendants moved for summary judgment arguing lack of admissible causation evidence, statute of limitations, and ballast-related preemption under FRSA.
- Court denied in part and granted in part; addressed expert causation, accrual timing, and ballast preemption under FRSA.
- Court set to rule on whether ballast claims precluded and whether Dr. Miller’s report and Smith’s testimony are admissible for causation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Causation evidence sufficiency | Miller narrative supports causation; ergonomics expert could substitute | Miller must meet Rule 26(a)(2)(B); Smith not qualified | Dr. Miller’s testimony weight, not admissibility; Smith not qualified on medical causation. |
| Statute of limitations accrual | Injury discovery within 3-year period; August 2006 onset | Pre-2006 knee complaints show potential accrual earlier | Genuine dispute on accrual timing; denial of summary judgment on time bar. |
| Ballast preemption under FRSA | Ballast-related claims are not preempted by FRSA | Ballast-size/ballast-related claims precluded under FRSA regulation § 213.103 | Ballast claims premised on ballast size/support precluded; narrow ballast-related claims allowed if entirely separate from track safety. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hines v. Consol. Rail Corp., 926 F.2d 262 (3d Cir.1991) (FELA's negligence standard is lenient, not insurer's protection)
- Felton v. Southeastern Pa. Transp. Auth., 952 F.2d 59 (3d Cir.1991) (Four elements to prove under FELA)
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (Supreme Court 1993) (Daubert standards govern admissibility of expert testimony)
- Urie v. Thompson, 337 U.S. 163 (1949) (Accrual in gradual injuries tied to awareness of disease and cause)
- Wills v. Amerada Hess Corp., 379 F.3d 32 (2d Cir.2004) (Expert causation needed where multiple etiologies exist)
- Nickels v. Grand Trunk W. R.R., 560 F.3d 426 (6th Cir.2009) (FRSA preemption can bar state-law style claims; ballast regulation substantially subsumes ballast issues)
- Smelser v. Norfolk S. Ry. Co., 105 F.3d 299 (6th Cir.1997) (Biomechanics experts vs. medical causation opinions)