Bridgman v. Union Pacific
2013 MT 289
Mont.2013Background
- Bridgman worked as a Union Pacific locomotive engineer (1972–2008) and sought treatment for back/leg pain multiple times from 1995 through 2008.
- Medical records show repeated complaints: chiropractic and medical visits in 1995, 1998, 2000, 2001, 2002–2005, and late 2007–Feb. 2008. On Dec. 14, 2000, his chiropractor noted work (carrying a heavy bag) as a possible contributor.
- On Feb. 22, 2008, Bridgman saw Dr. Cunningham (MRI showing degenerative disc disease), reported concern the problem might be job-related, and filed a Report of Personal Injury that day stating he first learned his condition might be work-caused on Feb. 22, 2008.
- Bridgman sued under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act (FELA) on Jan. 20, 2011 (three-year FELA statute of limitations issue).
- District Court granted summary judgment for Union Pacific, ruling Bridgman was on inquiry notice before the three-year limitations window (triggered by December 2000 at the latest) and denied Bridgman’s Rule 56(f) request for additional discovery.
- Montana Supreme Court majority affirmed summary judgment and denial of further discovery; two justices dissented, arguing genuine factual issues existed for a jury.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Bridgman’s FELA claim is time-barred under the 3-year statute | Bridgman contends he did not know his injury was work-related until Feb. 22, 2008, so the claim (filed Jan. 20, 2011) is timely | Union Pacific argues Bridgman had actual or inquiry notice of a possible work-related injury well before 2008 (e.g., Dec. 2000), so suit is untimely | Held: Affirmed — discovery rule and inquiry notice triggered the limitations period before the 3-year window; claim is time-barred |
| Whether specific knowledge of the precise occupational cause is required to start the limitations period | Bridgman argues he lacked knowledge of the specific job cause until 2008 | Union Pacific argues notice that work might be a possible cause triggers duty to investigate and starts the clock | Held: Court rejects "specific cause" requirement; knowing work may be a possible cause triggers the duty to investigate and accrual |
| Whether summary judgment was appropriate given the medical record and plaintiff affidavit | Bridgman argues factual disputes remain (symptoms before 2008 were different; whether he exercised due diligence) and should be for a jury | Union Pacific points to repeated medical records showing notice over many years and no material factual dispute | Held: Majority: no genuine issue of material fact on accrual; summary judgment proper. Dissent: factual disputes appropriate for jury |
| Whether denial of Bridgman’s request for additional discovery under M. R. Civ. P. 56(f) was an abuse of discretion | Bridgman sought discovery about whether Union Pacific misled him about signs/symptoms of cumulative trauma (relying on Bevacqua) | Union Pacific argued it had no notice of his injury prior to 2008 and plaintiff failed to show what discovery would change the limitations analysis | Held: Court held Bridgman failed to show what discovery would prevent summary judgment; denial of 56(f) not an abuse of discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Urie v. Thompson, 337 U.S. 163 (recognizing occupational disease accrual and requiring knowledge of injury and cause for accrual)
- Kubrick v. United States, 444 U.S. 111 (discovery rule: accrual when plaintiff knows or should know existence and cause of injury)
- Matson v. Burlington N. Santa Fe R.R., 240 F.3d 1233 (discovery rule applied in FELA; notice that work is a possible cause triggers duty to investigate)
- Fries v. Chicago & N.W. Transp. Co., 909 F.2d 1092 (rejecting need for knowledge of specific occupational cause to start limitations period)
- Bevacqua v. Union Pac. R.R. Co., 289 Mont. 36 (1998) (Montana case recognizing tolling where employer-controlled physicians mislead plaintiff)