Cogan v. National Railroad Passenger Corporation
1:12-cv-01090
| N.D.N.Y. | Mar 27, 2015

Background

  • Plaintiff David Cogan, an Amtrak conductor/lead service attendant employed since 1991, sued under FELA for back and elbow injuries allegedly caused by lifting luggage, shoveling snow, fighting frozen doors, and a 2011 train incident.
  • Medical records and deposition testimony show Cogan experienced back pain and sought treatment as early as 2003–2004, with chiropractic care in 2008–2009; he testified he believed by 2006–2007 that work contributed to his back problems.
  • Cogan asserts distinct, later injuries in March and May 2011 (snow shoveling and a sudden-stop train accident); his expert opined the 2011 events contributed to his condition, but records reference shoveling at home on March 8, 2011.
  • Defendant moved for partial summary judgment that the back-claim is time-barred (FELA 3-year statute) and, in a supplemental motion, sought dismissal for lack of evidence that Amtrak breached its duty or that repetitive-stress caused the back injury.
  • Court found record evidence establishes Cogan knew of his back injury and its work-related cause more than three years before filing; his late-asserted distinct 2011 injuries were raised for the first time in opposition and lack admissible support.
  • Result: summary judgment granted as to Cogan’s back claim (statute of limitations); denial of summary judgment as to elbow claims—triable issue whether Amtrak failed to enforce baggage-weight policy causing elbow injuries.

Issues

Issue Plaintiff's Argument Defendant's Argument Held
Whether Cogan’s back claim is barred by FELA’s 3-year statute Cogan contends distinct/new injuries and aggravations occurred in 2011; earlier complaints were temporary Amtrak argues Cogan knew of his back injury and its work-related cause before the limitations period Granted for Amtrak — back claim time-barred (Cogan knew of injury/causation before 3-year window)
Whether later 2011 events constitute a distinct cause accruing within 3 years Cites affidavit and expert attributing 2011 snow-shoveling and train incident to injury Amtrak notes these theories were not pled earlier and lack admissible supporting evidence Rejected — 2011 theories raised for first time and unsupported by admissible record evidence
Whether prior symptoms were temporary such that accumulation became actionable within 3 years Cogan argues earlier pain was temporary and became permanent only within the 3-year window Amtrak shows records and testimony that pain was chronic/recurring and Cogan believed work caused it by ~2006–2007 Rejected — evidence shows non‑temporary, ongoing injury before limitations period
Whether triable issue exists for elbow injuries (Amtrak breached duty by not enforcing baggage limits) Cogan points to testimony that weight limits weren’t enforced, verbal complaints ignored, and policy change only in 2012 after surgeries Amtrak contends no proof of breach or that repetitive-stress conditions are unsafe without expert proof Denied for Amtrak — factual disputes (policy non‑enforcement, complaints, timing) preclude summary judgment on elbow claims

Key Cases Cited

  • Rogers v. Missouri Pacific R. Co., 352 U.S. 500 (1957) (FELA relaxed causation standard; employer negligence need only play any part)
  • Urie v. Thompson, 337 U.S. 163 (1949) (discovery rule for gradual injuries under FELA; accrual when injury manifests)
  • Gottshall v. Consolidated Rail Corp., 512 U.S. 532 (1994) (FELA construed liberally but is not strict employer-insurance; negligence remains basis)
  • Mix v. Delaware and Hudson Ry. Co., 345 F.3d 82 (2d Cir. 2003) (FELA accrual for gradual injuries; distinct-injury and aggravation rules)
  • Tufariello v. Long Island R.R. Co., 458 F.3d 80 (2d Cir. 2006) (railroad duty to provide safe workplace; knowledge/notice required for breach)
  • Syverson v. Consolidated Rail Corp., 19 F.3d 824 (2d Cir. 1994) (FELA summary judgment standard; case must stand unless no reasonable basis for jury for plaintiff)
  • Gallose v. Long Island R.R. Co., 878 F.2d 80 (2d Cir. 1989) (employer liable under FELA when it knew or should have known of hazard and failed to act)
  • Fonseca v. Consolidated Rail Corp., 246 F.3d 585 (6th Cir. 2001) (distinguishing temporary symptoms that recur from accumulation that becomes permanent for accrual analysis)
  • Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986) (moving party’s initial burden on summary judgment)
  • Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986) (materiality and genuineness standards for summary judgment)
  • Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 (1986) (nonmoving party must present evidence creating genuine issue)
  • Kerzer v. Kingly Mfg., 156 F.3d 396 (2d Cir. 1998) (conclusory allegations insufficient to defeat summary judgment)
  • Burlington Coat Factory Warehouse Corp. v. Esprit de Corp., 769 F.2d 919 (2d Cir. 1985) (inadmissible hearsay insufficient to create triable issue)
  • United States v. Kubrick, 444 U.S. 111 (1979) (discovery rule principles for accrual and knowledge)
Read the full case