Owens v. Union Pacific Railroad Company
8:19-cv-00071
| D. Neb. | Apr 15, 2021Background
- Owens worked for Union Pacific from 1977–2011 as a switchman, brakeman, and conductor and alleges long‑term workplace exposure to diesel exhaust, asbestos, creosote, benzene, and other toxins.
- Owens had colon cancer treated in 2011; he was diagnosed with kidney cancer in June 2015 and underwent a partial nephrectomy in July 2015.
- At diagnosis Owens asked his physician whether the kidney cancer was related to his prior colon cancer and was told it was not; he did not receive any definitive medical opinion linking the kidney cancer to his railroad work in 2015.
- Owens testified he did not learn or believe his kidney cancer was work‑related until 2017; he filed this FELA suit on February 11, 2019.
- Union Pacific moved for summary judgment arguing the FELA three‑year statute of limitations began to run at diagnosis in June 2015, rendering the February 2019 complaint time‑barred.
- The court denied summary judgment, finding unresolved factual issues about when Owens knew or should have known the cause of his injury and whether he exercised reasonable diligence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Owens) | Defendant's Argument (Union Pacific) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| When did the FELA statute of limitations accrue for Owens’s kidney cancer claim? | Accrual did not occur until 2017 when Owens first learned the cancer could be work‑related; suit filed within three years. | Accrual occurred at diagnosis in June 2015; suit filed in 2019 is time‑barred. | Court: Trial‑worthy factual dispute exists about when Owens knew or should have known the cause, so summary judgment on SOL denied. |
| Did Owens have inquiry notice or a duty to investigate the cause of his cancer in 2015? | He asked doctors in 2015 and was told the kidney cancer was not related to his colon cancer; that response and lack of public information dispelled suspicion. | A reasonably diligent person would have investigated sooner; objective inquiry should start at diagnosis. | Court: Reasonable diligence is a fact question here; doctors’ responses and lack of contrary public evidence create a triable issue. |
| Was summary judgment appropriate on causation/necessity of expert proof? | Owens need not show definitive causation at summary judgment; discovery rule and FELA’s relaxed causation apply. | If accrual began at diagnosis, the case is time‑barred regardless of causation evidence. | Court: Because accrual is disputed, summary judgment on SOL is inappropriate; causation questions remain for later stages. |
Key Cases Cited
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986) (summary judgment standard)
- United States v. Kubrick, 444 U.S. 111 (1979) (accrual when plaintiff reasonably should know cause)
- Urie v. Thompson, 337 U.S. 163 (1949) (discovery rule for latent occupational injuries)
- Consolidated Rail Corp. v. Gottshall, 512 U.S. 532 (1994) (FELA negligence framework)
- CSX Transp., Inc. v. McBride, 564 U.S. 685 (2011) (relaxed causation standard under FELA)
- White v. Union Pac. R.R. Co., 867 F.3d 997 (8th Cir. 2017) (accrual requires awareness or constructive awareness of injury and cause)
- Brooks v. Union Pac. R.R. Co., 620 F.3d 896 (8th Cir. 2010) (expert testimony may be required to establish causation for latent injuries)
- Torgerson v. City of Rochester, 643 F.3d 1031 (8th Cir. 2011) (movant’s burden on summary judgment in the Eighth Circuit)