Ragland v. BNSF Railway Co.
501 S.W.3d 761
| Tex. App. | 2016Background
- Plaintiff Willard Ragland sued BNSF under the FELA claiming cumulative‑trauma injuries to both knees (manifesting in early 2010 and culminating in August 2010 surgeries) and a negligent work‑assignment on August 2, 2010.
- Ragland had an acute left‑knee meniscus tear in June 2008, underwent successful surgery, was released to full duty, and executed a settlement/release with BNSF for the 2008 accident.
- Ragland first sought treatment for right‑knee pain in February–March 2010 (MRI showed a right meniscus tear); by July 2010 he reported bilateral knee pain and then accepted a temporary rail‑gang assignment starting August 2, 2010.
- On August 2, 2010 Ragland was assigned to operate a pregauger (requiring walking). He did not disclose knee problems when first assigned; he later reported knee pain to supervisors that day and left for medical care after an event at ~12:30 p.m.; he had bilateral meniscus repairs in August 2010.
- BNSF moved for summary judgment: (1) traditional SJ arguing cumulative‑trauma claims accrued in June 2008 and were time‑barred by the 3‑year FELA statute; (2) traditional and no‑evidence SJ contending no proof supported negligent assignment because Ragland did not give adequate notice and produced no evidence that the assignment caused additional injury.
- Trial court sustained BNSF’s objections to part of Ragland’s affidavit and granted summary judgment on both negligent‑assignment and cumulative‑trauma claims; appellate court affirms dismissal of negligent‑assignment but reverses dismissal of cumulative‑trauma claims and remands.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether cumulative‑trauma claims accrued more than 3 years before suit (statute of limitations). | Ragland: 2008 left injury was an acute, discrete event; the bilateral cumulative‑trauma injuries manifested in early 2010, so suit filed Nov 5, 2012 was timely. | BNSF: 2008 diagnosis put Ragland on notice of cumulative trauma to knees; claims accrued in June 2008 and are time‑barred. | Reversed in part — fact issues exist for both knees (cannot as a matter of law find accrual in 2008); summary judgment on cumulative‑trauma claims improper. |
| Whether Ragland’s right‑knee claim accrued before Nov 5, 2009. | Ragland: right knee was asymptomatic until early 2010; medical records and statements show first treatment in 2010. | BNSF: February/March 2010 records describing chronic pain and MRI degenerative changes show earlier onset that should have put him on notice. | Fact issue — evidence conflicting; reasonable person standard not conclusively met for accrual before limitation date. |
| Whether Ragland’s left‑knee cumulative‑trauma claim accrued in 2008 (acute vs. cumulative cause). | Ragland: 2008 injury resulted from an acute event (stepping from the truck) and post‑op recovery left him asymptomatic until 2010; thus 2010 symptoms are a new cumulative injury. | BNSF: medical notes and intra‑operative findings (chondromalacia, plica) indicate wear/degeneration from repetitive stress so accrual was 2008. | Fact issue — medical records do not conclusively show cumulative etiology in 2008; summary judgment improper on left knee. |
| Whether negligent work‑assignment claim (Aug 2, 2010) survives summary judgment. | Ragland: he informed supervisors that the pregauger was causing "severe" knee pain (at 10 a.m. or by lunch) yet was told to continue, so BNSF negligently continued assignment. | BNSF: Ragland did not disclose limitations before assignment; even if informed later, there is no evidence that continued work caused additional injury or aggravation — no causation. | Affirmed — summary judgment proper. Even accepting Ragland’s account, no evidence that BNSF’s continuing the assignment caused additional injury; plaintiff failed to plead or prove aggravation. |
Key Cases Cited
- BNSF Ry. Co. v. Phillips, 485 S.W.3d 908 (Tex. 2015) (FELA accrual and discovery rule; accrual when cumulative effects manifest and plaintiff knows or should know critical facts of injury and causation)
- Urie v. Thompson, 337 U.S. 163 (U.S. 1949) (FELA accrual when accumulated effects of working conditions manifest)
- Bealer v. Missouri Pacific R.R. Co., 951 F.2d 38 (5th Cir. 1991) (plaintiff bears burden to prove FELA claim timely; accrual when plaintiff knows or should know injury is work‑related)
- CSX Transp., Inc. v. McBride, 564 U.S. 685 (U.S. 2011) (FELA causation standard — railroad liable if negligence played any part in producing injury)
- Emmons v. Southern Pacific Transportation Co., 701 F.2d 1112 (5th Cir. 1983) (no need for formal diagnosis for accrual if plaintiff otherwise knew or should have known injury was work‑related)
- BNSF Ry. Co. v. Nichols, 379 S.W.3d 378 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2012) (FELA causation—plaintiff must show probable causal relationship, not merely possible causation)