Shutter v. CSX Transportation, Inc.
130 A.3d 1143
Md. Ct. Spec. App.2016Background
- Melody Shutter, a long‑time CSX employee, had L4‑5 and L5‑S1 fusion surgery in 2003 and executed a Release in July 2003 for repetitive‑strain injuries to her low back, accepting $68,000 and acknowledging the risk of progression and future surgery.
- She returned to work and later (2011) developed radiculopathy from an L3‑4 disc herniation/adjacent‑disc disease requiring surgery in November 2011.
- Shutter sued CSX under the FELA in 2013, alleging repetitive trauma and that CSX negligently assigned her work and failed to provide assistance after her partner was transferred.
- CSX moved for summary judgment arguing the 2003 Release barred Shutter’s claim and that her case was time‑barred; CSX also moved to exclude Shutter’s liability expert as untimely.
- The circuit court: excluded parol evidence about the Release, excluded Shutter’s ergonomics liability expert, and granted summary judgment on two independent grounds—(1) the Release barred the claim; and (2) without an admissible liability expert Shutter could not establish breach of the standard of care. The court denied summary judgment on limitations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Scope/validity of 2003 Release under FELA §5 | Release limited to progression at L4‑5/L5‑S1; 2011 L3‑4 herniation is a new, distinct injury; parol evidence about Claim Rep’s statement should be admissible | Release unambiguous: covers the original injury, its progression, and related conditions/risks (including adjacent‑disc disease); Release is a valid compromise of a known risk under FELA; parol evidence excluded | Release is unambiguous and bars Shutter’s claim; parol evidence properly excluded; Release does not violate §5 of FELA (valid compromise of known risk) |
| Exclusion of liability expert and effect on negligence claim | Court abused discretion in excluding Dr. Nussbaum; and even if excluded, jury could infer negligence without a liability expert | Expert testimony was required to establish railroad staffing/safety standards; Dr. Nussbaum was untimely and his deposition showed he would not opine that CSX breached the standard of care | Expert testimony was necessary; exclusion harmless because Dr. Nussbaum’s deposition showed he would not provide the necessary breach opinion; summary judgment proper for failure to make prima facie negligence case |
| Admissibility of CSX’s tuition‑offer evidence | (raised by Shutter) | CSX argued such evidence admissible (court ruled it would be) | Court ruled evidence of CSX’s offer to pay college tuition would be admissible at trial (issue not dispositive given other grounds) |
| Statute of limitations (cross‑appeal) | Shutter argued claim not time‑barred | CSX argued FELA 3‑year limit barred claim | Trial court denied summary judgment on limitations; appellate court did not decide because judgment affirmed on other grounds |
Key Cases Cited
- Blackwell v. CSX Transp., Inc., 220 Md. App. 113 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2014) (adopts and applies the "known risk" test to uphold a release under the FELA)
- Callen v. Pennsylvania R.R. Co., 332 U.S. 625 (1948) (release that is a valid compromise of a claimed liability does not violate FELA)
- Boyd v. Grand Trunk W. R.R. Co., 338 U.S. 263 (1949) (distinguishes valid compromises from devices that obstruct a plaintiff's FELA recovery)
- Wicker v. Consolidated Rail Corp., 142 F.3d 690 (3d Cir. 1998) (known‑risk test: releases valid if they compromise known risks and the release terms chronicle scope/duration of those risks)