the Kansas City Southern Railway Company v. Ronald K. Oney, Individually and as Representative of the Estate of Daniel D. Oney
380 S.W.3d 795
Tex. App.2012Background
- Oney filed a FELA claim against The Kansas City Southern Railway Co. for decedent Daniel Oney’s asbestos, silica, and related exposures that allegedly caused lung cancer and death in 2010.
- KCSR moved to dismiss for failure to serve Chapter 90 medical reports; MDL court denied, finding Chapter 90 reporting not required in this FELA context.
- Chapter 90 imposes timely medical-report requirements (sections 90.003–90.004) and a dismissal mechanism (section 90.007) with a stay of proceedings when a motion to dismiss is filed.
- The MDL court’s later orders and discovery orders compelled pathology evidence; the trial court also denied the Chapter 90 dismissal motion.
- Oney appealed the interlocutory denial of the 90 motion under Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 51.014(a)(11); the issue centers on whether Chapter 90 is preempted by FELA.
- The Texas Supreme Court in In re GlobalSantaFe held portions of Chapter 90 not preempted for silica claims, guiding the preemption analysis for asbestos claims under FELA.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Chapter 90 report provisions are preempted by FELA. | Oney argues Chapter 90’s report requirements are preempted by FELA. | KCSR contends Chapter 90 can operate alongside FELA and is not preempted. | Chapter 90 report requirements and dismissal provisions are preempted to the extent they burden FELA rights. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re GlobalSantaFe Corp., 275 S.W.3d 477 (Tex. 2008) (preemption analysis: some Chapter 90 provisions not preempted; silica-related reporting preserved; MDL transfer not preempted; minimal-impairment provision for silica preempted)
- Felder v. Casey, 487 U.S. 131 (U.S. 1988) (notice-of-suit preemption discussion; exhaustion rules; not controlling for Chapter 90 as such)
- Brown v. Western Railway of Alabama, 338 U.S. 294 ((1949)) (general principle that state law cannot create obstacles to federal remedies)
- Dutton v. Southern Pacific Transp., 576 S.W.2d 782 (Tex. 1978) (FELA causation standard and its modest burden compared to common-law)
- Abraham v. Union Pacific R.R. Co., 233 S.W.3d 13 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2007) (discusses FELA preemption implications for expert testimony)
- Mo. Pac. Ry. Co. v. Cross, 501 S.W.2d 868 (Tex. 1973) (Rule: FELA substantive rights; state procedure typically applied)
- Norfolk Southern Ry. Co. v. Bogle, 875 N.E.2d 919 (Ohio 2007) (discovery stay and dismissal consequences under related statutes)