Hildebrand McLeod & Nelson LLP - Hildebrand McLeod & Nelson LLP
Representing Plaintiffs Since 1926

Call To Speak With An Attorney

Important COVID19 Update: We know this is a stressful time for many, so we want to reassure you HMN is taking every measure to ensure the welfare of our staff and the continuity of our service to our clients. HMN continues to work to ensure that our valued staff, clients and families are following all recommendations provided by our local, state and national leadership. We are actively communicating with the courts to reschedule any proceedings and will continue to inform our clients of those developments. HMN remains available at any time via phone calls, emails and video chat. We are here for you no matter what unexpected life changes occur and that remains true today.

We also wish to express our utmost gratitude to the healthcare professionals working tirelessly to care for our community. Our thoughts are with all those impacted by the Coronavirus.

Image from an actual HMN case, reproduced with permission

New Jersey rail employee case may have California implications

| Jan 8, 2019 | Uncategorized |

A New Jersey rail worker’s claim for benefits has been reinstated by an appeals court, allowing the case to proceed. The result may have implications for California rail workers.

At issue is a rail employee who fainted from overexposure to diesel and exhaust fumes from trucks while working in a rail tunnel in 2012. The worker was taken to a hospital where no physical damage was found.

The worker, a signal designer for Port Authority Trans Hudson Corp. identified as M.M., was placed under a psychiatrist’s care and returned to work one year after the incident, but quit several days later and then sued for emotional distress claiming she suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder.

FELA requirement for emotional distress

The Federal Employers Liability Act (FELA) covers railroad workers for emotional distress if the claim meets the “zone of danger” test – if the worker was placed in immediate risk of physical harm by the railroad or another defendant but escaped physical injury.

A New Jersey judge initially issued summary judgement, ruling ruled that M.M.’s case did not meet the “zone of danger” test. The judge cited a previous ruling that found a worker who was exposed to asbestos but was free of disease did not meet the test. If asbestos exposure didn’t meet the test, the judge reasoned, then diesel fumes wouldn’t meet the test either.

On appeal, M.M.’s legal team argued that, among other issues, the two cases were separate because in the asbestos case, the plaintiff sued because of his fear of contracting an illness in the future but M.M. had sustained an immediate symptom by fainting. M.M.’s PTSD developed after and as a result of fainting from the fumes.

M.M. suffered a physical impact from fumes

The appeals court agreed, saying that the case should be heard because M.M. did suffer physical impact which led to emotional distress.

FELA is the federal law that protects railroad workers and sets de-facto safety standards across the nation. The law has been in place since 1908 and provides both employees and companies with a uniform liability standard. Rulings in one state can apply to rail workers in any state across the nation.