Railroad Tries to Dismiss Employee Lawsuit

Norfolk Southern Railway Company has filed a motion to dismiss a lawsuit against it, alleging that a former employee has falsified a workplace injury.

The former railroad worker filed his workplace injury lawsuit in September 2015, but Norfolk states that the federal court in which it was filed lacks subject matter jurisdiction.

The man claims that he was working for Norfolk in March 2012 when he tried to release a hand brake and hurt his back, which was diagnosed as a severe lumbar sprain.

Federal-Employee-Liability

When he asked for an injury document from the railroad because he was immobile, the company would not do so. He also claims that Norfolk obtained unauthorized medical records from his hospital while he was undergoing treatment. The company then accused him of falsifying a work injury through letters and also requested a hearing for not promptly reporting the injury.

The complaint also alleges that the worker was not paid for his 2010 time slips, and after he had recovered from an eye injury, he was not allowed to go back to work by the company’s doctor.

Our FELA attorneys in Virginia Beach have represented many former railroad workers who suffered injuries on the job. While we cannot comment on whether or not the man in the case above falsified his injury, we do know that railroads will try their utmost to deny rightful claims for injured workers.

We represented a railroad worker who was injured in April 2003 when he was walking along a railroad track checking air brakes on a train. His foot suddenly fell into a depression in the ballast rock. This caused a serious lower back injury. He was subsequently totally disabled from his work at 37 years old.

Our law firm in Virginia determined what had caused the sudden depression in the ballast rock by retaining a hydro-geologist who examined the water flow in that region. We were able to prove that the track was constructed improperly which led to small voids and open gaps in the ballast rock. We settled that case for $900,000.

 

Tags: , ,