How To Deal With Railroad Claim Agents

Posted on November 23, 2009 by Charlie Goetsch

Joe Coleman from Seattle asks whether union reps can be present when a worker gives a statement to a railroad claims agent. The real question is, why would a railroad worker NOT have his union rep present?

No way can there be ever be a level playing field between a claim agent and an injured worker. Think about it. A claim agent is a manager whose only job is to save the railroad money. He is a professional trained to ask leading questions that steer the worker into incriminating answers that will insulate the railroad from liability. The injured worker, on the other hand, finds himself suddenly thrust into a bewildering process with no idea how to protect his legal interests.

Always remember, you don't have to give a statement to a claim agent. If a claim agent asks you to come in and give a statement, ask the claim agent if your union rep can be there with you. If the answer is no, that is all the proof of unfairness you need, and just walk away.

Before giving any statement, it is always best to at least consult with an experienced FELA attorney who can advise you how to protect your long term interests. But at the very least, talk to an experienced union rep who can be there to keep the claim agent honest.

So don't be fooled by the "friendly" claim agent who just "wants to help" and, by the way, just needs to take a "short statement on the record" before he will process your medical bills and so on. He will smile and joke and take your statement, and then months or years later when you go to settle your claim, he will pull out your statement and say, "Gee, what do you want from us? You yourself stated it was just an accident that could not have been avoided. You're lucky we even paid your medical bills."

Tags: , ,

Groundbreaking Decision On FRSA Medical Interference

Posted on November 12, 2009 by Charlie Goetsch

 

Railroad Medical Departments, beware, you can no longer interfere with an injured employee's medical treatment. Subsection (c) of the Federal Rail Safety Act prohibits a railroad from denying, delaying, or interfering with the medical treatment of an injured employee. The FRSA also prohibits a railroad from disciplining an employee for following the orders or treatment plan of his treating doctor. The railroads argue this FRSA protection only applies to an injured employee's emergency medical treatment. But in the first decision interpreting the meaning and scope of FRSA subsection (c), Administrative Law Judge Colleen A. Geraghty has made it clear the FRSA's

provisions protect employees from interference with medical care or the treatment plan of a treating physician during the course of treatment and recovery from a work injury. . . . Accordingly, an employer's changing the classification of an injury occurring at the workplace to a non-occupational injury may rise to the level of "interference with medical treatment" depending on the circumstances. 

For a link to the full opinion, click Santiago v. Metro North Railroad. Metro North had reported Santiago's on the job injury to the FRA as occupational and paid for Santiago's medical bills accordingly. But then in the middle of his treatment, the Metro North Medical Department unilaterally reclassified Santiago's injury as non-occupational (without amending its FRA report), thus forcing him to choose between forgoing his treating doctor's medical treatment plan or paying for it from his own funds. The result? He now has personally paid or owes over $16,000 in medical bills. His case is going to trial next week. Stay tuned for any punitive damage award.

Tags: , , , ,

When Is A Railroad Worker On Duty?

Posted on November 2, 2009 by Charlie Goetsch

 

An OSHA whistleblower investigator recently asked whether railroad employees are considered to be on duty within the scope of their employement when walking over railroad property prior to the beginning of their shift or when leaving railroad property after their shift is over. Funny she asked me. The leading court decision happens to be a case I tried 20 years ago, Dolores Schneider v. National Railroad Passenger Corp.

The short answer is yes. The appellate court ruled that an "employee traversing the employer's premises to report to or to leave the job within a reasonable time of her shift is fulfilling a function necessarily incident to employment" and thus considered to be on duty within the scope of employment.

So don't let the railroad tell you otherwise. When a railroad worker gets injured just before or after their shift begins or ends, their injury is still covered by the Federal Employers' Liability Act (FELA), and the railroad must report it to the FRA as an "on-duty injury" that is shielded from any adverse action by the Federal Rail Safety Act (FRSA).

Tags: