PITTSBURGH – A Western Pennsylvania man has reiterated claims that his Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma is the result of many years of exposure to toxic substances in his work duties for the Buffalo and Pittsburgh Railroad.
Tony A. Koladish of Brookville first filed suit in the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas on Jan. 13 versus Buffalo and Pittsburgh Railroad, of Rochester, N.Y.
“Throughout his career from Sept. 22, 1975 through Dec. 31, 2018, Tony A. Koladish was employed by defendant as a car repairman, hostler and locomotive engineer, and the injuries and damages were sustained by him while engaged in the course of his duties and in furtherance of interstate commerce and directly or closely and substantially affecting such commerce,” the suit said.
“From Sept. 22, 1975 through April 30, 1996, while working as a car repairman, hostler and locomotive engineer for defendant in the Brookville Yard in Brookville, Pennsylvania, plaintiff was exposed on a daily basis to excessive amounts of diesel exhaust/fumes, benzene, solvents and degreasers, and herbicides.”
The plaintiff continued describing his various and alleged toxic substance exposures.
“From May 1, 1996 through Dec. 31, 2018, while working as a locomotive engineer for defendant in the Dubois Yard in Dubois, Pennsylvania, plaintiff was exposed on a daily basis to excessive amounts of diesel exhaust/fumes, benzene, solvents, degreasers and herbicides,” per the suit.
“From Sept. 22, 1975 through Dec. 31, 2018, plaintiff was exposed to excessive amounts of diesel exhaust/fumes that were produced and expelled by the operation of diesel powered locomotives and diesel powered on track equipment; solvents and degreasers used in repairing freight cars; and herbicides from ‘spray trains.”
“From Sept. 22, 1975 through Dec. 31, 2018, while working as a car repairman, hostler and locomotive engineer for defendant, plaintiff’s exposures were cumulative and occurred throughout all locations where plaintiff was assigned to work on a daily basis during working hours.”
The plaintiff alleged that his exposure to diesel exhaust/fumes, benzene, solvents, degreasers and herbicides, in whole or in part, caused or contributed to his development of Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma, diagnosed on Jan. 22, 2018, and that failure to protect him from the aforementioned substances reflected negligence on the part of the defendant, in violation of federal laws.
UPDATE
Attorneys for the railroad filed an answer to the lawsuit along with new matter on March 15, denying the allegations in large part and in new matter, claiming that the plaintiff may have contributed to his own injuries.
“Plaintiff’s complaint, as to this defendant, fails to state a valid cause and/or causes of action upon which relief may be granted and should be dismissed. While denying that the plaintiff sustained the injuries and/or damages as alleged, if it would ultimately be proven that the plaintiff did sustain the damages and/or injuries in the fashion alleged, defendant believes and therefore aver that plaintiff’s own negligence may have and/or did contribute, in whole or in part, to the happening and/or occurrence of the alleged injuries,” the new matter stated, in part.
“And, accordingly, defendant pleads plaintiff’s contributory negligence in diminution of any award plaintiff may ultimately receive. While denying that the plaintiff sustained the damages as alleged, defendant believes and therefore avers that any damages the plaintiff may ultimately be entitled to recover from these defendants may or are possibly limited in scope by the provisions of the Federal Employers’ Liability Act, and said recovery may be limited as to those damages specifically enunciated therein.”
The railroad further believes that the plaintiff’s claims are barred by the preclusive effect of the Locomotive Inspection Act, the Safety Appliance Act, the Federal Railroad Safety Act and any and all regulations promulgated pursuant to the FRSA, and any and all other applicable federal regulations and/or legislation, in addition to the claims at issue being barred by the statute of limitations and the choice of venue allegedly being improper.
On March 25, counsel for Koladish responded to the defendant’s new matter and denied it outright.
“The allegations in these paragraphs are legal conclusions to which no response is required pursuant to the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. To the extent the allegations are deemed to be factual, those allegations are specifically denied, and strict proof thereof is demanded at trial. To the extent these allegations attempt to interpret, discuss, or characterize Pennsylvania substantive or statutory law, the law speaks for itself and any interpretation, discussion or characterization of the law by defendants is specifically denied,” the response stated.
For counts of Federal Employers Liability Act and Locomotive Inspection Act-related violations, the plaintiff is seeking damages in excess of $50,000, costs and a trial by jury.
The plaintiff is represented by Hailey A. Tutton of Bern Cappelli, in Conshohocken.
The defendant is represented by T.H. Lyda and Edwin B. Palmer of Burns White, in Pittsburgh.
Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas case GD-21-000459
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com