JOHNSTOWN – Both Norfolk Southern and Conrail have denied liability for a Cambria County man and railroad laborer’s alleged exposure to a series of toxic chemicals, which he alleged led him to develop prostate cancer.
James Ronan of Ashville first filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania on Nov. 10 versus Norfolk Southern Railway Company of Atlanta, Ga.
(Consolidated Rail Corporation of Mount Laurel, N.J. was later added as a defendant.)
“On or about September 1969, plaintiff became employed by Penn Central Transportation Company as a laborer. In early 1971, he became a machinist helper and later in 1971, became a machinist. Penn Central Transportation Company was acquired by Consolidated Rail Corporation in 1976. In 1997, defendant acquired Conrail through a joint stock purchase. From 1997 until his retirement in 2000, plaintiff was employed by defendant,” the suit said.
“For approximately 20 years of his employment, plaintiff was employed in the Air Brake Shop at the railroad’s Juniata Works in Juniata, Blair County, Pennsylvania. In connection with his work in the Air Brake Shop, the plaintiff was exposed to and required to utilize solvents, cleaners, lubricants, and other chemicals which were known to have carcinogenic effects. During his employment, plaintiff was not provided with appropriate and necessary safety equipment to prevent or reduce his exposure to these chemicals.”
The suit added the defendant “did not provide any warning or effective instruction in the use of the chemicals to reduce or prevent exposure.”
“In January 2020, plaintiff was diagnosed with small cell neuroendocrine carcinoma of the prostate gland, an aggressive form of cancer. Small cell neuroendocrine carcinoma is caused in the vast majority of cases by cigarette smoking. Plaintiff never smoked or utilized any tobacco products during his lifetime. In March 2020, plaintiff was advised that his cancer, in the absence of a smoking history, was caused by chemical exposure,” the suit stated.
“Plaintiff believes and therefore avers that the various chemicals, solvents, cleansers, and other products he was required to use during his employment in the Air Brake Shop caused or contributed to his development of the small cell neuroendocrine carcinoma. As result of his diagnosis, plaintiff has been forced to incur significant medical expenses associated with the treatment and will be forced to continue to expend significant sums for future medical treatment, has a suffered a loss of earning capacity, and has suffered pain and mental anguish. Plaintiff claims damages against defendant in an amount to be shown by the evidence at the time of trial for his injuries, for his pain and suffering, past, present and future mental and physical, for his loss of earnings during the period of time that he has been disabled, for his loss of earning capacity in the future by reason of the injuries he has received and for the expenses of his medical treatment, both past and future.”
UPDATE
After an amended complaint was filed on Jan. 9 adding Consolidated Rail Corporation as a defendant and a second amended complaint was filed on March 8, each of the defendants separately filed identical answers to the complaint on April 10.
“Defendant avers that venue is improper and/or inconvenient in the federal court in the Western District of Pennsylvania and this matter should be dismissed and/or transferred to the appropriate jurisdiction. This Court lacks jurisdiction over the defendant, in that plaintiff’s cause of action did not arise in this jurisdiction, defendant does not reside in this jurisdiction, and defendant is not and was not doing business in this jurisdiction at the time this action was commenced,” the answers countered.
“Defendant believes and therefore avers, that all of plaintiff’s claims are barred by applicable statutes of limitation. Accordingly, defendant hereby pleads all applicable statutes of limitation as a complete bar to the entirety of plaintiff’s claims. While denying that 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 avers 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. And, accordingly, defendant pleads plaintiff’s contributory negligence in diminution of any award plaintiff may ultimately receive.”
Furthermore and among a series of other affirmative defenses, the defendants argued that the plaintiff’s claims are barred by the preclusive effect of the Locomotive Inspection Act (LIA), the Safety Appliance Act (SAA), the Federal Railroad Safety Act (FRSA) and all other applicable federal regulations and/or legislation.
In addition the defendants argued that the plaintiff’s alleged injuries and damages were caused, in whole or in part, by pre-existing conditions, or other contributory or concurrent conditions or factors, including events occurring prior or subsequent to the occurrence made the basis of plaintiff’s claim against the defendants.
For a count of violating the Federal Employers Liability Act, the plaintiff is seeking damages in excess of the jurisdictional minimum, plus costs, interest as allowable by law and other remedies at law or in equity, as this Honorable Court may deem just and proper.
The plaintiff is represented by Ronald P. Carnevali Jr. and Toby D. McIlwain of Spence Custer Saylor Wolfe & Rose, in Johnstown.
The defendants are represented by Jeffrey A. Jackson of Burns White, in Pittsburgh.
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania case 3:22-cv-00204
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com