PHILADELPHIA – The Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority (SEPTA) has denied liability for the death of one of its former conductors from COVID-19, charging his estate has failed to properly plead such a claim.
The Estate of Michael A. Hill of Gloucester, N.J. first filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on Feb. 23 versus SEPTA, of Philadelphia.
“On or about April 2, 2020, plaintiff arrived at his job, as a conductor for SEPTA. As the day progressed, Mr. Hill was having trouble breathing and experiencing fatigue and stomach issues. On April 4, 2020, Mr. Hill went to Inspira Medical Center because he started coughing up blood and mucus,” the suit said.
“On April 5, 2020, Mr. Hill was admitted to the ICU. On April 6, 2020, Mr. Hill was placed on a ventilator. On April 14, 2022, Mr. Hill died from complications due to COVID-19.”
The suit added that the plaintiff’s injuries were caused in whole or in part by the negligence, carelessness and recklessness of the defendants, insomuch that it failed to provide the plaintiff with a safe place to work as required by the Federal Employers Liability Act, failed to ensure that appropriate personal protective equipment was available and used, failed to communicate with the conductors regarding COVID-19 regulations and failed to communicate with the work gangs regarding their co-workers having COVID-19.
“As a result of the aforesaid, plaintiff died from complications due to COVID-19. As a result of the aforesaid, plaintiff had incurred a medically determinable physical impairment which prevented plaintiff from performing all or substantially all of the material acts and duties which constitute his usual and customary work and limited his mobility and daily activities as well as enjoyment of life. As a direct result of the defendants’ negligence, through their agents, servants, workmen and/or employees, the plaintiff was unable to attend to his usual duties and occupations, all of which caused substantial financial loss,” the suit stated.
UPDATE
SEPTA filed a motion to dismiss the case on April 24, for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. According to SEPTA, the complaint is “rife with threadbare and vague allegations that fail to place the Court (or SEPTA) on notice of the grounds for its claim” and fail to connect Hill’s fatal case of COVID-19 to his employment at SEPTA.
“Plaintiff’s complaint utterly fails to meet the legal standard for a motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) – not only is the complaint replete with unsupported and conclusory allegations, but it likewise fails to state a cognizable claim under FELA. To prevail on a claim under the FELA, a plaintiff must prove four elements: (1) The defendant is a common carrier by railroad engaged in interstate commerce; (2) The plaintiff was employed by the defendant and assigned to perform duties that furthered such commerce; (3) The injuries were sustained while the plaintiff was employed by the common carrier; and (4) The plaintiff’s injuries resulted from the defendant’s negligence. Accordingly, in order to establish a prima facie claim under FELA, a plaintiff must prove the elements of a common law negligence action: duty, breach, foreseeability and causation,” the dismissal motion stated.
“Plaintiff has failed to allege any facts whatsoever about how or where Mr. Hill contracted COVID-19 and, more specifically, plaintiff fails to allege any connection between his purported exposure to COVID-19 and his job duties at SEPTA. Rather, plaintiff asserts that Mr. Hill ‘felt ill’ during his shift at SEPTA, and makes the wholly tenuous and speculative conclusion that Mr. Hill’s illness was caused by SEPTA’s negligence. Indeed, breaking the complaint down to its most basic form, plaintiff asserts only that Mr. Hill was a SEPTA employee and passed away from complications due to COVID-19 – without more, these are two separate and unconnected events. There are simply no facts in the complaint to support a claim for negligence under the FELA, and the complaint’s threadbare assertions completely fail to satisfy the legal standard for a motion to dismiss. Therefore, plaintiff’s complaint fails as a matter of law and should be dismissed.”
For counts of violating the Federal Employers Liability Act, the plaintiff is seeking all remedies available.
The plaintiff is represented by Robert S. Goggin III of Keller & Goggin, in Philadelphia.
The defendant is represented by Amy C. Lachowicz and Daniel J. McGravey of Clark Hill, also in Philadelphia.
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania case 2:23-cv-00702
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com