Case Title: Ex Parte Wilkerson

Citation: 795 So. 2d 663

Docket Number: 1990769

State: alabama

Court: Alabama Supreme Court

Date: 2000-09-08T00:00:00Z

Document:
795 So. 2d 663 (2000)
Ex parte Thomas Edison WILKERSON.
(Re Thomas Edison Wilkerson v. Burlington Northern Railroad Company and Illinois Central Railroad Company).
1990769.

Supreme Court of Alabama.
September 8, 2000.
Rehearing Denied January 5, 2001.
*664 Ronald T. Dudley, Jr., of Environmental Litigation Group, P.C., Birmingham, for petitioner.
Turner B. Williams, J. Clinton Pittman, and Kevin T. Shires of Sadler Sullivan, Birmingham, for respondent Burlington Northern Railroad Company.
Robert D. Anderkanic of Gundlach, Lee, Eggmann, Boyle & Roessler, Belleville, Illinois; and Michael D. Quillen of Walston, Wells, Anderson & Bains, Birmingham, for respondent Illinois Central Railroad Company.
MADDOX, Justice.
This case presents the question whether the statute of limitations bars the plaintiffs action to recover damages for injuries he alleges he suffered as a result of an alleged workplace exposure to asbestos. For the reasons discussed below, we conclude that that question may not be answered until a jury determines when the plaintiffs cause of action accrued.
Thomas Edison Wilkerson sued his former employers, Burlington Northern Railroad Company ("Burlington") and Illinois Central Railroad Company ("Illinois Central"), alleging "severe injury to his body and respiratory system, resulting in ... impairment, disability and occupationally related disease." He claims the injury was caused by exposure to asbestos over a roughly 30-year period he worked for the defendants. He also alleged:
The defendants moved for a summary judgment; the trial court granted their motions. Wilkerson appealed to this Court from the summary judgment for the defendants. Pursuant to § 12-2-7(6), Ala. Code 1975, this Court transferred the appeal to the Court of Civil Appeals. The Court of Civil Appeals affirmed. Wilkerson v. Burlington N. R.R., 795 So. 2d 657 (Ala.Civ.App.1999). We granted Wilkerson's petition for certiorari review. We now reverse and remand.
The trial court entered the summary judgment on the conclusion that Wilkerson had not filed his action within the three-year statute-of-limitations period of the Federal Employers' Liability Act ("FELA"). See 45 U.S.C. § 56. The Court of Civil Appeals affirmed, on the same rationale. However, two of the Judges of that court dissented, concluding that the statute of limitations did not bar this action.
In Kindred v. Burlington Northern Railroad Co., 742 So. 2d 155 (Ala.1999), this Court recently considered another case wherein the plaintiff brought an asbestos-related FELA action. In that case, Justice Cook wrote for the Court:
742 So. 2d  at 157. In Kindred, the plaintiff had testified in a deposition as follows:
742 So. 2d  at 157. This Court held that Kindred's deposition testimony raised an issue of fact to be resolved by a jury:
742 So. 2d  at 158.
In this case, the evidence tends to show that in 1984 Wilkerson attended a meeting organized by his union to discuss with union members the possibility that they could have been exposed to asbestos in their workplaces. Attorneys were present at that meeting, and they told union members that the members could sign up for medical examinations to determine whether they were suffering from asbestos exposure. Wilkerson signed up for an evaluation. Several months later, Dr. James A. Merchant wrote the following in a letter he sent to Wilkerson:
(C.R. at 343.) Wilkerson was subsequently evaluated by Dr. John F. Finklea. Dr. Finklea wrote in a report:
(C.R. at 350.) Wilkerson received a copy of this report in October 1985.
In his deposition, Wilkerson testified:
(C.R. at 330.)
Dr. Merchant and Dr. Finklea both submitted affidavits, which Wilkerson attached *667 to his motion in opposition to summary judgment. In their affidavits, they both state unequivocally that they did not diagnose Wilkerson with asbestosis. Dr. Finklea's report appears consistent with those affidavits. Dr. Finklea's report states that Wilkerson had "subtle shortness of breath demonstrable with exertion," and it lists "mild restrictive lung dysfunction" as a "clinical impression." However, his report appears to stop short of diagnosing Wilkerson with asbestosis. He speaks in terms of "increased risk for developing pulmonary asbestosis" and advises "medical examinations directed towards early detection and treatment of asbestos-related diseases." Further, following his receipt of Dr. Finklea's report, Wilkerson went to his family physician and provided his physician with a copy of the report. His physician told him that he had not contracted an asbestos-related disease. (C.R. at 329.)
Given these facts, two Judges of the Court of Civil Appeals concluded (with one Judge concurring in the result):
795 So. 2d  at 662. However, the dissenting Judges wrote: "I do not understand how one could have a cause of action for having an asbestos-related disease until he actually has the disease. Having an increased chance of getting the disease cannot trigger the statute of limitations period." 795 So. 2d  at 663 (Monroe, J., dissenting, joined by Yates, J.).
Based on the evidence discussed above, we conclude that a disputed question of fact exists as to "when the plaintiff possess[ed] sufficient critical facts from which the injury and its cause, including its work-relatedness, should [have been] plainly known." See Kindred, supra, 742 So. 2d  at 157. Accordingly, the date Wilkerson's cause of action accrued is a question for the jury. The summary judgment for the defendants was therefore inappropriate, and the Court of Civil Appeals' judgment affirming it is due to be reversed.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
HOOPER, C.J., and HOUSTON, COOK, LYONS, BROWN, JOHNSTONE, and ENGLAND, JJ., concur.