IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

WILLARD F. HENRY, : Case No. 2:10 CV 01056

:

: Judge James L. Graham

Plaintiff, : Magistrate Mark R. Abel

: 

v. : 

:

CSX TRANSPORTATION, INC., :

:

:

:

:

Defendant. :

:

Opinion and Order

This is a civil action brought by plaintiff Willard F. Henry against defendant CSX 

Transportation, Inc. Henry brings suit pursuant to the Federal Employers’ Liability Act 

(“FELA”), claiming that he developed occupational bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome as a direct 

result of the defendant’s negligence. Plaintiff seeks judgment against CSX in an amount not in 

excess of $150,000. This matter is now before the Court on the defendant’s motion for summary 

judgment.

I. Background

A. Factual Allegations

Henry, an Ohio resident, was first employed by CSX and its predecessors in 1980. (Pl. 

Depo. 41). Between 1980 and 1986, Henry had periodic gaps in his work with CSX due to 

furloughs and job layoffs. (Pl. Depo. 42-51). In 1986, Henry’s job with CSX was abolished. 

(Pl. Depo. 44). He served in the Navy for ten years and worked as a prison guard for about eight 

years. (Pl. Depo 54-55). In 2004 or 2005, Henry returned to CSX as a trackman/laborer. (Pl. 

Case: 2:10-cv-01056-JLG-MRA Doc #: 42 Filed: 04/19/12 Page: 1 of 16 PAGEID #: <pageID>
2

Depo. 81). In August 2006, Henry began working as a track inspector. (Pl. Depo. 121). Except 

for a brief period working on railroad bridges in 2008, Henry has continued to work as a track 

inspector. (Pl. Depo. 125).

CSX is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of Virginia. (Compl. ¶ 2). 

During the times material to Henry’s allegations, CSX was engaged in interstate commerce as a 

common carrier, operating a line and system of railroads in Pennsylvania, Maryland, West 

Virginia, and other states. (Compl. ¶ 4).

Throughout his employment with CSX, plaintiff worked as a trackman in and around 

Cumberland, Maryland and Huntington, West Virginia. (Compl. ¶ 8). As trackman, plaintiff’s 

job consisted mostly of knocking anchors with a sledgehammer. (Pl. Depo. 78). During the 

course of his employment, and while acting within the scope of his duties as a trackman, Henry

was exposed to occupational risk factors for carpal tunnel syndrome. (Compl. ¶¶ 6; 8). Such 

risk factors included, but were not limited to, “repetition, force, vibration and awkward wrist 

postures.” (Compl. ¶ 8). Throughout his employment with CSX, Henry was engaged in “the 

furtherance of interstate commerce within the meaning of the F.E.L.A.” (Compl. ¶ 6). In or 

about October 2008, Henry was diagnosed with occupational bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome, 

and required bilateral carpal tunnel release surgeries. (Compl. ¶ 11). 

B. Henry’s Claims

Henry alleges that the onset of occupational bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome was caused, 

in whole or in part, by the “negligence, carelessness, and recklessness” of CSX. (Compl. ¶¶ 9; 

10). In his complaint, Henry sets forth that the negligence of CSX consisted of: (1) failure to 

provide a safe place to work; (2) failure to provide a timely and adequate ergonomic program 

designed to prevent occupational carpal tunnel syndrome; (3) failure to comply with safety and 

Case: 2:10-cv-01056-JLG-MRA Doc #: 42 Filed: 04/19/12 Page: 2 of 16 PAGEID #: <pageID>
3

operating rules and regulations of CSX; (4) forcing plaintiff to work under hurried and/or 

awkward conditions; (5) negligence of CSX employees, agents, servants, and/or workmen; (6) 

negligence at law; and (7) failure to exercise due and adequate care under the circumstances 

including, but not limited to, a lack of adequate manpower. (Compl. ¶ 9). Henry specifically 

identifies the exposure to occupational bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome risk factors without an 

adequate ergonomic program and with inadequate manpower as the cause of his injuries. (Doc. 

37). 

In support of his claims, Henry has submitted a report by his liability expert, Dr. Michael 

Shinnick, in which Dr. Shinnick expresses his opinion that, in pertinent part, CSX “failed to act 

as a prudent employer [and] . . . failed to provide Mr. Henry with a safe place to work while he 

was performing his Maintenance of Way and track inspection duties.” (Pl. Ex. A). Henry 

further supports his FELA liability claim with a submission from his orthopedic surgeon, Dr. C. 

Mitchell Fields, M.D., who operated on his hands. In his medical report, Dr. Fields expressed 

his opinion that Henry’s carpal tunnel syndrome is “directly related to his course of 

employment.” (Pl. Ex. B). 

Henry claims that, as a result of defendant’s negligence, he developed carpal tunnel 

syndrome, and had to undergo bilateral carpal tunnel release surgeries. (Doc. 37). Due to the 

surgeries, Henry was out of work for approximately four months and he claims damages for lost 

wages during that time period. (Doc. 37). Henry further contends that he may continue to 

require medical treatment for his condition, which will result in future necessary medical 

expenses, beyond that which he has already incurred as a result of defendant’s negligence. 

(Compl. ¶ 13). He also asserts that he has sustained “pain, suffering, inconvenience, stress and a 

loss of enjoyment of life and may continued to suffer same for an indefinite period of time in the 

Case: 2:10-cv-01056-JLG-MRA Doc #: 42 Filed: 04/19/12 Page: 3 of 16 PAGEID #: <pageID>
4

future.” (Compl. ¶ 14). Henry has demanded this court render judgment against CSX in an 

amount not in excess of $150,000. 

C. Procedural Posture

This case is now before the Court on CSX’s motion for summary judgment. CSX 

contends that it is entitled to summary judgment because Henry cannot produce sufficient 

evidence showing that CSX was negligent or that the purported negligence caused Henry’s 

injury. 

II. Standard of Review

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56, summary judgment is proper if the evidentiary 

materials in the record show that there is “no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the 

movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a); see Longaberger Co. v. 

Kolt, 586 F.3d 459, 465 (6th Cir. 2009). The moving party bears the burden of proving the 

absence of genuine issues of material fact and its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, 

which may be accomplished by demonstrating that the nonmoving party lacks evidence to 

support an essential element of its case on which it would bear the burden of proof at trial. See

Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23 (1986); Walton v. Ford Motor Co., 424 F.3d 481, 

485 (6th Cir. 2005).

The “mere existence of some alleged factual dispute between the parties will not defeat an 

otherwise properly supported motion for summary judgment; the requirement is that there be no 

genuine issue of material fact.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247-48 (1986) 

(emphasis in original); see also Longaberger, 586 F.3d at 465. “Only disputed material facts, 

those ‘that might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law,’ will preclude summary 

judgment.” Daugherty v. Sajar Plastics, Inc., 544 F.3d 696, 702 (6th Cir. 2008) (quoting 

Case: 2:10-cv-01056-JLG-MRA Doc #: 42 Filed: 04/19/12 Page: 4 of 16 PAGEID #: <pageID>
5

Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248). Accordingly, the nonmoving party must present “significant 

probative evidence” to demonstrate that “there is [more than] some metaphysical doubt as to the 

material facts.” Moore v. Philip Morris Cos., Inc., 8 F.3d 335, 340 (6th Cir. 1993). 

A district court considering a motion for summary judgment may not weigh evidence or 

make credibility determinations. Daugherty, 544 F.3d at 702; Adams v. Metiva, 31 F.3d 375, 

379 (6th Cir. 1994). Rather, in reviewing a motion for summary judgment, a court must 

determine whether “the evidence presents a sufficient disagreement to require submission to a 

jury or whether it is so one-sided that one party must prevail as a matter of law.” Anderson, 477 

U.S. at 251-52. The evidence, all facts, and any inferences that may permissibly be drawn from 

the facts must be viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Matsushita Elec. 

Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986); Eastman Kodak Co. v. Image 

Technical Servs., Inc., 504 U.S. 451, 456 (1992). However, “[t]he mere existence of a scintilla 

of evidence in support of the plaintiff’s position will be insufficient; there must be evidence on 

which the jury could reasonably find for the plaintiff.” Anderson, 477 U.S. at 252; see

Dominguez v. Corr. Med. Servs., 555 F.3d 543, 549 (6th Cir. 2009).

III. Discussion

A. The Federal Employers’ Liability Act

A common carrier engaged in interstate commerce “shall be liable in damages to any 

person suffering injury while he is employed by such carrier . . . for such injury . . . resulting in 

whole or in part from the negligence of any of the officers, agents, or employees of such carrier . 

. . .” 45 U.S.C. § 51(1). The negligence upon which FELA liability is based is determined by 

the application of common law principles, as established and applied in federal courts. Adams v. 

CSX Transp. Inc., 899 F.2d. 536, 539 (6th Cir. 1990). As a result, in order to prevail the plaintiff 

Case: 2:10-cv-01056-JLG-MRA Doc #: 42 Filed: 04/19/12 Page: 5 of 16 PAGEID #: <pageID>
6

bringing a FELA claim must establish the traditional elements of common law negligence: duty, 

breach, foreseeability, and causation. Id.

The duty incumbent upon railroads under FELA is to provide their employees with a 

reasonably safe workplace. Id. at 836. This does not mean eliminating all workplace hazards. 

Id. Rather, the railroad must use ordinary care under the circumstances, or “do what a 

reasonably prudent person would have done under the circumstances to make the working 

environment safe.” Id. (citation omitted). 

“A railroad breaches its duty to employees by failing to provide a safe working 

environment if it knew or should have known that it was not acting adequately to protect its 

employees.” Aparicio v. Norfolk & W. Ry. Co., 84 F.3d 803, 811 (6th Cir. 1996). FELA 

liability may also be shown, as a matter of law, if the plaintiff proves that “the railroad company 

violated a safety statute that establishes an absolute duty on the railroad company.” Lewis v. 

CSX Transp. Inc., 778 F. Supp. 2d 821, 835 (S.D. Ohio 2011) (citing Borger v. CSX Transp. 

Inc., 571 F.3d 559, 563 (6th Cir. 2009) (internal quotations omitted)).

FELA imposes a relaxed standard of proof with respect to the element of causation. 

Rogers v. Missouri Pacific Railroad Co., 352 U.S. 500, 506 (1957). The test is “whether 

employer negligence played any part, even the slightest, in producing the injury for which the 

plaintiff seeks recovery.” Id.

Finally, the defendant must also be able to foresee some sort of injury to the plaintiff in 

order to be found liable under FELA. Adams, 899 F.2d. at 539. Under FELA, an employer is 

not liable for breaching its duty to provide a safe work environment “if the employer had no 

reasonable way of knowing that potential hazards existed.” Gallick v. Baltimore & O.R.R., 372 

U.S. 108, 117 (1963).

Case: 2:10-cv-01056-JLG-MRA Doc #: 42 Filed: 04/19/12 Page: 6 of 16 PAGEID #: <pageID>
7

In order to present a prima facie case for liability under FELA, a plaintiff must:

present more than a scintilla of evidence to prove that (1) an injury 

occurred while the plaintiff was working within the scope of his or 

her employment with the railroad, (2) the employment was in the 

furtherance of the railroad’s interstate transportation business, (3) 

the employer railroad was negligent, and (4) the employer’s 

negligence played some part in causing the injury for which 

compensation is sought under the act.

 

Aparicio v. Norfolk & W. Ry. Co., 84 F.3d 803, 810 (6th Cir. 1996).

B. CSX Theories for Summary Judgment

CSX requests summary judgment pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure. CSX contends it is entitled to summary judgment because Henry cannot produce

sufficient evidence showing that (1) CSX was negligent; or (2) that any purported negligence 

caused Henry’s injuries. 

In support of the argument that Henry has not produced sufficient evidence showing that 

CSX was negligent, CSX contends that Henry has merely testified that his normal work duties 

with CSX probably caused his carpal tunnel syndrome. Merely showing that his injury was in 

some way related to his normal job duties, they argue, is not negligence. In addition, CSX 

argues that Henry’s liability witness only concludes that Henry “was exposed to ‘risk factors’ 

associated with carpal tunnel syndrome but not that the exposure was negligent or improper.” 

(Doc. 34). Reminding the Court that FELA is a negligence statute, as opposed to a work-related 

injury statute akin to workers compensation liability, CSX argues that it is not responsible for 

injuries caused by performing normal job duties. CSX draws attention to Henry’s deposition in 

which he testifies that he had no complaints about the tools that he was given as a track inspector 

for CSX, and that he felt they were adequate for the job for which they were designed. (Pl. 

Depo. 140). Defendant also cites to the fact that Henry made no formal complaints about the 

Case: 2:10-cv-01056-JLG-MRA Doc #: 42 Filed: 04/19/12 Page: 7 of 16 PAGEID #: <pageID>
8

working conditions he was exposed to during his employment at CSX. (Pl. Depo. 153). Henry 

does testify that he would have liked “to see more manpower come back,” but does not think that 

the manpower issue had anything to do with his carpal tunnel syndrome. (Pl. Depo. 154). 

Finally, CSX draws attention to the testimony of Henry indicating that he does not know what 

CSX did wrong to cause his injury. (Pl. Depo. 160).

CSX argues that, by doing nothing more than citing his job duties, Henry attempts to 

recover for work-relatedness, not negligence. In sum, CSX contends that Henry has not 

produced evidenced on which a jury could reasonably find that it failed in its duty to maintain a 

reasonably safe workplace.

CSX also contends that, even if Henry could provide evidence showing negligence, he 

has not produced sufficient evidence that any purported negligence caused his injuries, as the 

statute requires. CSX asserts that expert testimony is required to establish causation in this case, 

as the issue is outside the common knowledge and experience of the layperson. See Moody v. 

Maine Cent. R.R. Co., 823 F.2d 693, 695-96 (1st Cir. 1987). CSX contends that Henry has not, 

and cannot, produce any expert testimony that his carpal tunnel syndrome was caused by alleged 

negligence. Specifically, “there is not evidence that using a sledge hammer caused Plaintiff’s 

carpal tunnel syndrome.” (Doc. 34). CSX argues that without expert testimony that negligence

caused Henry’s condition he has failed to prove an essential element of his FELA claim. For this 

reason, CSX believes it is entitled to summary judgment. 

C. Henry’s Response

In response to defendant’s motion for summary judgment, Henry alleges that he was 

exposed to occupational risk factors for carpal tunnel syndrome “without an adequate ergonomic 

program” and “with inadequate manpower,” which resulted in the development of his bilateral 

Case: 2:10-cv-01056-JLG-MRA Doc #: 42 Filed: 04/19/12 Page: 8 of 16 PAGEID #: <pageID>
9

carpal tunnel syndrome. (Pl. Opp. 3). He cites to Dr. Michael D. Shinnick’s expert testimony in 

support of this allegation. In a report supplied by Dr. Shinnick, he outlines the foundation for his 

opinion that CSX “failed to provide the Plaintiff with a safe place to work.” (Pl. Ex. A). This 

failure on the part of CSX, Henry argues, constitutes negligence under the FELA. Furthermore, 

Henry cites to a report supplied by Dr. Charles M. Fields, his treating physician, which directly 

relates the onset of carpal tunnel syndrome to his work at CSX. According to Henry, these two 

pieces of evidence are sufficient to establish a genuine issue of material fact with respect to 

negligence and causation, and therefore withstand defendant’s summary judgment motion.

D. Analysis

It is first necessary to clarify defendant’s characterization of plaintiff’s burden of proof at 

this stage in the litigation. CSX cites to testimony by Henry in which he admits having no 

complaints about the tools and equipment that he was supplied with during his employment. It 

also cites to testimony in which Henry identifies repetitive use of a sledgehammer as probably 

causing his carpal tunnel syndrome, and concedes that he does not know what CSX did wrong to 

cause his injury. Using the plaintiff’s inability to articulate the defendant’s particular negligent 

conduct and the causal link between that conduct and an injury is insufficient to demonstrate that 

those elements could not reasonably be found to exist by a jury once all the evidence is 

considered. Such testimony by the Plaintiff is not required to show that a material issue of fact 

exists with respect to these elements of FELA liability. Moreover, the conclusion of causation is 

often outside the scope of common knowledge and expert testimony may be necessary for a 

party to establish a sufficient basis for it. See Claar v. Burlington Northern R. Co., 29 F.3d 499, 

504 (9th Cir. 1994); Moody v. Maine Cent. R. Co., 823 F.2d 693, 695 (1st Cir. 1987) (citing to 

W.P. Keeton, The Law of Torts 269 (5th ed. 1984)). CSX itself makes the argument that this 

Case: 2:10-cv-01056-JLG-MRA Doc #: 42 Filed: 04/19/12 Page: 9 of 16 PAGEID #: <pageID>
10

case requires expert testimony to establish such issues, as they are outside the common 

knowledge and experience of the layperson. 

With this in mind, the court turns to the two requirements necessary to establish a prima 

facie case for FELA liability that CSX asserts are absent.

1. Negligence

CSX was subject to the duty to provide its employees with a reasonably safe workplace. 

Lewis v. CSX Transp. Inc., 778 F. Supp. 2d 821, 835 (S.D. Ohio 2011). In other words, CSX 

had “to use ordinary care under the circumstances,” or “do what a reasonably prudent person 

would have done under the circumstances to make the working environment safe.” Id. (quoting 

Van Gorder v. Grant Trunk W. R.R. Inc., 509 F.3d 265, 269 (6th Cir. 2007)). A railroad 

breaches this duty if it does not provide a safe working environment to its employees and it 

knew, or should have known, it was not acting adequately to protect them. Id.

In his deposition, Henry testifies that CSX was cutting corners, and “safety is a part of 

that.” (Pl. Depo. 154). He also testifies that the company needs to “quit cutting manpower 

down,” although he then states that he does not think the manpower issue had anything to do 

with his carpal tunnel syndrome. (Pl. Depo. 154). In his deposition, Henry states that, for many

years working for CSX he did not wear gloves. According to the deposition, however, he now 

does wear leather gloves that are provided by CSX. (Pl. Depo 139). He also testifies that, after 

returning to CSX as a trackman following the 1986-2005 period, CSX did not provide any safety 

training or refresher courses before he resumed work. (Pl. Depo. 87).

In addition to his own testimony, Henry has produced an applied ergonomics report by 

Dr. Michael D. Shinnick, Director of Dynamics Research Group, Inc. Dr. Shinnick’s 

methodology in conducting an ergonomic and work safety analysis of Henry’s injury consisted 

Case: 2:10-cv-01056-JLG-MRA Doc #: 42 Filed: 04/19/12 Page: 10 of 16 PAGEID #: <pageID>
11

of: (1) work task analysis; (2) assessment of hazard reduction; (3) assessment of medical 

surveillance; and (4) assessment of education and training. (Pl. Ex. A). In his assessment of 

Henry’s work tasks, Dr. Shinnick references standard ergonomic assessment protocols, including 

checklists from the Association of American Railroads (“AAR”) and the Occupational Safety 

and Health Administration (“OSHA”). He also draws upon sworn testimony of a variety of 

former and current CSX directors.

Dr. Shinnick concludes that CSX failed to provide Henry with a reasonably safe place to 

work. In doing so, he begins with background on Henry’s work history. According to the report, 

Henry worked as a Trackman/Laborer on a four man Crossing Production Gang out of 

Richmond, Virginia in 2005. He worked 12-14 hour shifts, five days per week. While working 

as a Trackman/Laborer, Henry used hydraulic tools and hand tools, and would “lift, carry, or 

exert forces of 25 to 100 pounds on a frequent basis.” (Pl. Ex. A). According to Shinnick’s 

report, Henry estimated that he would use these tools or have material in his hands for an average 

of 8-9 hours out of a 10-hour shift. His work tasks would require him to repetitively work with 

his hands in awkward postures while applying force and contact stress with his hand. His hands 

would also absorb vibration while working outside during the entire shift, being exposed to 

extreme hot and cold temperatures. Dr. Shinnick also explains that Henry stated that, “he has 

never been made aware of vibration retardant gloves.” (Id.). “The only gloves that has ever 

been issued by CSXT are leather gloves.” (Id.). The report goes on to catalogue, in detail, the 

tools and materials Henry used in his work, as well as the specific tasks in which they were 

employed. Henry’s tasks as Trackman/Laborer often “required him to repetitively work with his 

hands in awkward postures while applying force and contact stress with his hands, and absorbing 

vibration while working outside during the entire shift exposing him to extreme hot and cold 

Case: 2:10-cv-01056-JLG-MRA Doc #: 42 Filed: 04/19/12 Page: 11 of 16 PAGEID #: <pageID>
12

temperatures.” (Id.). Shinnick opines that this work history establishes that Henry was in fact 

exposed to well-established risk factors for the development of carpal tunnel syndrome while 

performing his job with CSX. (Id.) (“[I]t is my opinion that in performing the duties of his job 

Mr. Henry was exposed to repeated ergonomic work injury risk factors to his upper 

extremities.”).

The report continues with a brief history of developments in the industry relating to 

ergonomic hazards and risk factors. As early as 1985, the AAR published a study on personnel 

injuries in railroad operations due to an increased incidence of disabling injuries and lost 

workdays due to hand tool injuries. The study stated that “[i]t is important that the rail industry 

understand and begin to establish controls to prevent the carpal tunnel problem from reaching 

serious proportions.” (Pl. Ex. A). In 1991, the AAR issued a final report comprehensively 

evaluating tools and tasks performed by trackmen, and an analysis of ergonomic risk factors, 

problems, and concerns. In 1994, the AAR reviewed ergonomic programs at heavy industrial 

corporations and identified six elements of safety improvement processes that had been shown to 

level or reduce the number of workplace injury reports. Those elements are: (1) define and 

design process; (2) worksite analysis and monitoring; (3) analysis of problems and solution 

options; (4) implementation of solutions; (5) training and education; and (6) medical 

management. Dr. Shinnick then cites to a statement by OSHA in which it identifies that, “many 

employers have proven that establishing a systematic program to address such issues as 

repetition, excessive force, awkward postures and heavy lifting, results in fewer injuries to 

workers.” (Id.). According to the report, “[s]ince the 1980s, ergonomists and heavy industry 

have put into place ergonomic safety programs to reduce and eliminate jobs and job activities 

that put undue stress on a worker’s joints.” (Id.).

Case: 2:10-cv-01056-JLG-MRA Doc #: 42 Filed: 04/19/12 Page: 12 of 16 PAGEID #: <pageID>
13

After outlining the railroad industry’s identification of the relationship between exposure 

to these workplace factors and an increased risk of musculoskeletal disorders, and the successful 

implementation of a comprehensive safety improvement processes among heavy industry, Dr. 

Shinnick turns to CSX’s own operations. He concludes that, despite its knowledge of AAR and 

OSHA publications and research, “CSXT has failed to provide an effective ergonomic work 

safety program.” (Pl. Ex. A). In a 2005 deposition, the CSX Director of Industrial Hygiene, 

Mark Badders, admitted that he had not put elements of a proactive, comprehensive ergonomic 

program into effect at CSX.

Dr. Shinnick’s report also identifies what he considers to be failures of CSX in medical 

management. In 2002, Heath Weldon, CSX Director of General claims, testified that the 

company maintains a claims database, but that he did not discuss the claims with the medical 

department, or request any assessment of potential risks to workers. In July 2009, a former CSX 

Director of Safety admitted that a bonus pay system for managers was in effect at CSX, in which 

managers would be rewarded if they reached a certain number of days without a reported injury. 

According to Dr. Shinnick, this was a punitive system for employees reporting injuries (a finding

that was also reported by the Federal Railroad Administration regarding CSX) and “is not 

consistent with a comprehensive corporate-wide ergonomic work safety program.” (Pl. Ex. A).

In his July 22, 2009 deposition, Dr. Todd Brown admitted that he did not receive regular 

data and information regarding employee injury claims of the musculoskeletal type and that 

“during his tenure at CSXT there was never a specific lifting limit for an employee of CSXT, in 

any particular craft.” (Pl. Ex. A). This, Dr. Shinnick explains, is incompatible with a United 

States Class One Railroad Freight Industry Standard (requiring employees to obtain co-worker 

assistance or use an assistive device if a task requires more than fifty pounds of force). The 

Case: 2:10-cv-01056-JLG-MRA Doc #: 42 Filed: 04/19/12 Page: 13 of 16 PAGEID #: <pageID>
14

report states that Dr. Brown admitted, “he has never found the job circumstances for anybody at 

CSXT to comport with what the literature and research conclude puts a person at risk for 

musculoskeletal disorders.” (Id.). It further states that Dr. Brown claimed to have never been 

asked by CSX to compile any sort of written job descriptions of any jobs he looked at in the CSX 

system. This, Dr. Shinnick opines, is a de facto violation of the Federal Railroad Administration 

code that requires CSX to provide its employees with a reasonably safe place to work because, 

without such documentation, it is not possible to ensure that CSX is providing its workers with 

safe work tasks and jobs.

The report also cites to an October 2000 report by Harvey A. Levine that outlines the

elimination of 4,669 maintenance-of-way workers by CSX between the years 1986 and 1998. 

This report, Dr. Shinnick asserts, is consistent with Henry’s observation of manpower reductions 

during his career in the CSX Maintenance-of-Way Department. 

In light of the aforementioned testimony, and his own investigation, it is Dr. Shinnick’s 

opinion that: 

(1) CSX did not conduct a systematic work task analysis of Mr. 

Henry’s job to determine if performing his job duties posed any 

risk of injury or implement hazard prevention and control 

measures in Henry’s job; (2) CSX failed to implement effective 

medical management programs to identify and monitor workers at 

risk for injury, or explore possible modifications of Henry’s work 

tasks that may have reduced or prevented the development of his 

symptoms; and (3) CSX failed to train and educate Henry about 

the risk factors for developing carpal tunnel syndrome. 

(Pl. Ex. A). Ultimately, Dr. Shinnick concludes that CSX “knew how to, but chose not to, 

implement a proactive ergonomic work safety program,” and thereby failed to act as a prudent 

employer and failed to provide Henry with a safe place to work. (Id.).

Case: 2:10-cv-01056-JLG-MRA Doc #: 42 Filed: 04/19/12 Page: 14 of 16 PAGEID #: <pageID>
15

The court concludes that Henry’s testimony and Dr. Shinnick’s expert opinion provide 

sufficient evidence from which a jury could reasonably conclude that CSX breached its duty 

under FELA to provide Henry with a reasonably safe workplace.

2. Causation

Henry worked as a track laborer for four to five years in the time period between 1980 

and 1986. (Pl. Depo. 78) During that time as a track laborer, his job consisted primarily of

knocking anchors with a sledgehammer. (Pl. Depo. 78). When he returned to work with CSX in 

2005, Henry worked 12-14 hour days, five days a week, as a trackman on crossing gang. (Pl. 

Depo. 89-90). Sledgehammers and power tools, much like jackhammers, were used in Henry’s 

work during this time period. (Pl. Depo 91). Henry testified that he did not wear gloves during 

this time period, but that he had a tool in his hand 95 percent of the time. (Pl. Depo. 92; 96). 

This work continued into 2006, before Henry became a track inspector. (Pl. Depo. 122). From 

August 2006 until the present, except for a few months in mid-2008, Henry has worked as a 

track inspector for CSX. (Pl. Depo. 125). As track inspector, Henry was out of his truck working 

on the rails roughly 25 percent of the time. (Pl. Depo. 137). He testified that the most difficult 

part of the job, with respect to his hands and wrists, as track inspector was the sledgehammer and 

the hydraulic wrench. (Pl. Depo. 138). It was during this time period that Henry first 

experienced symptoms with his hands, wrists and arms. (Pl. Depo 139).

In his report, and as described above, Dr. Shinnick notes that it is a well-established and 

widely accepted conclusion that a relationship exists between the type of work Henry performed 

while working for CSX and the development of musculoskeletal disorders such as carpal tunnel 

syndrome. (Pl. Ex. A). Plaintiff has also submitted a medical report of his treating physician, 

Dr. C. Mitchell Fields, in support of his allegations. (Pl. Ex. B). Dr. Fields is the orthopedic 

Case: 2:10-cv-01056-JLG-MRA Doc #: 42 Filed: 04/19/12 Page: 15 of 16 PAGEID #: <pageID>
16

surgeon who operated on Henry’s hands. He supplied Henry with a report, which is included in 

his medical chart notes from February 4, 2009. In that report, Dr. Fields opined that Henry’s 

bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome is related to his work with CSX. (Pl. Ex. B). In the report, Dr. 

Mitchell writes:

“Patient has been employed many years on the railroad. Has been 

very physical in his nature of work which also requires repetitive 

motions of the hand and wrists. He also has included the use of a 

jackhammer at times and with this long extensive history and 

numbness and tingling of his hands, I strongly feel that this is 

directly related to his course of employment.” 

As has been mentioned, the FELA imposes a relaxed standard of proof with respect to the 

element of causation. Rogers v. Missouri Pacific Railroad Co., 352 U.S. 500, 506 (1957). If the 

plaintiff proves that the employer’s negligence played even the slightest part in producing his 

injury, the causation element is established. Id.

Despite the defendant’s contention that Henry fails to create a genuine issue of fact with 

respect to the causation element by not being able to allege exactly what CSX did to cause his 

carpal tunnel syndrome himself, Dr. Field’s medical report and Dr. Shinnick’s ergonomic report 

provide sufficient evidence from which a jury could conclude that the negligence of CSX 

contributed to Henry’s carpal tunnel syndrome.

IV. Conclusion

CSX has failed to show an absence of evidence supporting the breach and causation 

elements of Henry’s FELA claim. As such, defendant’s motion for summary judgment (doc. 34)

is DENIED.

s/ James L. Graham 

JAMES L. GRAHAM

United States District Judge

DATE: April 19, 2012

Case: 2:10-cv-01056-JLG-MRA Doc #: 42 Filed: 04/19/12 Page: 16 of 16 PAGEID #: <pageID>