Opinion ID: 1282591
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: monaghan's suit and trial

Text: Monaghan filed his FELA action on June 14, 1988, and alleged that UP was negligent by failing to provide protective equipment to prevent Monaghan's loss of hearing and otherwise provide a safe workplace. Monaghan testified that, before the examination by Dr. Carter in 1987, Monaghan didn't know if [the noise at UP's shop] was harmful to his hearing, did not know that the noise was damaging his hearing, and did not know that he was losing his hearing or had sustained a hearing loss, although he did, as a result of noise at work, experience tinnitus or ringing in his ears. During Monaghan's trial, experts, including Dr. Carter, testified that Monaghan's noise-induced permanent loss of hearing was caused by exposure to excessively loud and prolonged noise over a long period of time. Dr. David Lipscomb, an audiologist, testified in detail concerning the structure and function of the human ear and described how intense noise causes physical damage to the ear, resulting in a loss of hearing. When the cochlea, a small tube in the inner ear, is exposed to prolonged or repeated loud noise, cochlear cells die. There is no mechanism to replace destroyed cochlear cells necessary to activate nerves for transmitting data to the brain; hence, a noise-induced loss of hearing is permanent. An audiometric examination of Monaghan in 1988 showed that he had suffered a noise-induced loss of hearing. As Dr. Lipscomb testified: Unless there is a sudden accidental exposure to sound, such as an explosion, the development of a noise induced hearing impairment occurs slowly, over time, seldom recognized by the individual.... Dr. Carter distinguished a noise-induced hearing loss from an acoustic trauma. A noise-induced hearing loss is caused by frequent or constant exposure to very loud noise over prolonged periods of time, whereas an acoustic trauma is a hearing loss that is caused by one exposure to excessively loud noise. Also, Dr. Carter explained that tinnitus is purely a subjective complaint and what I mean by that is that only the patient himself knows if he has tinnitus. I can't tell you if he does; you can't tell if he does; nobody can tell. Tinnitus is distinguished from a loss of hearing that can be objectively determined by testing with scientifically accepted equipment and methods, such as the audiogram which showed that Monaghan had actually suffered a loss of hearing. Dr. Carter concluded that Monaghan's loss of hearing was a gradually-acquired loss over a 28-year span of time and due to frequent exposure to excessively loud noise, that is, Monaghan's ear has been damaged by exposure to excessively loud noise during his 28 years of employment with the railroad. At the conclusion of all the evidence, UP moved for a directed verdict because Monaghan's cause of action is barred by the applicable statute of limitations in that [Monaghan] knew or should have known his cause of action accrued more than 3 years before June 14, 1988, the date on which [Monaghan] filed his petition. The court overruled UP's motion and instructed the jury that the statute of limitations under the Federal Employers' Liability Act did not bar Monaghan's claim unless Monaghan, on or before June 13, 1985, knew that he had a loss of hearing or, in the exercise of reasonable care, should have known that he had a loss of hearing. The jury returned a verdict for Monaghan. UP's assignments of error may be distilled into one: The 3-year statute of limitations under the Federal Employers' Liability Act barred Monaghan's action; therefore, the district court should have directed a verdict for UP.