Opinion ID: 2982819
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Age-Related or Occupational Injury

Text: Henry also claims that the district court erred when it concluded that the 2011 event was merely a continuation of an earlier occupational injury. Henry contends that his degenerative back condition was purely age-related and not an occupational injury at all. Under Henry’s line of reasoning, FELA’s statute of limitations could not begin to run on a condition that was not work-related. He argues that only after being exposed to the Haverhill plant conditions in 2010 and 2011, he sustained a separate, traumatic injury, which aggravated his age-related condition. Central to Henry’s argument is the rule that employees may be able to recover under FELA for damages caused by their employer’s negligence in aggravating a pre-existing non-work related condition. See Aparicio, 84 F.3d at 815, n.7; see also Stevens v. Bangor & Aroostook R.R. Co., 97 F.3d 594, 601-03 (1st Cir. 1996) (discussing apportionment of indivisible damages under FELA). Henry’s argument is unpersuasive. All of the evidence he has submitted suggests that his degenerative back condition is and always has been an occupational injury. Dr. Zaas’s report notes that Henry himself “causally relates his disabling lower back condition to the physical stresses of working as a conductor for Norfolk,” without limitation to Henry’s work at Haverhill during 2010 and 2011. Henry’s complaint also refers to his condition as an “occupational” injury and lists his duties during the entire course of his employment with Norfolk as the cause of such injury, without mention of his condition being solely age-related prior to 2010. Henry 8 No. 14-3821, Henry v. Norfolk S. Ry. Co. even conceded in his deposition that in 2008 and 2009, he knew that his job was causing problems with his back.2 There is no genuine dispute on this point. The sole piece of evidence that Henry relies on to support his argument is the affidavit of Dr. Stanley Bigos, an orthopedic surgeon, which Norfolk offered in its motion for summary judgment reply. In his affidavit, Dr. Bigos opined that Henry’s position with the railroad had no impact on his back condition. Henry believes that a reasonable jury could read this opinion to mean that his condition was age-related prior to 2010. But the opinion suggests that Henry’s condition was never an occupational injury – not that it was purely age-related prior to 2010. A reasonable jury could not read it differently. Henry also argues that there is a genuine issue as to whether the ground conditions at the Haverhill plant during 2010 and 2011 were a significant contributory factor in causing his injury. Because we hold that Henry’s cause of action is barred by the statute of limitations and that, at most, the conditions at Haverhill aggravated his pre-existing, occupational condition, we do not address this question further. AFFIRMED. 2 The district court found that Henry’s deposition statement was ambiguous because Henry may have been referring to an injury caused by a work-related car accident in 1989. We find no such ambiguity given that Henry admitted that such car accident did not injure his back and Henry made the admission in question when discussing his experience of back pain in 2005, 2008, and 2009. Even drawing all reasonable inferences in favor of Henry, a reasonable jury could not find Henry’s statement was ambiguous. 9