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

Heading: FELA Statute of Limitations

Text: To determine when an action accrues under FELA's statute of limitations, we apply one of two rules: the time-of-event rule or the discovery rule. Fonseca v. Consol. Rail Corp., 246 F.3d 585, 588 (6th Cir. 2001). Under the time-of-event rule, the action accrues “when the tortious event is committed” or “when there has been a violation of legally protected interests.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). But for injuries and causes that “are so latent as to elude discovery at the time of the injury-causing event,” we apply the discovery rule. Id. When the discovery rule applies, the action accrues when an employee, in the exercise of due diligence, reasonably should have discovered both the injury and its cause. See Aparicio v. Norfolk & W. Ry. Co., 84 F.3d 803, 814 (6th Cir. 1996), abrogated on other grounds by Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., 530 U.S. 133 (2000); see also Fonseca, 246 F.3d at 588. All parties agree that the discovery rule applies to Henry’s case because of the nature of his back injury. For cases where the alleged tortious conduct aggravates an existing injury, however, we have held that such aggravation is not a severable cause of action for purposes of the statute of limitations. Aparicio, 84 F.3d at 815. Aparicio concerned an injured railroad worker who claimed that his employer aggravated his carpal tunnel injury. The worker reasoned that if such aggravation happened within the statute of limitations, it was not time-barred even if the actual injury happened outside of such period. We rejected the worker’s approach reasoning that: the fact that an injury “has not reached its maximum severity . . . but continues to progress” does not relieve the plaintiff of the duty to use reasonable diligence to discover the original injury and its cause. Any “aggravation” of the original negligently caused injury would only affect the plaintiff's damages, and would not require a separate determination of liability or causation. Furthermore, a rule permitting severability of a claim that an original, continuing injury has been aggravated would contravene the purpose of the discovery rule articulated in Urie [v. Thompson, 337 U.S. 163 (1949)] requiring Federal Employers' Liability Act plaintiffs to use reasonable diligence to discover the cause of an injury once the injury manifests itself. 4 No. 14-3821, Henry v. Norfolk S. Ry. Co. Id. (quoting Fries v. Chi. & Nw. Transp. Co., 909 F.2d 1092, 1096 (7th Cir. 1990)).