Opinion ID: 3013693
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Facts and Factual Disputes at Trial

Text: Colyer worked as a carman in the Conrail Locomotive Repair Shop in Hollidaysburg, Pennsylvania at the time of his injury. A carman’s duties may include repair of train cars, masonry, and painting. Colyer had performed all these jobs at various times in the 24 years he was employed as a carman for the railroad. On the afternoon of March 9, 1998, while using an acetylene torch to repair a damaged train car, Colyer sustained third-degree burns to a two-inch by three-inch area on the top of his left foot. Colyer was using the torch to “burn” areas of the car, that is, using the torch’s heat to soften or melt metal parts of the rail car to remove or smooth them (rather than to weld things together). Burning is performed with use of a torch connected to two hoses, one for acetylene and one for oxygen. 3 There was conflicting testimony at trial as to how the accident occurred. Colyer testified (with the support of several eyewitnesses) that he was injured when some type of explosion released a fireball from a hole on the side of one of the hoses attached to his torch. Conrail’s witnesses testified that Colyer’s injury most likely occurred when a piece of hot metal or “slag” from the burning procedure fell into or onto Colyer’s boot. There was also conflicting evidence as to the extent to which the railroad’s negligence, or Colyer’s, caused or contributed to the accident, regardless of how it occurred. Colyer introduced expert and lay testimony that Conrail did not properly maintain, inspect, or store the hoses in its shop, and that the hoses were often in poor condition. A section of the hose that Colyer had been using the day of the accident was introduced at trial. There was at least one hole visible in that section. Witnesses for both parties agreed that it would not be safe to use the section of hose in the condition it was in when introduced at trial. However, no one was able to say where that section had been located on the hose (near or far from where Colyer had been working), nor whether any hole (or holes) existed at the time of the accident. Before using the torch the day of the accident, Colyer inspected the four- to sixfoot area of the hose closest to where he was working and saw no particular problems. The parties agreed that it was Colyer’s duty, confirmed by the Conrail Safety Rules, to inspect his equipment. There was conflicting testimony, however, as to whether Colyer’s inspection satisfied company and industry standards or whether he should have inspected 4 the entirety of the hose. The parties also introduced conflicting testimony as to whether Colyer’s injuries could have been avoided (or minimized) if he had worn spats over his boots to provide additional protection, and whose fault it was that Colyer was not wearing spats at the time of the accident. Spats were not part of the safety gear Conrail required, but the company generally had them available for carmen who wished to wear them. Colyer testified that he had requested spats on the day of the accident, but Conrail had none available that day. Conrail pointed to evidence (from one of Colyer’s experts) that, as a general rule, Colyer did not wear spats because he saw them as a tripping hazard.
Three weeks after the accident, on March 31, 1998, Dr. Louton, a plastic surgeon, performed a full thickness skin graft to reconstruct the skin that had been destroyed by the third-degree burns. The surgery was successful. After a several-month recovery period, Colyer was released to work without restrictions; he returned to work as a carman on or about June 16, 1998.2 Approximately one year later, in June and July of 1999, Colyer consulted Dr. Opida, a neurologist, about lessened sensations and occasional intermittent pain on the outside of his injured foot. Dr. Opida testified that the symptoms reflected sensory nerve 2 The parties stipulated that Colyer’s lost wages from the time of the accident through his initial return to work in June 1998 totaled $6,864.00. 5 damage that was likely to be permanent, but that the motor nerves were not damaged. The neurologist testified that the sensory nerve damage appeared to be an after-effect of Colyer’s burn, but acknowledged that this conclusion was based on the information he received from Colyer as to the onset of his symptoms. The neurologist prescribed some medication for Colyer but it did not resolve the problem or reduce the symptoms. The following summer, in July of 2000, Colyer returned to Dr. Louton (the plastic surgeon who had performed the skin graft) complaining about irritation between the fourth and fifth toes of his left foot. At Dr. Louton’s suggestion, Colyer consulted a podiatrist, Dr. Raymond, about this problem. Dr. Raymond diagnosed Colyer as having severe corns between those toes and as having hammer toes on toes two, three, four and five (all but the big toe) of both his feet. Dr. Raymond testified that the hammer toes were unrelated to the burn and appeared to pre-date the injury, but that the severe corns on the toes of his left foot “could be related to the work-related injury” if Colyer “was altering his gait and putting additional pressure on the outside of his foot to avoid pressure” on the locations where it was painful. AR128, 131. On cross-examination, Dr. Raymond conceded that he was “not sure” whether the problem with the fourth and fifth toes of Colyer’s left foot was related to the burn. Dr. Raymond initially treated Colyer by trimming the corns every few months, but eventually decided surgery was needed to correct the hammer toes on the fourth and fifth toes of Colyer’s left foot in light of the severe and recurring corns there. Dr. Raymond performed surgery on August 20, 2001. 6 Colyer also introduced the expert testimony of Dr. Wardell, an orthopedic surgeon who examined Colyer on September 21, 2001 (about a month after his surgery). Dr. Wardell testified that Colyer suffered permanent nerve damage as a result of the burn. He also testified that the burn had caused a “gait abnormality . . . due to the limited motion, limited excursion of [the extensor] tendons . . . . [B]ecause of the dysfunction due to the scarring of the tendons, he lacked the push-off because the tendons held the toes up.” AR 278. According to Dr. Wardell, the “callus lesions over the fourth and fifth toes [were] secondary to the gait abnormality that was due to the burn.” AR 279. 3. Ability to Work / Loss of Future Earnings Capacity On December 6, 2001, Dr. Raymond cleared Colyer to return to work as of January 5, 2002. Although Dr. Raymond did not place any particular restrictions or limits on Colyer’s ability to work, he testified that, as of Colyer’s December 2001 physical examination, his injuries placed “physical limitations” on him in that “any activity that would require [him] to place his foot in a downward position such as going down a ladder, walking down an uneven surface, [or] kneeling in which his foot is placed in a backward position could create or would create discomfort.” AR 135. Dr. Wardell testified that Colyer had a “10 per cent permanent impairment of his left lower extremity.” AR 282. He stated that “as a result of the injury and the type of surgery that [Colyer] had, even with a successful result, he would not be able to perform the job of a carman,” AR 281, which, he explained, include “stand[ing] and walk[ing] for 7 prolonged periods of time, . . . squatt[ing], crawl[ing], kneel[ing], crouch[ing] and stoop[ing,] climb[ing] on irregular surfaces . . . or . . . vertical ladders or steps which are fairly steep.” AR 274. Cross-examination focused on the fact that Dr. Wardell had examined Colyer only once, and then approximately a month after his surgery. Dr. Wardell conceded that he would need a functional capacity assessment performed after Colyer attained maximum improvement after his foot surgery to know precisely what work restrictions Colyer would operate under. Nonetheless, Dr. Wardell maintained that, if Colyer returned to his old job, his painful calluses and lesions would recur. Although Dr. Wardell conceded that Colyer could physically perform a carman’s job once he recovered from surgery, he said that Colyer “would have to put up with the onset of the painful calluses,” which “will cause enough pain that he should not work [as a carman].” AR 296-97. Colyer testified that “it’s difficult” for him to do the work necessary for a carman’s job, because that “necessitates climbing, crawling, bending over, kneeling down, [and] bending your foot in different positions.” He testified that while he could likely do the work required by some carman positions (most likely as a mason, which Colyer seemed to believe was the type of carman position least likely to exacerbate his symptoms), there would be no assurance that he could keep any such position since more senior employees frequently “bump” those with less seniority down to less desirable and more taxing jobs. Other employees who testified confirmed the seniority “bumping” procedures. Colyer’s 8 former supervisor testified that Colyer himself would be entitled to “bump” only one of the people holding a mason position, suggesting that he might not be able to keep that position. At the time of trial, Colyer had submitted the paperwork necessary to return to work and was scheduled for a company physical that was required before he could attempt to return to work. Colyer also testified that he had made “inquiries” to find out about alternate employment while he was recovering from his surgery: A. . . . I started sending my resume to different people and different places and the job center. As a matter of fact I was just out there last week at the job center, at the training center. I went there and applied for a job that Mr. Krause is going through to help teach, but it was a welding job, and I told them that I wouldn’t be able to hold a welding job but I thought maybe it was some other type of job. But I have called numerous people and I sent out numerous resumes, and the City of Altoona is kind of tough right now. I have a degree in building construction technology from Williamsport Trade School, so I’m pretty good at carpentry and masonry work, but it’s kind of hard to do. . . . Q. The work you checked on that you can do, how much would it pay? A. It seemed to me about the average job out there was about $8 an hour. Q. Have you been able to get a job? A. Not yet. AR 346-47.