Call Us: 1.800.873.5297

By

Injured Railroad Worker Awarded $1.5 Million in Damages

St. Louis Daily Record
Vol.293, No.229-95
11/19/2004

BY EMILY UMBRIGHT
Staff Writer

A St. Louis jury awarded $1.5 million in damages on Nov. 7 to a railroad trackman that suffered injuries to his neck and spine after his dump truck rolled over.

On Nov. 1, 1999, a group of railroad workers were repairing a railroad crossing when a worker driving a truck down a country road forced a dump truck operated by Timothy Sorrell off the road. Sorrell’s truck, filled with 15 pounds of asphalt, rolled off the road causing him to sustain neck and back injuries.

After receiving conservative treatment for his injuries, Sorrell underwent an anterior cervical discectomy operation and an interbody fusion to his neck.

Sorrell’s employer, Norfolk Southern Railway Co., agreed to pay the medical bills resulting from the accident, which totaled an excess of $44,000. However, by the time the trial rolled around, the railroad still had not paid.

As a result of his injuries, Norfolk Southern said it could not give Sorrell his job back. Sorrell then underwent a vocational rehabilitation program provided by the railroad, but Norfolk Southern still could not provide their employee, who had been with the company for 25 years, with a job.

“Based on the test results and their evaluation of my client, they said they had nothing to offer him,” attorney for Sorrell, Paul Slocomb of Schlichter Bogard & Denton, said.

Sorrell’s past and future wage loss was calculated to be approximately $600,000.

In his suit, Sorrell contended the railroad was negligent by not providing a safe method of work and was responsible for the actions of the employee operating the truck that drove him off the road. Due to Norfolk Southern’s negligence, which resulted in his loss of a job, Sorrell argued, the company had to pay for his medical bills, his loss in wages and his lost health insurance.

Norfolk Southern argued that because they were not responsible for Sorrell’s injuries, they should not have to pay monetary damages.

“They say he can’t go back to his old job; they have no new jobs to offer him, and then they turn around and say he is negligent because he failed to mitigate his damages by finding a job,” Slocomb said. “They pointed out that he has all sorts of transferable skills. But I pointed out in the closing argument that those transferable skills they claim he has, the railroad certainly didn’t want … because they would have offered him a job.”

Two years after the accident, the railroad terminated Sorrell’s health insurance. A year later, the health insurance provided by the company to his wife, who suffers from multiple sclerosis, was also cut-off.

“It is a tremendous policy,” Slocomb described. “Prescription coverage across the board; no annual premiums at all — free.”

To create a sense of the damages incurred as a result of Sorrell’s loss of insurance, an insurance expert testified, explaining the potential cost of comparable insurance for Sorrell and his wife.

“What he found was where these people live in the state of Indiana, the four major insurance carriers refused — flat out refused — to carry them because of the pre-existing conditions,” Slocomb said. “So what they were left with was kind of a last-ditch, state-run program that obviously is pretty scant on the benefits.”

In addition to the lost wages and unpaid medical bills, Sorrell recovered compensation for the lost health insurance, which totaled $360,000 in premiums, including an eight percent inflation rate, until the age of 65.

“That’s somewhat unique in terms of a fringe benefit and damage analysis on a FELA case,” Slocomb said. “In this day and age when health insurance is on front and center of everyone’s minds, I think its important that people know that this is what happens when the negligence of a railroad ends a person’s career, because not only are they out of wages, but almost equally important is health insurance — especially when you have a wife who suffers from progressive multiple sclerosis.”

“At some point the railroad needs to understand that they need to treat their employees better,” he continued. “They need to pay their medical bills. They need to do something about health insurance coverage. Otherwise, juries are going to continue to compensate for those damages, which they should.”

David Dick, attorney for Norfolk Southern Railway Co., was unavailable for comment.

“Sorrell recovered compensation for the lost health insurance, which totaled $360,000 in premiums, including an eight percent inflation rate, until the age of 65.”

000-017   000-080   000-089   000-104   000-105   000-106   070-461   100-101   100-105  , 100-105  , 101   101-400   102-400   1V0-601   1Y0-201   1Z0-051   1Z0-060   1Z0-061   1Z0-144   1z0-434   1Z0-803   1Z0-804   1z0-808   200-101   200-120   200-125  , 200-125  , 200-310   200-355   210-060   210-065   210-260   220-801   220-802   220-901   220-902   2V0-620   2V0-621   2V0-621D   300-070   300-075   300-101   300-115   300-135   3002   300-206   300-208   300-209   300-320   350-001   350-018   350-029   350-030   350-050   350-060   350-080   352-001   400-051   400-101   400-201   500-260   640-692   640-911   640-916   642-732   642-999   700-501   70-177   70-178   70-243   70-246   70-270   70-346   70-347   70-410   70-411   70-412   70-413   70-417   70-461   70-462   70-463   70-480   70-483   70-486   70-487   70-488   70-532   70-533   70-534   70-980   74-678   810-403   9A0-385   9L0-012   9L0-066   ADM-201   AWS-SYSOPS   C_TFIN52_66   c2010-652   c2010-657   CAP   CAS-002   CCA-500   CISM   CISSP   CRISC   EX200   EX300   HP0-S42   ICBB   ICGB   ITILFND   JK0-022   JN0-102   JN0-360   LX0-103   LX0-104   M70-101   MB2-704   MB2-707   MB5-705   MB6-703   N10-006   NS0-157   NSE4   OG0-091   OG0-093   PEGACPBA71V1   PMP   PR000041   SSCP   SY0-401   VCP550  

Legal Disclaimer & Privacy Policy
This web site is designed for general information only. The information presented should not be construed as legal advice and does not form the basis for an attorney/client relationship.

The choice of a lawyer is an important decision and should not be based solely on advertisements.
This web site is not intended to be advertising, and Schlichter Bogard & Denton LLP does not desire to represent anyone desiring representation based upon viewing this web site in a jurisdiction where this web site fails to comply with all laws and ethical rules of that jurisdiction. Materials on this web site may only be reproduced in their entirety (without modification) for the individual reader's personal and/or educational use and must include this notice.

We will not disclose, sell, or rent any of your identifiable personal information to any third party, unless approved by you, or required by law.