Metro-North Commuter Railroad Company v. Buckley
521 U.S. 424 (1997)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act (FELA), a worker cannot recover for negligent infliction of emotional distress based on fear of future disease unless and until they manifest physical symptoms of that disease. Similarly, an asymptomatic worker cannot recover lump-sum damages for the economic cost of future medical monitoring.
Facts:
- Michael Buckley was employed as a pipefitter for Metro-North railroad from 1985 to 1988.
- For approximately one hour each workday, Buckley's job involved removing asbestos-laden insulation from pipes, which frequently covered him in asbestos dust.
- In 1987, after attending an asbestos awareness class, Buckley began to fear that he would develop cancer from his exposure.
- Expert witnesses testified that Buckley's asbestos exposure created a 1% to 5% increased risk of death from cancer or other asbestos-related diseases.
- Since 1989, Buckley has undergone regular medical checkups, none of which have revealed any symptoms of cancer or asbestosis.
- Metro-North conceded it was negligent in exposing Buckley to asbestos without warning or proper training.
Procedural Posture:
- Michael Buckley sued his employer, Metro-North, in U.S. District Court under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act (FELA).
- The District Court dismissed Buckley's action, ruling that he had not suffered a 'physical impact' required for recovery and had not shown a real emotional injury.
- Buckley, as appellant, appealed the dismissal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
- The Second Circuit, with Metro-North as appellee, reversed the trial court's decision, holding that the asbestos exposure constituted a 'physical impact' and that Buckley could recover for both emotional distress and medical monitoring costs.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted Metro-North's petition for a writ of certiorari.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act (FELA), can a railroad worker who was negligently exposed to asbestos but exhibits no symptoms of any disease recover damages for (1) negligent infliction of emotional distress arising from a fear of developing cancer, and (2) the costs of future medical monitoring?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Breyer
No. A worker negligently exposed to asbestos without symptoms of disease cannot recover under FELA for emotional distress or medical monitoring costs. To recover for emotional distress under the zone of danger test from Gottshall, a plaintiff must sustain a 'physical impact,' which this Court interprets as a threatened physical contact that causes or might cause immediate traumatic harm, not mere exposure to a substance that may cause disease at a later time. The common law does not permit recovery for fear-of-disease claims by those who are disease- and symptom-free due to policy concerns, including the difficulty of separating valid from trivial claims and the threat of unlimited and unpredictable liability. Similarly, the common law does not support an unqualified right to recover lump-sum damages for future medical monitoring for asymptomatic plaintiffs; courts that have allowed such recovery have imposed significant limitations, such as court-supervised funds, which reflect the same policy concerns.
Concurring-in-part-and-dissenting-in-part - Justice Ginsburg
No as to emotional distress, Yes as to medical monitoring. Buckley's emotional distress claim fails not because his exposure wasn't a 'physical impact'—it was—but because he failed to present objective evidence of severe emotional distress. However, Buckley has stated a valid claim for medical monitoring costs under FELA. The economic burden of necessary medical surveillance is a cognizable injury resulting from the employer's negligence. Recognizing this claim aligns with the evolving common law and FELA's humanitarian purposes, as it deters employer negligence and encourages early detection and treatment of serious latent diseases. The majority's concerns about a flood of litigation are overblown, and it errs by focusing on the form of the remedy rather than recognizing the existence of the underlying right to relief.
Analysis:
This decision significantly restricts tort liability for employers in toxic tort cases under FELA by establishing a bright-line 'symptom manifestation' rule for recovery. By narrowly defining 'physical impact' to exclude mere exposure to carcinogens, the Court prevents claims for fear of future disease by asymptomatic plaintiffs, thereby limiting a potential flood of litigation. While this provides employers with greater certainty, it leaves negligently exposed workers without a remedy until they become physically ill, forcing them to bear the emotional and financial burden of living with an increased risk of disease. The Court's cautious approach to medical monitoring costs, rejecting a lump-sum award while leaving the door open for 'more finely tailored' remedies, signals a judicial reluctance to create new, broad categories of tort damages in mass exposure scenarios.
Unlock the full brief for Metro-North Commuter Railroad Company v. Buckley