ILNews

Court: Collateral source rule applies in railroad award

Michael W. Hoskins
January 1, 2007
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Contributions from a railroad company to a federal disability fund cannot be used to reduce the amount of a plaintiff's recovery, the Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed today.

In a 30-page decision in CSX Transportation Inc. v. Robert D. Gardner, No. 49A02-0610-CV-917, the court affirmed a trial judge's decision to not allow the railroad company to use its $35,000 annual contributions to a disability and retirement fund to lower the jury-imposed amount of $605,500 in damages for Gardner's injuries.

He was working as a locomotive engineer in May 2003 when he was thrown from the train, injuring his neck, back, and right knee, which impacted his ability to work. He began receiving the $35,000 annual annuity at the end of that year through the Railroad Retirement Act fund. He also filed a complaint against CSX under the Federal Employers' Liability Act alleging negligence and won the jury award.

CSX argued it's entitled to setoff because it is being required to pay twice for Gardner's lost wages, while Gardner argued his disability annuity comes from a "collateral source" and shouldn't be regarded as payment from the railroad company.

In denying the request for setoff, Marion Superior Judge Gerald Zore cited the Supreme Court of the United States decision of Eichel v. New York Cent. R.R. Co., 375 U.S. 253 (1963) as controlling. That ruling held benefits under such a retirement or disability system like the RRA are not directly attributable to the contributions of the employer and can't be considered in mitigation of the damages caused by an employer.

Questions before the appellate judges were whether the RRA disability annuities are from a collateral source, and whether that amount, to the extent that CSX paid taxes to the fund based on Gardner's employment, should be setoff from the jury's FELA award.

The appellate judges looked at an array of caselaw from other states and federal jurisdictions, as well as Congressional intent, in deciding against the railroad company.

"We conclude that the fact that CSX contributed to the RRA Fund because of statutory requirement, and not as a voluntary attempt to insulate itself from liability for its negligence, weighs in favor of concluding that payments Gardner receives from the RRA Fund are from a collateral source," Judge Margret Robb wrote for the panel, which also included Judges Cale Bradford and Nancy Vaidik

The court also considered Congressional action in this area in not addressing setoff because of the RRA, saying, "that gives rise to the inference that Congress is satisfied with the courts' decisions disallowing setoff."

"We recognize that as a result of the trial court disallowing setoff, Gardner has been made more than whole," she wrote. "This situation is common under the collateral source rule, and CSX's argument that such overcompensation is unjust is not persuasive. The solution to overcompensation is not to reduce a negligent employer's liability."
ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. The fee increase would be livable except for the 11% increase in spending at the Disciplinary Commission. The Commission should be focused on true public harm rather than going on witch hunts against lawyers who dare to criticize judges.

  2. Marijuana is safer than alcohol. AT the time the 1937 Marijuana Tax Act was enacted all major pharmaceutical companies in the US sold marijuana products. 11 Presidents of the US have smoked marijuana. Smoking it does not increase the likelihood that you will get lung cancer. There are numerous reports of canabis oil killing many kinds of incurable cancer. (See Rick Simpson's Oil on the internet or facebook).

  3. The US has 5% of the world's population and 25% of the world's prisoners. Far too many people are sentenced for far too many years in prison. Many of the federal prisoners are sentenced for marijuana violations. Marijuana is safer than alcohol.

  4. My daughter was married less than a week and her new hubbys picture was on tv for drugs and now I havent't seen my granddaughters since st patricks day. when my daughter left her marriage from her childrens Father she lived with me with my grand daughters and that was ok but I called her on the new hubby who is in jail and said didn't want this around my grandkids not unreasonable request and I get shut out for her mistake

  5. From the perspective of a practicing attorney, it sounds like this masters degree in law for non-attorneys will be useless to anyone who gets it. "However, Ted Waggoner, chair of the ISBA’s Legal Education Conclave, sees the potential for the degree program to actually help attorneys do their jobs better. He pointed to his practice at Peterson Waggoner & Perkins LLP in Rochester and how some clients ask their attorneys to do work, such as filling out insurance forms, that they could do themselves. Waggoner believes the individuals with the legal master’s degrees could do the routine, mundane business thus freeing the lawyers to do the substantive legal work." That is simply insulting to suggest that someone with a masters degree would work in a role that is subpar to even an administrative assistant. Even someone with just a certificate or associate's degree in paralegal studies would be overqualified to sit around helping clients fill out forms. Anyone who has a business background that they think would be enhanced by having a legal background will just go to law school, or get an MBA (which typically includes a business law class that gives a generic, broad overview of legal concepts). No business-savvy person would ever seriously consider this ridiculous master of law for non-lawyers degree. It reeks of desperation. The only people I see getting it are the ones who did not get into law school, who see the degree as something to add to their transcript in hopes of getting into a JD program down the road.

ADVERTISEMENT