BNSF Is Willing to Work with Rail Labor

With those principles in mind, railroads are willing to work with rail labor, with one important caveat. Railroads are concerned that the Act’s elimination of asbestos lawsuits, which is the quid pro quo for payment from the Fund, could be illusory -- a concern shared by the business community as a whole.

The concern is that while plaintiffs pursue recovery from the Fund, they can simultaneously file lawsuits alleging respiratory injury caused by exposure to substances other than asbestos ("mixed dust"). Certainly, claimants who can prove an asbestos related injury for the purpose of Fund recovery may also suffers from a separate and distinct injury caused by some other exposure, and therefore should be entitled to recover for the separate injury.

However, awards from the Fund are designed to constitute a full and fair payment for a specific level of physical injury or impairment, i.e., damage to the claimant’s lungs. It is axiomatic that there may be only one recovery for one injury, and claimants should not be permitted to circumvent this principle by alleging different causes of the same injury in different forums.

see also:

Medical Criteria Read about rules concerning medical criteria in asbestos/rail cases
Medical criteria in asbestos/railroad cases. Learn more.

BNSF Rail Labor In asbestos cases BNSF Is Willing to Work with Rail Labor
Learn about how BNSF works with rail labor in asbestos cases

Controversial Provision Find out about the controversial asbestos provision in FELA
Read about the controversial provision in the FELA asbestos act.