The Court’s Opinion

17 Whether Christiansen made a diligent effort to pursue his claim in this case is a question to be resolved by a fact finder. See Robertson v. Seidman & Seidman, 609 F.2d 583, 591 (2d Cir. 1979) ("Issues of due diligence and constructive knowledge depend on inferences drawn from the facts of each particular case . . . . When conflicting inferences can be drawn from the facts, however, summary judgment is inappropriate.").

Given the divergent opinions reached by the two parties based on the same facts, we cannot resolve the issue as a matter of law. Accordingly, we conclude that a genuine issue of material fact exists as to whether Christiansen diligently pursued his claim after subjectively determining that his injury was likely work-related.

We therefore reverse the trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Union Pacific and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.