HOME STORY OF OUR FIRM SEARCH
ASBESTOS DRUGS POLLUTANTS ACCIDENTS MALPRACTICE

Did Plaintiff Diligently Pursue His Claim

16 Although it is undisputed that Christiansen subjectively believed his condition was asbestos-related, the key question here is whether he diligently pursued his claim based upon that belief. See Tolston v. National R.R. Passenger Corp., 102 F.3d 863, 865 (7th Cir. 1996) ("'[A] cause of action accrues for statute of limitations purposes when a reasonable person knows or in the exercise of reasonable diligence should have known of both the injury and its governing cause.'" (citation omitted)).

The parties agree regarding Christiansen's admissions, but use them to draw different inferences about Christiansen's diligence.

Christiansen claims that the undisputed facts evidence his diligent effort to seek medical confirmation of his suspicions, which was forestalled by contrary diagnoses until 2002, when his suspicions were finally confirmed.

Union Pacific, on the other hand, claims that the undisputed facts evidence that Christiansen had no doubt about the cause of his ailment from the time he contracted it, but waited to file his claim until January 2002, which he did before receiving a definitive diagnosis of asbestosis in November or December 2002.

Hence, according to Union Pacific, the correct diagnosis was ultimately unnecessary for Christiansen to diligently pursue his claim.

Courtesy of Christiansen v. Union Pacific
Mesothelioma Mesothelioma Home Page
head Mesothelioma: An Overview
kleio The Clock Is Ticking
asbestos Our Toughest Cases
head Diagnosis
treatment Symptoms, Stages, Treatment
kleio Latest News
New York Numbers
Asbestos


IN THIS SECTION
Parties in the Case
Review of the Facts in the Case
Plantiff's Asbestos Exposure
Union Pacific's Motion Denied
Issues and Standard of Review
Analysis
Union Pacific's Assertions
The Court's Considerations
FELA Defendants
Union Pacific's Contentions
Summary Judgment on the Limitations Period
Plaintiff Learns of his Injury
The Trial Court's Decision
The Plaintiff's Argument
Did the Plaintiff Diligently Pursue his Claim?
The Court's Opinion
The Court's Conclusons


RETURN BACK TO
Mesothelioma
Asbestos
Asbestos Help
News & Warnings

For legal help anywhere in the U.S. call:

1 - 800 - 476 - 6070

Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

ATTORNEY ADVERTISING

see also:

Summary Judgment on the Limitations Period Christiansen v. Union Pacific: Judgment on the Limitations Period
Read about the Court Opinion on Summary Judgment on Limiations Periods

Union Pacific's Contentions Christiansen v. Union Pacific: Union Pacific's Contentions
Read about the legal standards for hazardous levels of asbestos

Christiansen v. Union Pacific Christiansen v. Union Pacific: Important Asbestos litigation decision
Read about the asbestos case of Christiansen v. Union Pacific