BRENDA STRAHL V WISCONSIN CENTRAL LTD
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
BRENDA STRAHL,
UNPUBLISHED
October 25, 2002
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v
No. 238769
Delta Circuit Court
LC No. 00-015641-NO
WISCONSIN CENTRAL LTD.,
Defendant-Appellant.
Before: Hood, P.J., and Whitbeck, C.J., and O’Connell, J.
MEMORANDUM.
Defendant appeals by leave granted from the trial court’s order denying its motion for
summary disposition. We reverse.
Plaintiff, an administrative assistant at defendant’s Gladstone office, alleged that she
suffered from sarcoidosis as a result of animal contaminate that traveled through the ventilation
system. In January 1997, STS Consultants, Ltd., conducted an evaluation of the environmental
air quality. In conjunction with the evaluation, employees were given a questionnaire to
delineate any symptoms or complaints from the environmental conditions. Plaintiff indicated
that her doctor advised her, in May 1995, that her health problems may be caused by her work
environment. At the time of the environmental assessment, plaintiff told two other employees
that she believed that the environmental conditions of the building were the cause of her medical
problems. On August 2, 2000, plaintiff filed suit pursuant to the Federal Employers’ Liability
Act (FELA), 45 USC § 51 et seq, against her employer, an interstate rail carrier.
Defendant alleges that the trial court erred in denying its motion for summary disposition.
We agree. An appellate court reviews the grant of denial of a motion for summary disposition de
novo to determine if the moving party was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Maiden v
Rozwood, 461 Mich 109, 119; 597 NW2d 817 (1999). The plaintiff must allege and prove that a
cause of action was filed within three years of the date of accrual to maintain an action under
FELA. 45 USC § 56; Matson v Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad, 240 F3d 1233, 1235
(CA 10, 2001). The discovery rule applies to latent injuries and provides that the statute of
limitations begins to run when the plaintiff knows or has reason to know of the existence and
cause of the injury. Id. Upon experiencing symptoms, a plaintiff has a duty to investigate both
the injury and the suspected cause. Fries v Chicago & Northwestern Transportation Co, 909
F2d 1092, 1095-1096 (CA 7, 1990) citing United States v Kubrick, 444 US 111, 123; 100 S Ct
352; 62 L Ed 2d 259 (1979). Although this rule imposes an affirmative duty on injured plaintiffs
-1-
to investigate potential causes, any other rule would thwart the purpose of the statute of
limitations. Id. at 1095. Plaintiff did not investigate the cause of her injury despite the advice of
her physician in 1995. Accordingly, the trial court erred in denying defendant’s motion for
summary disposition.
Reversed.
/s/ Harold Hood
/s/ William C. Whitbeck
/s/ Peter D. O’Connell
-2-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
