On July 7, 2009, plaintiff Gerardo Enriquez, 51, a car man for BNSF Railway Co., was changing brake shoes on a railcar on a standard repair track when he allegedly injured his right shoulder. Enriquez sued BNSF Railway Co. under the Federal Employers Liability Act. Enriquez claimed the subject railcar had a history of problems and that the railcar should have been sent to the heavy repair facility instead of being fixed on the standard repair track. He alleged that the brake shoe was burnt into the wheel of the railcar and that the pry bar he was given was inadequate, in that it should have been longer to give him better leverage. Enriquez claimed he wanted a 42-inch pry bar, which became somewhat more commonly used after the subject accident. Defense counsel contended that the type of repairs that Enriquez was doing at the time of the alleged accident were ordinarily done at the repair facility he was working at and that the history of the railcar was irrelevant because the task he was performing was ordinarily performed by workers, such as himself, at the location he was working at. Counsel noted that there was a question as to what length pry bar Enriquez was using, whether it was 31 inches or 36 inches, but that it was standard for the industry. At the close of the trial, Judge Bryan Foster ruled that the jury could not consider the car’s repair history in determining whether the railroad was negligent for failing to send the car to the heavy repair track. Thus, the jury was instructed that they could only find negligence if they decided that BNSF failed to provide a longer pry bar and that if the longer 42-inch pry bar had been used, Enriquez would not have suffered injury., Enriquez claimed he sustained a rotator cuff tear. The day after he was changing the brake shoes on a railcar, Enriquez presented for medical care for his right, dominant shoulder. He subsequently underwent cortisone injections for a few months, which offered some relief. In September 2009, Enriquez returned to full duty and worked for about five months before he claimed his shoulder pain returned. He again sought medical care and ultimately underwent an arthroscopic rotator cuff repair in June 2010. Enriquez claimed that his arthroscopy was successful. He alleged that he had no complaints of residual pain after returning to full duty and had no restrictions imposed on him by his doctor about four months after the surgery. Thus, he made no claim for any future medical care. However, Enriquez noted that although he returned to work with BNSF Railway Co., where he had worked for 34 years, and continued to work in the same position he previously he had, he now had less strenuous duties. Defense counsel argued that Enriquez’s shoulder injury was entirely due to a pre-existing degeneration of the shoulder that had been ongoing for many years. Counsel further argued that any injury caused by the alleged incident had fully resolved by the time Enriquez returned to work in September 2009. Thus, when Enriquez’s shoulder pain allegedly “flared up” again five months later, it had to be due to the pre-existing degeneration and not due to the alleged incident.