Skip to main content
Mark T. Coulter

Mark Coulter’s Legal Cases

4 total

  • Babbitt v. Norfolk and Western Ry, 104 F.3d 89 (6th Cir. 1997)

    Practice Area:
    Estate Planning
    Date:
    Jan 02, 1997
    Outcome:
    Ruling in favor of clients; case later settled
    Description:
    Clientss employer made them sign a general release of claims upon retirement. When these elder clients discovered that their hearing loss was not old age, but the result of unrestricted noise exposure at work, they attempted to file a claim for work-related injury. While the employer attempted to hide behind the release, the federal Court of Appeals agreed that the release was invalid to bar a work-related injury of which my clients didn't know at the time.
  • Aparicio v. Norfolk & Western, 84 F.3d 803

    Practice Area:
    Estate Planning
    Date:
    May 30, 1996
    Outcome:
    Ruling for my client
    Description:
    Older client developed nerve damage after years of working with his hands. His employer did not take steps to protect him from this type of injury, despite having information about the risks, and claimed that they had no duty to protect the worker from the risk, or that if they did, he should have sued them years before.
  • Allen v. CSX, 96-C-35 (Brooke Cty, WV)

    Practice Area:
    Estate Planning
    Date:
    Feb 02, 1998
    Outcome:
    Ruling for my clients
    Description:
    After decades of work for one employer, clients developed brain impairment believed to be due to exposure to solvent fumes in the workplace. Employer attempted to bar evidence that such exposure can cause the types of injury involved. After an extensive hearing on the scientific issues, the court found our clients' evidence admissible.
  • Meyer v. CUNA Insurance Co. (W.D.Pa. #03-602)

    Practice Area:
    Class Action
    Date:
    Jan 26, 2006
    Outcome:
    Ruling for my client, class certification granted.
    Description:
    Older disabled worker was terminated from disability benefits, based on insurance company position that if he could perform any type of work, he was not considered disabled under their policy. We argued that the policy was ambiguous, and could reasonably be interpreted in a way which provided continued coverage, and sought a class certification to advance the rights of all similar individuals who the insurer had incorrectly denied benefit to under this policy interpretation.