A workplace accident involving a slow-moving utility vehicle resulted in a multimillion-dollar personal injury award, but questions about the evidence supporting the compensation have sent the case back for another trial. A Texas railroad employee claimed that a collision at a railyard left him with lasting tailbone pain, muscle problems and severe headaches. Although a jury awarded him more than $1.7 million, the railroad challenged the findings, particularly the projected cost of his future medical treatment.In an opinion issued on November 10, 2026, the Texas Fourteenth Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s judgment in Union Pacific Railroad Co. v. Travis Gozan and ordered a new trial on the negligence claim and most categories of damages. The court found sufficient evidence linking the accident to two of Gozan’s medical conditions and establishing that he would incur some future medical expenses, but ruled that the amount awarded for future medical treatment lacked sufficient evidentiary support. The ruling, available on Justia, also rejected his claims for past and future mental anguish.
How the railyard accident happened
The incident occurred on August 14, 2021, when Travis Gozan was riding as a passenger in a Kawasaki Mule, a lightweight utility vehicle used at the railyard. Both he and the driver worked for Union Pacific Railroad. The driver lost control, crossed a small curb and struck a building. The alleged cause of the collision was brake failure. The vehicle was travelling at no more than 14mph, and Gozan was wearing a seatbelt. He walked away from the collision but later felt disoriented and asked his father to take him to hospital. He complained of lower back pain extending into his leg, headaches, blurred vision and shoulder tightness.Initial examinations did not reveal serious physical abnormalities. X-rays and a CT scan were normal, and the emergency physician diagnosed acute back pain associated with muscle strain. Gozan was initially expected to return to work within two weeks but remained away for more than seven months.He subsequently received physical therapy, consulted an orthopaedic specialist and underwent an MRI, which also produced normal results. Although the specialist cleared him to return without restrictions, Gozan continued reporting difficulty sitting. A pain management physician later diagnosed him with coccydynia, a condition involving pain around the tailbone.
Two medical conditions linked to the collision
Gozan filed a lawsuit under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act (FELA), arguing that Union Pacific had failed to provide a safe workplace and properly train employees to operate the utility vehicle. During the proceedings, medical professionals identified two lasting conditions: coccydynia and myofascial pain syndrome. The latter involves painful trigger points in muscles and connective tissues and was also linked to his persistent headaches.Union Pacific disputed the connection between the accident and these conditions. Its medical expert argued that the collision was too minor to cause the claimed injuries and suggested that Gozan’s headaches were related to hypertension and medication used to treat attention deficit disorder.However, the appeals court found sufficient evidence to support the jury’s conclusion that the accident had contributed to both conditions. Under FELA, an employee does not have to establish that an employer’s negligence was the substantial cause of an injury. It is enough to show that the negligence played some part, even a slight one, in producing it.
Why the $1.73 million award was challenged
The jury awarded Gozan a total of $1,732,000. This included $1 million for future medical expenses, $390,000 for future physical pain and suffering, $150,000 for future physical impairment and additional amounts for past and future pain and mental anguish. A major issue was the life care planner’s estimate of future treatment costs. She projected that Gozan would need medical care for another 26 years, costing approximately $1.52 million. More than $1.1 million of that estimate was allocated to Botox injections for headaches.The appeals court found this projection speculative. Gozan’s neurologist had only suggested that Botox could be considered if other treatments failed. He had never prescribed the injections, and the life care planner had not consulted his treating physicians or established how frequently the treatment would be required. The court therefore concluded that the evidence did not establish a reasonable probability that Gozan would need the projected Botox treatment throughout his lifetime.The judges also found insufficient evidence to support the awards for past and future mental anguish. His testimony about frustration, embarrassment and difficulties with everyday activities did not establish the level of mental distress required for separate compensation. However, the court found sufficient evidence for future physical impairment and pain and suffering, including his testimony that he could no longer enjoy activities such as exercising, practising Krav Maga and salsa dancing.
What happens next
The November 10 ruling reversed the trial court’s judgment and sent the case back for a new trial on Gozan’s negligence claim, including all categories of damages except past and future mental anguish, for which he cannot recover. Because liability had been contested at trial, the appeals court said it could not limit the new trial to damages alone. The decision does not dismiss his injury claims or overturn the finding that the accident contributed to his medical conditions. Instead, it requires the damages to be reconsidered using evidence that adequately establishes the likely cost and extent of future losses.The case illustrates how a jury’s personal injury award can be reconsidered when medical projections lack sufficient evidentiary support, even when the underlying connection between a workplace accident and an employee’s injuries is upheld.