In the 1986 case of Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. Buell, a railway worker sought damages for emotional distress caused by his employer's alleged negligence. The Supreme Court was asked to determine whether such claims were permissible under the Federal Employers' Liability Act (FELA). The court held that while FELA does not categorically exclude recovery for emotional injury, it is necessary to prove some physical impact or threat of physical harm resulting from an employer’s negligent act in order to claim damages for purely psychological injuries. However, they did not rule on whether Mr. Buell could recover as he had failed to allege any physical contact or threat thereof and remanded the case back down to lower courts with their interpretation of FELA law clarified.

In the dissenting opinion for Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. Buell, Justice White argued that the majority's decision to deny a railroad worker's claim for emotional distress under the Federal Employers' Liability Act (FELA) was too narrow in its interpretation of "injury." He contended that FELA should be interpreted broadly to include not just physical injuries but also psychological harm caused by negligence on part of employers. Furthermore, he disagreed with the majority’s view that allowing such claims would open floodgates of litigation and believed it was up to Congress rather than courts to limit liability if they saw fit. In his view, denying workers compensation for genuine suffering due to an employer's negligence contradicted both FELA’s purpose and previous court rulings which recognized mental anguish as a legitimate injury.