In the case of CSX Transportation, Inc. v. Thurston Hensley (2008), the U.S Supreme Court addressed a dispute over an employee injury claim under the Federal Employers' Liability Act (FELA). Thurston Hensley, an employee of CSX Transportation, claimed that he had developed carpal tunnel syndrome due to his work-related activities and sued for damages. The jury ruled in favor of Hensley and awarded him $125,000 in compensation. However, CSX appealed this decision arguing that there was insufficient evidence to prove causation between Hensley's job duties and his condition. The Supreme Court reversed the lower court’s ruling stating that expert testimony presented by Mr.Hensely failed to establish sufficient proof of causation as required by FELA standards - which demand more than mere possibility or speculation about a link between workplace conditions and injury. The court held that while it is not necessary for scientific certainty regarding cause-and-effect relationships under FELA claims; substantial evidence must be provided showing probability rather than mere possibility.

The dissenting opinion in the case of CSX Transportation, Inc. v. Thurston Hensley argued that the majority's decision to overturn a jury verdict and award for damages was inappropriate because it relied on an overly narrow interpretation of federal law. The dissent contended that the Federal Employers' Liability Act (FELA) should be interpreted broadly to protect railroad workers from harm, including emotional distress caused by fear of developing cancer due to asbestos exposure. They believed that there was sufficient evidence presented at trial showing that Hensley had been negligently exposed to asbestos while working for CSX and suffered genuine emotional distress as a result, which is compensable under FELA. Therefore, they disagreed with the majority's view that only physical symptoms can constitute injury under FELA and thought this ruling undermined worker protections provided by Congress through this legislation.