In the 1986 case of West v. Conrail et al., plaintiff Robert West, a railroad worker, sued his employer Consolidated Rail Corporation (Conrail) under the Federal Employers' Liability Act for injuries he sustained while on duty. The Supreme Court had to decide whether an employee could recover damages for emotional distress caused by fear of developing cancer after being exposed to asbestos at work. The court ruled that such claims were not compensable unless there was physical impact or threat of future disease supported by medical evidence. This meant that although Mr. West had been negligently exposed to asbestos by his employer and suffered severe emotional distress due to fear of developing cancer, he could not recover damages because he did not show any symptoms nor provided medical proof indicating likelihood of future illness from this exposure.

In the dissenting opinion for West v. Conrail et al., 1986, it was argued that the majority's decision to allow a railroad worker injured on the job to sue his employer under state law contradicted previous Supreme Court rulings and federal legislation. The dissenters believed that Congress intended for such cases to be exclusively governed by federal law when they passed the Federal Employers' Liability Act (FELA). They also pointed out inconsistencies in how FELA had been interpreted in different cases, leading them to conclude that this ruling would create confusion and uncertainty about which laws apply in future lawsuits involving railroads. Furthermore, they disagreed with allowing workers who are already covered by comprehensive federal regulations and benefits programs to seek additional compensation through state courts, as this could lead employers facing potential liability under both systems simultaneously.