more than a procedural device to relieve court congestion” was insufficient justification to consider the state rule as procedural. Id. at 336, 108 S.Ct. at 1843. Observing that “federal and state courts have held with virtual unanimity over more than seven decades that prejudgment interest is not available under FELA,” id. at 338, 108 S.Ct. at 1844, and that in order for the remedy of prejudgment interest to be available to a prevailing FELA plaintiff, “Congress must expressly so provide,” id. at 339, 108 S.Ct. at 1845, the Supreme Court determined that the Pennsylvania “procedural” provision is preempted by FELA. The Supreme Court held that the award of $26,712.50 in prejudgment interest was “to ers Union v. Morton, 377 U.S. 252, 260-61, 84 S.Ct. 1253,1259,12 L.Ed.2d 280 (1964) (<HOLDING>). Interpreting Monessen as preempting the award
holding that federal courts should apply state substantive law holding a court may not award punitive damages holding that punitive damages are not fines holding that tort law and the law of punitive damages are not controlled by the contract choice of law provision holding that punitive damages could not be granted because punitive damages are a matter of substantive law and substantive state law  must yield to federal limitations