U.S. Chamber of Commerce - Medical Monitoring

Medical Monitoring under Oregon Law
Lowe v. Philip Morris USA Inc., et al.
No. 054378
Supreme Court of Oregon

NCLC filed a brief urging the Oregon Supreme Court to join the United States Supreme Court and many of its sister jurisdictions in declining to adopt medical monitoring causes of action under federal and state laws respectively. In its brief, NCLC argued that creation of such a cause of action was better suited to the legislature and that, in any event, traditional tort law principles undermine the creation of a medical monitoring cause of action absent a physical injury.

Amicus brief filed 6/19/07.

View brief

Medical Monitoring Without Proof of Injury
Paz v. Brush Engineered Materials, Inc.
No. 2006-FC-0071
Supreme Court of Mississippi

NCLC filed an amicus brief urging the Supreme Court of Mississippi to decline to adopt a medical monitoring cause of action. In its brief, NCLC argues that allowing medical monitoring claims without proof of actual physical injury would foster widespread litigation with crippling liability leaving almost no defendant safe from medical monitoring claims. NCLC maintains that medical monitoring damages amount to windfall awards that deplete resources which could be better used to compensate truly injured individuals.

Amicus brief filed 8/21/06. Decision 1/4/07.

View brief

View decision

Workers' Compensation, Common Law, and Exposure to Hazardous Materials
Fullen, et al. v. Philips Electronics North America Corporation, et al.
No. 1-C-319 and No. 3-C-63
West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals

The West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals agreed to consider whether employees may seek redress for work-related claims outside the workers' compensation system. Approximately 1,500 current and former employees of a glass and light bulb manufacturing plant in West Virginia claim they were harmed by exposure to hazardous substances while at work. In its brief, NCLC stated the lower court decision to allow plaintiffs to seek remedies under common tort law was wrong. Rather, NCLC pointed out that the Workers' Compensation Act was enacted to address such claims.

Amicus brief filed 2/21/06. Decision 6/29/06.

View brief

Proper Standards for Certifying Class Actions
Henry, et al. v. The Dow Chemical Co., et al.
No. 266433
State of Michigan Court of Appeals

NCLC argues that inconsistent and lax certification standards encourage class action abuse and urges Michigan courts to look to the federal courts for guidance by conducting a "rigorous analysis" of the class action requirements before certifying a class.

Amicus brief filed 4/24/06.

Medical Monitoring in Michigan
Henry, et al. v. The Dow Chemical Company
S.C. No. 125205
Michigan Supreme Court

NCLC argues that allowing a claim for medical monitoring absent present physical injury is poor public policy that will lead to a flood of litigation, clog access to the courts and deplete resources that would be better used to compensate the truly injured, instead of providing an undeserved windfall to healthy plaintiffs.

Amicus brief in support of Dow's application for leave to appeal filed 12/15/03. Leave to appeal granted 6/3/04. Amicus brief on the merits filed 8/3/04. Decision 7/13/05.

Medical Monitoring in Michigan
Henry, et al. v. The Dow Chemical Company
No. 03-047775-NZ5
Michigan Supreme Court

NCLC urges the Michigan Supreme Court to resolve the confusion about whether Michigan recognizes medical monitoring claims. NCLC argues that allowing medical monitoring claims without proof of actual physical injury is a radical departure from 200 years of settled tort law and would foster widespread litigation with crippling liability, leaving almost no defendant safe from medical monitoring claims. Medical monitoring awards would essentially amount to windfall damages that are subject to abuse, as there is no guarantee any sum would actually be spent on medical monitoring.