Medical Monitoring Laws

A medical monitoring claim is a a lawsuit filed by a plaintiff who claims future medical problems. Medical monitoring cases have been filed in state and federal courts for the last 25 years, according to a journal article on Law.com. According to The International Law Office, courts have long been conflicted on the issue of medical monitoring. One of the first recognized cases of medical monitoring was in decided 1984 in favor of the plaintiffs. In Friends for All Children, Inc. v. Lockheed Aircraft Corp, the court held that Lockheed was to set up a fund to pay for diagnostic procedures the plaintiff may require in the future. Since that case, over 40 medical monitoring cases have been filed in the United States. As of 2010, there are four case laws relative to recent state court decisions, that can be used as precedents in the future.

Lowe v. Philip Morris USA, Inc.

• In Oregon in 2008, a smoker filed a medical monitoring suit against Philip Morris, alleging their negligence in making and selling cigarettes. She sued them for the potential that their cigarettes could give her lung cancer in the future. The Oregon Supreme Court riled against the plaintiff citing a potential negligence is not the same as a certain, substantiated claim of negligence. The precedent set here is that plaintiffs have to prove a current, physical illness or health condition.

Cole v. ASARCO, Inc.

• Case law was established in Oklahoma with Cole v. ASARCO, Inc. The plaintiff sued for potential mining pollution, however, the Federal District Court in Oklahoma ruled that Oklahoma would not recognize medical monitoring. Their decision was based on Oklahoma law which requires plaintiffs to "demonstrate an existing disease or physical injury before they can recover the costs of future medical treatment that is deemed medically necessary." This 2009 decision further established the precedent set by Oregon in 2008.

Miranda v. DaCruz

• In Rhode Island, a court ruled in 2009, ruled that the plaintiff, Miranda, could not recover medical monitoring damages. The allegations that a child's lead poisoning would cause him future health problems was insufficient. The court stated that the boy showed no physical or developmental problems.

Donovan v. Philip Morris USA, Inc.

• Donovan v. Philip Morris USA, Inc. was another suit filed by a smoker, but in this case, the court ruled against the defendant and awarded the plaintiff medical monitoring damages. The Massachusetts court held that because the plaintiff had medical proof of early cancer detection, the effects of his exposure to cigarette smoke was a proven increased risk of lung cancer. This 2009 case set a precedent that plaintiffs should have medical and physical proof of the future conditions for which they are filing suit.