Two Recent Decisions Advance Post-Buckley Trend Rejecting Medical Monitoring

In January 2006, a federal court in Texas and a state court in New Jersey issued significant decisions contributing to the developing trend, which was triggered by the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in <i>Metro-North Commuter Railroad v. Buckley</i>, 521 U.S. 424 (1997), rejecting medical monitoring as a cause of action. In <i>Bund zur Untersttzung Radargesch'digter e. V., et al., v. Raytheon, Co.</i>, No. EP-04-CA-127-PRM, 2006 WL 267335 (W.D. Tex. Jan. 17, 2006), U.S. District Judge Philip R. Martinez predicted that the Texas Supreme Court would not recognize a cause of action for medical monitoring based primarily on that court's prior decision declining to recognize a claim for mental anguish in the absence of a physical injury. One week later, New Jersey Superior Court Judge Carol E. Higbee, in <i>Vitanza v. Wyeth, Inc.</i>, Case No. ATL-2093-04-MT (N.J. Super. Ct. Law Div. Jan. 24, 2006), dismissed a medical monitoring claim involving the prescription medication Prempro, ruling that the cause of action for medical monitoring previously recognized by the New Jersey Supreme Court is not available for plaintiffs asserting product liability or consumer fraud claims.

32 minute readJune 28, 2006 at 03:53 PM
By
Shawn D. Bryant
Two Recent Decisions Advance Post-Buckley Trend Rejecting Medical Monitoring

In January 2006, a federal court in Texas and a state court in New Jersey issued significant decisions contributing to the developing trend, which was triggered by the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in

This premium content is locked for LawJournalNewsletters subscribers only

ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN LawJournalNewsletters

  • Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
  • Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
  • Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Subscribe Now

Already have an account? Sign In Now

For enterprise-wide or corporate access, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or call 1-877-256-2473.

NOT FOR REPRINT

© 2026 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.

Continue Reading

The Race You Didn’t Know You Were In: Why AI Is Setting the Pace for Law Firm Marketing

The volume and sophistication of work hitting law firm marketing departments is accelerating. That moves the burden from responding to being ready: ready with differentiated positioning, ready with competitive intelligence, ready to get a compelling pitch to the right client before a formal process even begins. That requires more sophisticated output, produced faster, by teams that are already stretched past capacity.

April 01, 2026

Copyright, Free Speech and Victim Rights In the Digital Age

The annals of copyright decisions could provide a reasonably representative catalog of what our culture has been up to over the past 200 years. A Feb. 3 decision from the Southern District of New York is a case in point. It involves a sex-trafficking conspiracy, Tweets attacking a troubled crypto firm, and a claimed transfer of copyright ownership through a restitution order in a criminal case, all over an undercurrent of competing First Amendment and victim-privacy concerns.

April 01, 2026

Matthew McConaughey Combats AI’s Unauthorized Use of His Voice and Likeness

Matthew McConaughey secured eight federal trademark registrations covering his voice and iconic catchphrases in a novel legal strategy aimed at combating AI’s unauthorized use of his voice and likeness. The move signals an important evolution in the power dynamics between talent/brands and the companies providing generative AI tools.

April 01, 2026