Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Medical monitoring is often pursued as a claim in class actions against corporate defendants based on exposures to environmental pollutants or products that allegedly have the potential to cause future health problems. Because medical monitoring is an exception to the general requirement that the plaintiff must have a present injury in order to pursue a claim, many jurisdictions have adopted strict elements that a plaintiff must satisfy in order to succeed on a medical monitoring claim. These elements often require the court to consider issues specific to individual plaintiffs, particularly aspects of each plaintiff's medical history that have an impact on the need for or the extent of the proposed medical monitoring. As a result of these individual medical issues, many courts in recent years have refused to certify medical monitoring class actions. See, e.g., Ball v. Union Carbide Corp., 385 F.3d 713, 727-28 (6th Cir. 2004); Zinser v. Accufix Research Inst., Inc., 253 F. 3d 1180, 1195-96, amended, 273 F.3d 1266 (9th Cir. 2001); Barnes v. Am. Tobacco Co., 161 F.3d 127, 143 (3d Cir. 1998); Boughton v. Cotter Corp., 65 F.3d 823, 827 (10th Cir. 1995).
As in other contexts, plaintiffs' counsel are turning to state consumer protection law in order to circumvent these limitations and plead a claim with a better chance of class certification. Thus, instead of pursing medical monitoring as a claim, plaintiffs allege a violation of state consumer protection law and then seek to recover the expenses of medical monitoring as damages for the consumer protection claim. Although pursuing medical monitoring via a consumer protection claim obviously does not eliminate the individual medical issues, the District of Minne-sota recently certified a proposed class action under these circumstances in the Silzone heart valve litigation. See In re St. Jude Medical, Inc. Silzone Heart Valves Products Liability Litigation, No. MDL 01-1396, 2006 WL 2943154 (D. Minn. Oct. 13, 2006).
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
The DOJ's Criminal Division issued three declinations since the issuance of the revised CEP a year ago. Review of these cases gives insight into DOJ's implementation of the new policy in practice.
The parameters set forth in the DOJ's memorandum have implications not only for the government's evaluation of compliance programs in the context of criminal charging decisions, but also for how defense counsel structure their conference-room advocacy seeking declinations or lesser sanctions in both criminal and civil investigations.
This article discusses the practical and policy reasons for the use of DPAs and NPAs in white-collar criminal investigations, and considers the NDAA's new reporting provision and its relationship with other efforts to enhance transparency in DOJ decision-making.
There is no efficient market for the sale of bankruptcy assets. Inefficient markets yield a transactional drag, potentially dampening the ability of debtors and trustees to maximize value for creditors. This article identifies ways in which investors may more easily discover bankruptcy asset sales.
This article explores legal developments over the past year that may impact compliance officer personal liability.