Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Medical Monitoring Class Actions: Challenging Certification By Challenging the Proposed Medical Monitoring Program
Plaintiffs often seek damages for medical monitoring in class action lawsuits involving exposure to toxic substances. Medical monitoring funds provide compensation for the cost of periodic diagnostic tests and medical examinations. Plaintiffs often claim such checkups are medically necessary to monitor their health, facilitate early diagnosis, and improve treatment of potential future diseases. Federal district courts, however, have recently denied class certification in instances in which the plaintiffs sought medical monitoring, citing causation issues better addressed on an individual basis. The Appellate Division of the New Jersey Superior Court has begun to follow suit.
A pharmaceutical manufacturer was successful in decertifying a class action for medical monitoring in a recent product liability case in Florida. In Wyeth v. Gottlieb, 930 So. 2d 635 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 3d Dist. 2006), the Third District Court of Appeal held that individual causation issues predominated over common ones, since the plaintiffs had different levels of exposure, different sources of information, and different risk factors for breast cancer and cardiovascular disease.
Similarly, in a recent product liability case in New Jersey, a manufacturer of vinyl chloride products was victorious in its defense against a class action for medical monitoring. In Buynie et al. v. Airco, Inc. et al., 2007 WL 2275013 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2007), the Appellate Division held that class certification was inappropriate because the plaintiffs' claims were not cohesive on the issue of causation.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- 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
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
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Stranger to the Deed Rule
In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.