The Michigan Supreme Court ruled 7/13/05 that medical monitoring is not a recognized legal claim in Michigan. Nevada, Kentucky and Alabama have also rejected such claims. The NAM joined with the U.S. Chamber, the American Tort Reform Association, the American Chemistry Council, the Coalition for Justice and the Property Casualty Insurers Association of America on 8/3/04 in arguing that individuals who may be merely exposed to hazardous substances but do not suffer actual adverse effects should not be able to demand payment for medical monitoring. Allowing such claims will clog the courts with litigation, impair justice for the truly injured, and provide an undeserved windfall to healthy plaintiffs. Whether such a claim should be recognized is a legislative judgment that courts should not be making.The Michigan court agreed with these arguments. It said that the legislature should decide whether to allow medical monitoring claims would “drain resources needed to compensate those with manifest physical injuries and a more immediate need for medical care. . . . actual harm – an injury that is manifest in the preset – is required in order to state a viable claim.”
We also filed a similar brief on 12/15/03 urging the court to review the case.