
Subscribe for updates
Recent Posts
- EPA Can Reconsider Rulemaking without Vacatur in Clean Air Act Citizen Suit, Sixth Circuit Holds
- In Rejecting J&J Bankruptcy Petition, Court Reminds that Financial Distress is a Prerequisite to Bankruptcy
- Third Circuit Confirms 27-Year-Old Clean Water Act Consent Decree Still Enforceable
- Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court Finds Local Stormwater Charge Constitutes A Tax
- Nuns’ Religious Freedom Lawsuit Against Pipeline Held To Be Impermissible Collateral Attack On FERC Approval
Topics
- Greenwashing
- Good Faith Settlement
- Federal Facilities
- Statutory Notice
- Oil Pollution Act
- Federal Jurisdiction
- Owner Liability
- Court of Federal Claims
- Ripeness
- Renewable Fuel Standard
- Fish and Wildlife Service
- Greenhouse Gas
- Refinery
- Alaska
- Florida
- Vapor Intrusion
- Solvents
- National Priorities List
- Price-Anderson Act
- Solid Waste Management Act
- Personal Jurisdiction
- Successor Liability
- Potentially Responsible Parties
- Operator Liability
- Federal Circuit
- Environmental Covenants
- Apportionment
- National Contingency Plan
- Divisibility
- Strict Liability
- Water Pollution Control Act
- Utilities
- Public Utilities Commission
- Historic Resources
- Hydraulic Fracturing
- Water Use
- Ohio
- PFAS
- Arbitration
- Alternative Dispute Resolution
- Climate Change
- Auer Deference
- Commonwealth Court
- Fees
- West Virginia
- Forest Service
- TSCA
- Asbestos
- Martime
- Utah
- Tribal Lands
- Federal Tort Claims Act
- New Mexico
- Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control
- Delaware
- FERC
- National Forest Management Act
- Endangered Species Act
- Chevron Deference
- United States Supreme Court
- HSCA
- Alter Ego
- Corporate Veil
- Allocation
- Eleventh Amendment
- Delaware River Basin Commission
- Mining
- Intervention
- New Hampshire
- PCBs
- Property Damage
- Building Materials
- First Circuit
- Groundwater
- Natural Resource Damages
- Innocent Party
- Brownfields
- Brownfield
- Environmental Rights Amendment
- Pipeline Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
- PHMSA
- FOIA
- Effluents
- Sediment Sites
- EHB
- Missouri
- Pipelines
- Texas
- Injunction
- Coal Ash
- Spoliation
- TMDL
- Stormwater
- Safe Drinking Water Act
- Colorado
- Drinking Water
- Michigan
- North Carolina
- Bankruptcy
- Clean Streams Law
- Hearing Board
- Civil Penalties
- Arranger Liability
- Sovereign Immunity
- Retroactive
- Fair Market Value
- Stigma
- Damages
- Property Value
- Tax assessment
- Storage Tank
- Energy
- Electric
- Fifth Circuit
- Indemnification
- Arizona
- Ninth Circuit
- Attorney-Client
- OPRA
- Iowa
- Fourth Circuit
- Discovery Rule
- Eighth Circuit
- Administrative Appeals
- Taxes
- Preemption
- CAFA
- Residential
- Freshwater Wetlands Protect Act
- Inspection
- New York
- Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection
- Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
- Natural Gas Act
- HAPs
- Hazardous Air Pollutants
- Mercury
- D.C. Circuit
- Condemnation
- Takings
- Natural Gas
- Storage
- Fifth Amendment
- Flooding
- Takings Clause
- Causation
- Spill Act
- NEPA
- Tenth Circuit
- Interior
- Mineral Leasing Act
- California
- Act 13
- Zoning
- Duty to Defend
- Insurance Coverage
- Eminent Domain
- Landfill
- Private Right of Action
- Sixth Circuit
- Water
- Illinois
- Diligent Prosecution
- Subject Matter Jurisdiction
- Citizen Suit
- Arkansas
- Pennsylvania
- Press
- Uncategorized
- Maryland
- Eleventh Circuit
- Equal-Footing Doctrine
- Montana
- Navigability
- Riverbed
- Indiana
- Seventh Circuit
- Breach of Contract
- Public Lands
- Bona Fide Prospective Purchaser
- Green House Counsel
- Rulemaking
- CISWI
- Enforcement
- Equity
- Laches
- Delay Notice
- Consent Decree
- EPA
- Boiler MACT
- Contribution
- Declaratory Relief
- Second Circuit
- NPDES
- Procedure
- Standing
- Dimock
- Medical Monitoring
- Legislation
- Case Update
- Certification
- Contamination
- Dukes
- Louisiana
- CLE
- Decisions of Note
- Cases to Watch
- Discovery
- Expert Witness
- Privilege
- Work Product
- CERCLA
- Cost Recovery
- Defense Costs
- Insurance
- Real Estate
- Remediation
- Response Action Contractors
- Consultant Liability
- Negligence
- Rapanos
- Army Corps
- Donovan
- Kentucky
- Nuisance
- Class Actions
- Odors
- Trespass
- Farming
- Hog Barn
- Informal Agency Action
- Administrative Hearing
- ISRA
- New Jersey
- Air
- Cancer
- Combustion
- Emissions
- Railroad
- RCRA
- Waste
- Speaking Engagements
- Toxic Torts
- Federal Procedure
- Removal
- Third Circuit
- Permits
- Statute of Limitations
- Title V
- Clean Air Act
- Superfund
- Supreme Court
- Cleanup
- Statute of Repose
- Tolling
- Camp Lejeune
- Multi-District Litigation
- Enforcement Action
- Wetlands
- Deeds
- Administrative Procedures Act
- Marcellus Shale
- Clean Water Act
- Mineral Rights
- Due Process
- Leases
- Oil and Gas
- Royalties
- Drilling
- Exploration
Blog editor
Blog Contributors
In two recent decisions, courts have continued to preclude “classic” tort claims without proof of a current symptomatic condition and to place substantial limits on medical monitoring clams under state common law. In Benoit v. Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Corporation, No. 17-3941 (2d Cir. 2020), the Second Circuit affirmed a district court’s denial of defendants’ motion to dismiss medical monitoring damages based on personal injury but cast significant doubt of the viability of such relief in the absence of any physical manifestation of exposure. And in Letart v. Union Carbide Corporation, No. 2:19-cv-00877 (S.D. W.Va. 2020), the Court granted a motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ common law claims but allowed medical monitoring claims related to ethylene oxide (“EtO”) emissions to proceed, yet without addressing or determining whether the plaintiffs can meet the evidentiary requirements for such claims.
On May 18, 2020, in Benoit, the Second Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of defendants’ motion to dismiss medical monitoring claims based on physical injury related to perfluorooctanoic acid (“PFOA”). However, the Court’s decision was grounded on the fact that the plaintiff alleged a “physical manifestation of or clinically demonstrable presence of toxins in the plaintiff's body,” which itself was sufficient to state a personal injury claim. To recover damages for medical monitoring, the Court held that under New York law one must establish that there is an existing physical consequence present, and not merely a fear of future illness or injury.
Just as importantly, the Court did not rule on whether mere injury to property was sufficient to give rise to medical monitoring damages. Indeed, the Court called into question the plaintiff’s reliance on imprecise language in an earlier New York case, and instead noted that there was no precedent for medical monitoring as relief where there was no finding of personal injury. Thus, the Court concluded that “whether New York law will allow medical monitoring to be ordered solely on the basis of damage to property is unclear, but that that issue is not ripe for resolution.”
In West Virginia, the plaintiffs in Letart claimed that the defendant has been emitting EtO, an allegedly hazardous air pollutant, into the surrounding community since the late 1970’s and that the class members living in the vicinity of defendant’s plant are more likely to develop cancer. Under West Virginia law, the presence of a toxic substance in one’s blood is not sufficient to establish a justiciable injury, nor does increased exposure to a toxic substance create the requisite showing that it is “reasonably certain plaintiffs would develop future injuries.” Therefore, the court dismissed the plaintiffs’ claims under traditional tort theories of negligence, willful and wanton conduct, and ultrahazardous activity/strict liability. The class’s medical monitoring claim, however, survived the motion to dismiss because of the Court found that West Virginia law does not require plaintiffs to establish present physical harm resulting from the tortious exposure in order to bring the claim. Rather, the Court held that the Complaint alleged facts that made it “plausible” that there was “an exposure to a harmful substance and the concomitant need for medical testing,” which was sufficient for the claim to proceed. Nevertheless, while the cause of action survived the pleading stage, the plaintiffs will still face a significant factual and evidentiary burden in establishing that there is a sufficient likelihood of developing an illness for which regular medical testing is appropriate.