Court Refuses to Allow Medical Monitoring Cause of Action
On January 4, 2007, the Mississippi Supreme Court, in Paz v. Brush Engineered Materials, Inc., No. 2006-FC-00771-SCT (Miss. 2007) answered a certified question of Mississippi law from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. In a case appealed from the Southern District of Mississippi, the Fifth Circuit asked the Mississippi Supreme Court to determine whether the laws of Mississippi allow for a medical monitoring cause of action, whereby a plaintiff can recover medical monitoring costs for exposure to a harmful substance without proving current physical injuries from that exposure. The Plaintiffs were current and previous employees of the John C. Stennis Space Center in Mississippi and the Canoga Park facility in California. Boeing Company, represented by Roy Campbell and Melody McAnally of Bradley Arant, is the operator of those facilities. The employees claimed that they had been exposed to beryllium and that Boeing and other defendants should fund a court-supervised medical monitoring program to track any possible development of Chronic Beryllium Disease. However, none of the Plaintiffs had actually suffered physical injury from the alleged exposure.
The Supreme Court found that Mississippi caselaw did not support recognition of a medical monitoring action because there was no proof of injury. The Plaintiffs claimed that even without a present physical injury, they should be able to recover due to the emotional distress resulting from their alleged exposure. The Court cited past precedents in which it refused to allow recovery for emotional distress based solely on a fear of contracting a disease or illness in the future, however reasonable. Justice Smith noted that the United States Supreme Court has found that with few exceptions, common law courts have denied recovery to those who are disease and symptom free.
The Plaintiffs further argued that a majority of states had allowed medical monitoring actions and cited seven states that had actually recognized the cause of action and five having predicted such an action. The Defendants countered by showing seventeen cases from various states prohibiting medical monitoring requests to move forward. The Court held that since Mississippi law was clear on this issue, they did not have to look to what other states had done. Likewise, the Court rejected the Plaintiffs argument that public policy mandated that the Court create such an action.
The Mississippi Supreme Court answered the 5th Circuit's question in the negative, thus continuing its rejection of the proposition that Mississippi tort law allows a cause of action consisting solely of potential future injury. Although claims seeking medical monitoring as a unique form of relief have increased in popularity in other states, it appears that the Mississippi Supreme Court is not willing to entertain such actions at this time.
For more information, please contact Will Manuel, Melody McAnally, or Roy Campbell.
