Medical Monitoring Claim Rejected by Federal Court

Readers know that medical monitoring claims are a focus of MassTortDefense.  In a recent case, a federal trial court granted summary judgment on a medical monitoring claim with an opinion that makes a salient point.  See Sahu v. Union Carbide Corp., 2012 WL 2422757 (S.D.N.Y. June 26, 2012.)

Plaintiffs filed suit as members of a putative class against Union Carbide Corporation, seeking monetary damages and medical monitoring for injuries allegedly caused by exposure to soil and drinking water polluted by wastes allegedly produced by the Union Carbide India Limited plant in Bhopal, India.  After years of discovery and tens of thousands of pages of document produced, defendants were able to move for summary judgment as to all theories of liability.  Specifically, plaintiffs brought negligence, public and private nuisance, and strict liability claims against UCC, seeking compensatory and punitive damages, as well as medical monitoring, for injuries allegedly caused by the Bhopal Plant operations.  But our focus in this post is on the medical monitoring claims.

Plaintiffs in the "Medical Monitoring Class” sought  a “court-ordered medical monitoring program for the early detection of various illnesses which they may develop as a result of exposure to the contaminants and pollutants to which they have been exposed"   The court rejected the claim, noting that medical monitoring was not a feasible remedy,  and was one which would face insurmountable hurdles: locating thousands of people who have resided 8,000 miles away in Bhopal, India, over a span of more than thirty years would be nearly impossible. Plaintiffs sought  relief on behalf of themselves, their families, their minor children, and a putative class of similarly situated people who “continue to reside in the municipal wards and residential areas in the vicinity of the UCIL plant and continue to be exposed to toxins” from contaminated soil and groundwater. Administration of such a program would require identification of every resident considered to be living “in the vicinity” of the Bhopal Plant site, and then further identification of those residents who “continue to be exposed to toxins.” To confirm exposure, it would be necessary to test the soil and drinking water supply throughout Bhopal. Literally construed, plaintiffs' complaint seemed to seek medical monitoring for every current resident of the Bhopal area—an impossible task.

This analysis is a refreshing counterpoint to the alarming feature of some recent medical monitoring decisions, in which the difficulty of identifying and ascertaining class members is somehow de-coupled from class certification and from the elements of the medical monitoring claim, and somehow relegated to an "administrative" feature of the relief program.

California Right To Know Bill Strikes the Wrong Balance

Last week, the California Assembly’s Committee on Environmental Safety and Toxic Materials approved the Consumer Right to Know Act, S.B. 928.  The bill passed the California State Senate last April, and is currently pending in the California Assembly’s Committee on Appropriations.

This bill would ban the manufacture, sale, or distribution of certain consumer products unless the manufacturer publishes a comprehensive list of ingredients on a publicly available website and directs consumers to a web address on the product’s label. The ingredients would have to be identified with a Chemical Abstract Service (CAS) number. Additionally, they should be identified by either the Consumer Specialty Products Association Consumer Product Ingredients Dictionary (CSPA dictionary) name or the International Nomenclature Cosmetic Ingredient (INCI) name.

As originally drafted, the bill applied to all consumer products as defined by the federal Consumer Product Safety Act. As amended, the current bill applies only to “designated consumer products.” So far, those products include: air care products, automotive products, cleaning products, and polish or floor maintenance products. But, according to observers, the scope of products is under review and could be changed by the legislature before enactment.

One huge issue with the bill is its inadequate protection for legitimate intellectual property, including trade secret information.

As it is currently drafted, S.B. 928 purports to protect trade secrets from disclosure, but it also restricts this ostensible protection in several problematic ways.

  • First, “hazardous” ingredients cannot be trade secrets for purposes of the bill. And the bill has an overbroad broad definition of “hazardous.” That is, a “hazardous substance” is defined as a chemical, or chemical compound, including breakdown products, identified by any state or federal agency or other governmental body or the World Health Organization as potentially having properties of eye and skin irritation, sensitization, acute or chronic toxicity, carcinogenicity, cytotoxicity, neurotoxicity, developmental or reproductive toxicity, or both, endocrine disruption or ecotoxicity.  Any chemical has the "potential" to be toxic at the wrong dose. Even substances universally regarded as safe can cause sensitization in a few hyper-allergic persons.

 

  • Second, hazardous incidental ingredients—those without a technical or functional effect, which, for example, can be present in very small quantities from processing or the production of other products—cannot be protected as trade secrets.

 

  • Third, if a product or its ingredients or incidental ingredients can be reverse engineered, it should not receive trade secret protection. Of course, it is impossible for manufacturers to know in advance what is capable of being reversed engineered for the purposes of disclosing ingredients.

Such disclosure of all chemical ingredients in products may lead to final product manufacturers being placed in the awkward situation of asking suppliers to divulge ingredient information, unique combinations of ingredients, and/or formulas that are patented, proprietary, or considered trade secrets. Many times these formulas are provided to final product manufacturers only under confidentiality agreements. The legislation, in those cases, would appear to require manufacturers to violate those confidentiality agreements by disclosing chemical ingredient information.


In addition, the bill requires that a manufacturer complete a complicated and unworkable formal process to have product information protected as a trade secret. This includes a showing of how secrecy leads to value, the ease of duplication if disclosure is made, how the chemical identity relates to how the chemical is made, how the manufacturer maintains secrecy, and how hard it is to reverse engineer the product. Most importantly, this includes disclosure of the basis for the manufacturer’s determination that its ingredients are not hazardous. That is, prove the negative. 

Finally, if the state Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) determines that the product is not deserving of trade secret protection for any number of listed reasons, including request from the public, the government can affirmatively disclose the product information. In order to prevent disclosure, the manufacturer will have 30 days to file for an injunction. That is an unfair and unworkable time frame.

A coalition of business interests led by the California Chamber of Commerce is opposing the bill on the grounds it increases costs to consumers and will expose confidential business information.  It fears that the definition of product will be expanded "to include everything under the California sun."

The bill would also eliminate trade secret protection after six years unless the manufacturer renews its claim. There is no apparent purpose for such a sunset provision on a trade secret claim other than to burden and place additional expense on the manufacturer. Finally, the bill provides no protections against private rights of action, including actions that may arise under California consumer fraud laws.

We could go on, but isn't that enough reason to conclude the bill strikes the wrong balance?