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.