Stark & Stark attorneys Martin P. Schrama and Stefanie Colella-Walsh, members of the Litigation and Mass Torts Groups, co-authored the article Monitoring Medical Surveillance Claims in New Jersey, which was published in the New Jersey Law Journal on December 9, 2015.
The article better explains the concept of medical monitoring, which is sometimes better known as “medical surveillance.” This theory is that plaintiffs who had been exposed to harmful chemicals but had yet to develop any bodily injuries could benefit from a program of specialized medical examinations. With that kind of program in place, patients would theoretically receive the earliest possible diagnosis of their chemically induced illness, which in turn would improve their prospects for treating, curing, and prolonging their lifespan.
New Jersey was one of the first states to identify this concept in 1987, when the New Jersey Supreme Court declined to “recognize increased risk of harm, absent bodily injury, as a tenable cause of action,” but did introduce “the independent claim of medical monitoring for plaintiffs who had not yet exhibited compensable bodily injuries was firmly established and defined.”
Additionally, in order for any plaintiffs to make a case for medical monitoring, they must “essentially demonstrate, through reliable expert testimony, significant and extensive exposure to chemicals, the toxicity of the chemicals, the serious diseases for which the plaintiff is at risk, the relative increase in the chance of the onset of those diseases in the exposed plaintiff, and the value of early diagnosis through medical monitoring.”
To read the full article, please click here.
