/>iIn our last post, we discussed Illinois Appellate Court decisions concerning medical monitoring claims. Plaintiffs have been similarly unsuccessful at the trial court level. Judge Leroy Martin in the Circuit Court of Cook County (Chancery) dismissed a medical monitoring claim pursuant to defendants’ 735 ILCS 5/2-615 motion to dismiss. See Pierscionek v. Ill. High Sch. Ass’n, 2015 Ill. Cir. LEXIS 24 (Ill. Cir. Ct. October 27, 2015). The court likened plaintiff’s claim for medical monitoring to Lewis Iand dismissed the complaint:
The court in Lewis was concerned with some of the same issues presented in the case at bar—a plaintiff who fails to allege the existence of a present injury and the fundamental difference between a claim seeking damages for an increased risk of future harm and one that seeks compensation for the cost of medical examinations. Ultimately, the Lewis decision determined that plaintiffs had failed to plead tort claims because they failed to establish a causative link between the tortious acts of a specific defendant and damages sought — the cost of screening for lead poisoning….The complaint before this court seeks ongoing medical monitoring as opposed to screening for a medical condition but the pleading fails to establish a causative link between IHSA and the damages sought.
The opinion further stated, unequivocally, “Illinois law does not recognize a medical-monitoring-only cause of action.” Pierscionek, 2015 Ill. Cir. LEXIS 24, *11 (Ill. Cir. Ct. Oct. 27, 2015).
In furtherance of the Jensen court’s admonishment that that Lewis I does not support the viability of medical monitoring only claims, the Illinois Appellate Court has also supported the rejection of such claims. See Campbell v. A.C. Equip. Serv. Corp., Inc., 242 Ill. App. 3d 707 (4th Dist. 1993) (where the court did not recognize a cause of action to recover expenses for medical monitoring absent present physical injury); Betts v. Manville Personal Injury Settlement Trust, 224 Ill. App. 3d 882 (4th Dist. 1992) (where the court rejected medical monitoring damages in an asbestos case absent proof of present injury).
While the Illinois Supreme Court has not yet recognized this type of claim, several federal district court opinions have concluded that Illinois would recognize independent claims for medical monitoring. Stella v. LVMH Perfumes & Cosmetics USA, Inc., 564 F. Supp.2d 833, 836 (N.D. Ill. 2008); Gates v. Rohm & Haas Co., 2007 WL 2155665, at *4-5 (E.D. Pa. July 26, 2007) (applying Illinois law); Muniz v. Rexnord Corp., 2006 WL 1519571, at *6-7 (N.D. Ill. 2006); Carey v. Kerr-McGee Chemical Corp., 999 F. Supp. 1109, 1119 (N.D. Ill. 1998)(predicting that the Illinois Supreme Court would uphold a claim for medical monitoring without requiring plaintiffs to plead and prove a present physical injury).
If the Illinois Supreme Court allows medical monitoring claims for plaintiffs without a present physical injury, the court should provide instructions for how a defendant can establish and manage a fund for medical monitoring. Such questions include whether a defendant must monitor for other medical issues, time limitations, administrative authority, size of fund, and adapting to increased costs of health care. Without guidance as to these fundamental issues, the courts may be faced with increased litigation over the proper way for a defendant to establish and manage a medical monitoring fund.
