2BInformed: The Future of Fluoride in Drinking Water, the New TSCA Fees Rule, and the Drinking Water Contaminant Candidate List 5
DynCorp's 'Strategic' Defense In Drug Crop Spraying Suit
On Aug. 18, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit held that exposure to ethylene oxide (EtO) constitutes a concrete, present injury sufficient for Article III standing where costs for present medical monitoring are...more
The case of Hardwick v. 3M, a per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) class action lawsuit filed in Ohio, has been marked as one of the most significant legal cases in recent history. The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals...more
The American Law Institute is scheduled to vote shortly on a new proposed rule for its Restatement (Third) of Torts that would recognize a claim for medical monitoring, even in the absence of physical injury. Companies in all...more
The Supreme Court of New Hampshire declined to recognize medical monitoring as a remedy or cause of action for plaintiffs who claim exposure to toxic substances. The court based its reasoning on New Hampshire common law and...more
Holding that New Hampshire does not recognize medical monitoring claims for the mere exposure to a toxic substance, New Hampshire’s Supreme Court ruled in favor of a plastics manufacturing plant alleged to have released...more
Last week, the New Hampshire Supreme Court held that state law does not recognize medical monitoring as a remedy or cause of action for plaintiffs who allege that they were exposed to a toxic substance. In Kevin Brown v....more
On March 21, 2023, the New Hampshire Supreme Court, answering a certified question from the U.S. District Court for the District of New Hampshire, concluded that New Hampshire does not recognize a cause of action for recovery...more
On April 21st, Vermont Governor Phil Scott signed into law Senate Bill 113 that provides a cause of action for medical monitoring for individuals exposed to toxic chemicals. The new law specifically provides persons without a...more