Illinois Supreme Court: Need For Medical Monitoring Is Not An "Injury" That Supports A Negligence Claim

• Published date: 12 October 2020
• Subject Matter: Litigation, Mediation & Arbitration, Trials & Appeals & Compensation, Personal Injury, Professional Negligence
• Law Firm: Reed Smith
• Author: Ms Rachel B. Weil

A couple of weeks ago, we walked around the Drug and Device Law Suburban Abode with a critical eye. The Abode was built the same year we were built, and we were struck by its similar cries for invasive cosmetic help. As a stopgap, we arranged to have the exterior painted, a finger in the "replace all of the siding" dike. The painter arrived, worked all day, and called us to view the results. Sure enough, a fresh coat of paint created the illusion that someone was on top of the necessary upkeep. Except when we looked up. In the middle of all that was bright and new were two small dormers that had not been touched. Upon questioning, the painter responded that we had told him what we wanted him to paint and had not included the two dormers in the current project. Those who know us will not be surprised that our reaction was less than ladylike. The upshot was that the painter offered (screamed) that he would throw them in "as a freebie." To which we responded, at a similar volume, that we had hired him, at substantial expense, to paint the outside of the house, and there was nothing "free" about finishing the job he had agreed to do. We learned several lessons, but the one that allows us to draw a (very) tenuous connection to today's case is that "maybe later" often is not enough.

In that vein, we are pleased to report that Illinois has joined the vast majority of states that do not permit plaintiffs to base negligence claims on "increased risk" of "maybe later" developing an injury. This is the "medical monitoring" arena, and you can read some of our previous posts here and here and here. And...