PointofLaw.com
 Subscribe Subscribe   Find us on Twitter Follow POL on Twitter  
   
 
   

 

 

More on Michigan medical monitoring decision



The full text of the opinion is here (PDF). The amicus brief prepared in part by Leah Lorber's firm, on behalf of the American Tort Reform Association, U.S. Chamber of Commerce, National Association of Manufacturers, American Chemistry Council, and the Coalition of Litigation Justice, Inc., is here (PDF). Leah also points us to three articles written by her and her Shook Hardy colleagues, all cited in the decision:

Victor E. Schwartz, Medical Monitoring: Should Tort Law Say Yes?, 34 Wake Forest L. Rev. 1057 (1999) (cited for the proposition that medical monitoring could create a "limitless pool of plaintiffs" as attorneys "could virtually begin recruiting people off the street")

Victor E. Schwartz & Leah Lorber, State Farm v. Avery: State Court Regulation Through Litigation Has Gone Too Far, 33 Conn L. Rev. 1215 (2001) (quoted at length to explain the "far different decision-making calculus" facing judges and legislators as to why the Court should defer to the Legislature on this issue)

Victor E. Schwartz, Mark A. Behrens & Rochelle M. Tedesco, Addressing the "Elephantine Mass" of Asbestos Cases: Consolidation Versus Inactive Dockets (Pleural Registries) and Case Management Plans that Defer Claims Filed by the Non-sick, 31 Pepp. L. Rev. 271 (2003) (cited to explain that there is a "limited capacity to compensate" people through the tort system as illustrated by asbestos litigation, which led to more than 70 bankruptcies, "staggering" effects on the economy, and fewer resources for the "truly sick").

 

 


Isaac Gorodetski
Project Manager,
Center for Legal Policy at the
Manhattan Institute
igorodetski@manhattan-institute.org

Katherine Lazarski
Press Officer,
Manhattan Institute
klazarski@manhattan-institute.org

 

Published by the Manhattan Institute

The Manhattan Insitute's Center for Legal Policy.