The unanimous decision of the Alabama Supreme Court to reject medical monitoring for the uninjured has prompted Monsanto Co. to request summary judgment in three local pollution cases.
Monsanto wants a dismissal of the claims of all plaintiffs who do not allege past or present personal injuries or property damages.
Monsanto's attorneys have not yet provided a final list of these plaintiffs to the court, but it is likely to be extensive.
Meanwhile, the plaintiffs' attorney, Donald Stewart, said he is unconcerned. The Supreme Court handled "a different fact situation," he said.
Monsanto filed the motion immediately after the Supreme Court reached its Sept. 14 decision in the Travis Hinton v. Monsanto case.
That case, filed in federal district court in Birmingham, sought long-term medical monitoring for Calhoun County residents who were exposed to polychlorinated biphenyls but do not allege current physical injuries. District Judge Robert Propst asked the Supreme Court to decide if plaintiffs without injuries can sue for medical monitoring.
The Supreme Court said no.
Monsanto stands accused of polluting local properties and residents' bodies with PCBs, which are believed to cause cancer and other health problems. At least 20 other PCB cases are pending in local and state courts. Monsanto's Sept. 17 motion for summary judgment was filed in the largest case, a combination of three circuit court cases handled by Stewart, an Anniston attorney.
Stewart represents about 3,500 current and former Calhoun County residents who will face Monsanto in Etowah County Circuit Court Oct. 1. Out of Stewart's 3,500 plaintiffs, Monsanto alleges that as many as 2,800 do not claim past or present personal injury. About 900 claim property damages. Many plaintiffs claim several types of damages.
"It's not a simple (subtraction)," said Monsanto attorney Adam Peck. But conceivably, the list submitted for summary judgment could include more than 1,000 plaintiffs.
Stewart said he thinks it is "curious" that Monsanto fought against medical monitoring in the first place, given the fact that the company conducted medical surveillance on its own employees exposed to PCBs. On the other hand, he said he is not worried about Monsanto's effort to use the Supreme Court decision against his case. "We think they (Monsanto's attorneys) are wrong about the law."
Stewart drew a distinction between the Hinton case, which claimed "no present injuries," and his cases, which draw on scientific studies describing "injury" from PCBs in terms of both actual diseases and sub-cellular damages in the body.
He said all of his plaintiffs claiming personal injury are suffering because they have PCBs in their bodies. "Our plaintiffs have terrible body burdens," Stewart said.
Late last week, Circuit Judge Joel Laird, who is presiding over the case, said his busy trial schedule last week prevented him from reading either the Supreme Court verdict or the motion for summary judgment.
He declined to comment, saying he will look at the documents this week.
It isn't the first time Monsanto has asked for summary judgment in the combined lawsuits. There have been at least six previous attempts - in fact, one of them is a pending motion against medical monitoring, filed by Monsanto in 1998.
At least one other local attorney handling PCB cases against Monsanto said his plaintiffs should not be affected by the Supreme Court's ruling.
Earl Underwood, who represents plaintiffs in the Suggs v. Monsanto case, said "It looks like it's not a ruling against medical monitoring, at least for those people who are claiming injuries."
