In a unanimous ruling, the Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) said that Massachusetts law has an antiquated definition of negligence that must be updated. Historically, plaintiffs had to show explicit injurysuch as a broken legbefore the other party can be ordered to pay for diagnostic tests. Writing for the court, Justice Francis [image-nocss] X. Spina said that legal thinking had to change.
"Modern living has exposed people to a variety of toxic substances," Spina wrote. "Illness and disease from exposure to these substances are often latent, not manifesting themselves for years or even decades after the exposure."
Spina added, "Our tort law developed in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.... We must adapt to the growing recognition that exposure to toxic substances and radiation may cause substantial injury which should be compensable even if the full effects are not immediately apparent."
The SJC said a federal class-action lawsuit filed in 2006 against the cigarette maker by Patricia Cawley of Rockland, Kathleen Donovan of Randolph and James Teague of Lowell is now permitted under state law. The smokers had sued the cigarette maker demanding the company pay for low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) scans of the chest to get early warning of the disease, the report said.
"Courts around the country, including the United States Supreme Court, have been virtually unanimous in rejecting the type of claim plaintiffs assert here," the company's attorneys argued in court papers cited by the newspaper. "The sound policy reasons those courts have cited are equally compelling."
In its decision, the SJC also laid out the rules for statute of limitations for other smokers who may join the class-action lawsuit, said the report.
"In short, the statute begins to run when there is a physiological change resulting in a substantial increase in the risk of cancer, and that increase, under the standard of care, triggers the need for available diagnostic testing that has been accepted in the medical community as an efficacious method of lung cancer screening or surveillance," Spina wrote.
While directly addressing lawsuits involving smoking, the SJC explicitly said its thinking in the ruling does not automatically apply to other parts of the 21st century's toxic environment. "We leave for another day consideration of cases that involve exposure to levels of chemicals or radiation known to cause cancer, for which immediate medical monitoring may be medically necessary although no symptoms or subclinical changes have occurred," Spina wrote, according to the Globe.
Members help make our journalism possible. Become a CSP member today and unlock exclusive benefits, including unlimited access to all of our content. Sign up here.