Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Environmental Health topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Heated hearing on HB 2888: sponsor seeks to bar noninjury medical‑monitoring claims; residents and attorneys warn of PFAS impacts
Summary
Representative Dane Deal presented HB 2888 to clarify that standalone medical‑monitoring claims without present diagnosable injury are not available; opponents—including residents alleging PFAS contamination—warn the bill would strip a long‑used remedy, while insurers and business groups back the change as legal clarity.
Representative Dane Deal told the Commerce Committee that House Bill 2888 is intended to align Missouri law with higher‑court precedent limiting standalone medical‑monitoring claims without diagnosable injury. Deal said the bill is meant to prevent speculative lawsuits that demand defendants fund monitoring programs absent an existing disease and to leave injury‑based claims intact.
Opponents said the bill would remove an important remedy for communities exposed to long‑latency toxins. Attorney Brian Madden and Farmington resident Tommy Harris described ongoing litigation tied to PFAS and hexavalent chromium pollution in Portageville, Farmington and Henry County. Harris recounted testing that found PFAS in his well and said he now requires repeated CT scans and would not be able to pay for protracted monitoring out of pocket. Madden warned the bill would eliminate medical monitoring damages recognized in Missouri case law and could be unconstitutional if it impermissibly abridges jury remedies.
Supporters included Rich Aubushon of the Missouri Civil Justice Reform Coalition, the Missouri Chamber of Commerce, and insurer representatives who argued HB 2888 provides needed legal clarity and prevents speculative claims that lack a present injury. Aubushon cited other states and federal cases rejecting noninjury monitoring claims and said the legislature is the proper place to define causes of action.
Committee members questioned drafting, whether the bill would prevent insurers or companies from voluntarily providing monitoring, and how the bill would affect workers or communities with latent exposures. Sponsor Deal said the bill does not prevent preventative healthcare but seeks to limit court‑created remedies that require defendants to pay for monitoring without a present injury.
The hearing included emotional testimony from affected residents and technical legal debate; the committee concluded the hearing with no immediate vote reported.
