This Article Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Juni, R. L Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Juni, R. L Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Hormesis and toxic torts: traditional torts and claims for subclinical harm

Jones Day, Washington, DC 20001, USA, rljuni{at}jonesday.com

This article explores the implications of hormesis on toxic tort litigation, in particular litigation regarding claims for medical monitoring or subclinical harm. In considering medical monitoring issues, courts have described medical monitoring both as a remedy and as an independent claim. If medical monitoring is upheld as an indepedent claim — as opposed to a remedy awarded after negligence or another claim is pled and proven — the article explains that the evidentiary showing necessary to succeed on the medical monitoring claim may be less rigorous than would be the case if the issues were considered separately. Because hormesis by definition involves low dose exposures that are more likely to involve subclinical harm, exposure evidence that includes a hormetic effect may well become an issue in medical monitoring cases, and may complicate an already confusing doctrine.

Key Words: medical monitoring • hormesis • toxic torts • litigation • subclinical

Human & Experimental Toxicology, Vol. 27, No. 2, 109-112 (2008)
DOI: 10.1177/0960327107086564


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?