In our posts on medical monitoring, we have pointed out that even in those jurisdictions which do recognize this type of claim/damages, plaintiffs typically must show that the proposed medical monitoring regime is reasonably medically necessary. Some courts articulate the notion that the testing be consistent with the standard of care, while others require the monitoring be reasonably necessary according to contemporary scientific principles.

An essential result of this is that the screening cannot risk doing more harm than good. While the pre-load of a typical jury pool may be that monitoring is always helpful, the reality is that many forms of screening have significant potential costs and risks, associated with the procedure or the inevitable follow-up response to a positive test finding --which may turn out to be a false positive finding. If those (and other) costs are not outweighed by the decrease in disease mortality fostered by the testing, then the monitoring doesn't make sense medically, and should not be available in a legal setting.