## Facts

- Plaintiffs were long-term Marlboro smokers aged 50 or older with at least 20 “pack-years” of smoking history.
- Plaintiffs alleged Philip Morris designed, manufactured, and sold cigarettes with unnecessarily dangerous levels of carcinogens when smoked.
- Plaintiffs did not allege they had lung cancer or any other smoking-related disease, nor that they were under medical investigation for suspected lung cancer.
- Plaintiffs sought equitable relief requiring Philip Morris to fund and administer a court-supervised medical monitoring program using low-dose CT (LDCT) scans to detect lung cancer early.
- Federal courts dismissed plaintiffs’ damages-based tort and warranty claims (including on statute of limitations grounds) and sought guidance on whether New York law permits an independent medical-monitoring claim for asymptomatic plaintiffs.
- A certified question asked whether New York recognizes an independent equitable cause of action for medical monitoring and, if so, its elements and limitations rules.

## Issues

1. Whether New York recognizes an independent equitable cause of action for medical monitoring for plaintiffs alleging toxic exposure and increased disease risk but no present physical injury.
2. If such a claim exists, what elements, statute of limitations, and accrual rules would govern it.

## Decision

- The New York Court of Appeals answered the certified question in the negative.
- New York does not recognize an independent cause of action for medical monitoring absent present physical injury.
- Exposure to a harmful product and increased risk of future disease, without current disease or physical injury, does not constitute a cognizable injury supporting court-ordered monitoring.

## Legal Principles

- New York tort recovery generally requires present physical injury; future risk and asymptomatic exposure are not, by themselves, actionable injuries.
- Courts will not create a new, freestanding remedial scheme requiring defendants to fund ongoing health monitoring for uninjured plaintiffs based solely on increased risk.
- Policy choices about the scope, eligibility criteria, funding, and administration of population-level monitoring programs are for the legislature rather than the judiciary.
- Traditional remedies remain available once disease manifests, including recovery of medical expenses and diagnostic testing costs as part of a personal-injury action.

## Conclusion

New York declined to recognize medical monitoring as a standalone equitable claim for asymptomatic individuals, holding that exposure and increased risk alone do not satisfy the state’s present-injury requirement and that any broad monitoring remedy must come from legislative action.


Caronia v. Philip Morris USA, Inc., 5 N.E.3d 11 (N.Y. 2013)