Dougan v. Sikorsky Aircraft Corp.
337 Conn. 27
| Conn. | 2021Background:
- Four subcontractor workers (Badorek, Daley, Grem, Ferrara) alleged asbestos exposure while working at Sikorsky’s Stratford cogeneration project in 2010; they sought compensatory and punitive damages, costs of medical monitoring, and a court‑monitored monitoring fund.
- Asbestos was discovered during the project; plaintiffs conceded none had been diagnosed with an asbestos‑related disease at summary judgment.
- Defendants (Sikorsky and Carrier) moved for summary judgment arguing plaintiffs had no present physical injury and that Connecticut law does not recognize medical monitoring for asymptomatic risk; defendants also challenged the sufficiency of plaintiffs’ expert proof.
- Trial court granted summary judgment, holding plaintiffs failed to show a present physical injury and declining, on public‑policy grounds, to recognize a standalone medical‑monitoring claim absent manifest physical harm; it vacated class certification on monitoring issues.
- Connecticut Supreme Court affirmed on alternative grounds: assuming (without deciding) Connecticut would recognize a Donovan‑style medical‑monitoring cause of action, plaintiffs nonetheless failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact that monitoring was reasonably necessary for each plaintiff because their expert evidence was conclusory or limited to one plaintiff (Dougan).
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Connecticut recognizes a medical‑monitoring cause of action for asymptomatic/subclinical injury | Donovan framework should be adopted; subcellular changes from exposure constitute present injury warranting monitoring | Medical monitoring for asymptomatic risk is not cognizable under Connecticut law; public‑policy concerns counsel against recognition | Court assumed, without deciding, that such a cause could exist but did not adopt it; affirmed on alternative grounds (failure of proof) |
| Whether plaintiffs suffered a present physical or subclinical injury | Exposure caused subcellular lung changes (preclinical injury) that constitute injury | Plaintiffs have no diagnosed disease and thus no compensable physical injury | Court assumed arguendo that subclinical injury might be recognized but did not need to decide; plaintiffs did not present sufficient individualized proof |
| Whether early detection and effective treatment would materially improve outcomes (Donovan element) | Expert testimony establishes increased risk and value of early detection generally | No evidence showing early detection/treatment would significantly reduce mortality or severity for these plaintiffs | Plaintiffs failed to present evidence that early detection and treatment would significantly decrease death/severity for each plaintiff |
| Whether medical monitoring is reasonably necessary for each plaintiff (expert proof) | General expert statements and population‑level evidence suffice; individualized causation/necessity is for factfinder | Expert testimony must be particularized to each plaintiff; plaintiffs offered no expert opinions as to four plaintiffs | Held for defendants: plaintiffs’ expert only provided specific opinions for Dougan; affidavit was conclusory regarding others and insufficient to create genuine issue of material fact |
Key Cases Cited
- Metro‑North Commuter R.R. Co. v. Buckley, 521 U.S. 424 (1997) (declined to create a federal medical‑monitoring cause of action and emphasized policy concerns about expansive relief)
- Donovan v. Philip Morris USA, Inc., 455 Mass. 215 (2009) (recognized standalone medical‑monitoring claim for subclinical injury and set forth multi‑factor test)
- In re Paoli R.R. Yard PCB Litig., 916 F.2d 829 (3d Cir. 1990) (adopted factors for medical monitoring and required competent expert proof)
- Friends for All Children, Inc. v. Lockheed Aircraft Corp., 746 F.2d 816 (D.C. Cir. 1984) (early recognition of medical‑monitoring fund in toxic exposure context)
- Ayers v. Jackson, 106 N.J. 557 (1987) (permitted medical surveillance damages where expert proof established exposure, toxicity, and need for surveillance)
- Hansen v. Mountain Fuel Supply Co., 858 P.2d 970 (Utah 1993) (emphasized that monitoring must be medically advisable and reasonably necessary for each plaintiff)
- In re Marine Asbestos Cases, 265 F.3d 861 (9th Cir. 2001) (affirmed summary judgment where plaintiffs failed to show reasonableness and necessity of proposed monitoring)