Genereux v. Raytheon Company
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 10718
| 1st Cir. | 2014Background
- Beryllium exposure at Raytheon’s Waltham plant allegedly caused CBD and BeS, with two proposed class definitions (employee and take-home exposure).
- The MA SJC Donovan I case recognizes medical monitoring damages where subcellular change is shown, not merely increased risk.
- Plaintiffs seek a medical monitoring remedy under diversity jurisdiction, requesting a trust fund for BeLPT testing.
- The district court granted summary judgment for Raytheon, finding no evidence of subcellular change among plaintiffs.
- The appeal focuses on whether Donovan I’s injury standard requires subcellular change, whether an alternative theory survives, and whether a late expert declaration was properly stricken.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is subcellular change required for medical monitoring under MA law? | Genereux argues BeS constitutes subcellular change. | Raytheon argues Donovan I requires subcellular change to sustain medical monitoring. | No; the court holds subcellular change is required. |
| Was the alternative theory of medical monitoring without subcellular change preserved? | Plaintiffs contend Donovan I’s open question should be preserved for merits. | Raytheon argues the issue was not preserved and was not properly before the court. | Preserved issues were not timely raised; court rejects alternative theory. |
| Did the district court abuse its discretion in striking the 2012 Declaration? | Late declaration could be considered for class certification and summary judgment. | Striking late expert declaration was appropriate to enforce scheduling and avoid prejudice. | No abuse; district court properly struck the late declaration. |
Key Cases Cited
- Donovan v. Philip Morris USA, Inc., 914 N.E.2d 891 (Mass. 2009) (established medical monitoring elements including subcellular change as injury)
- Estate of Hevia v. Portrio Corp., 602 F.3d 34 (1st Cir. 2010) (de novo review of summary judgment with view favorably to nonmovants)
- CMM Cable Rep., Inc. v. Ocean Coast Props., Inc., 48 F.3d 618 (1st Cir. 1995) (express representations by counsel bind the client)