Medical monitoring is the practice of allowing a company who causes you harm to pay for your medical treatment even though an injury verdict has not been reached. Sounds great right? If you were injured you may want the company to cover your bills immediately. But there are drawbacks, as reported in the St Claire Record:

A “dramatic” increase in the number of plaintiffs seeking medical monitoring would have a number of negative consequences, the authors argue.

Among them would be an adjustment of the statute of limitations, which begins running when a personal injury is found. If there is no injury, the statute would have to be altered.

Also, large medical monitoring awards like the one in a West Virginia case against DuPont could prevent some businesses from having the funds to pay personal injury plaintiffs if they do cause them harm.

A Kentucky decision says, “(s)pending large amounts of money to satisfy medical monitoring judgments will impair (Defendants’) ability to fully compensate victims who emerge years later with actual injuries that require immediate attention.”

The paper notes the reputations of some Illinois counties, such as Madison, that were termed “Judicial Hellholes” by the American Tort Reform Association. Madison County has been seen as a haven for asbestos claims because of its ability to deal with them quickly.

This is an interesting debate that is happening all over the country. There can be short term benefits to injury victims, but at long term costs to those same victims. The answer is hard to pinpoint but it may involve extending the statute of limitations in cases of medical monitoring and maybe other reforms as well.