Georgia Supreme Court hears arguments over medical monitoring in BioLab case

Credit: Mitchell Franklin

The Georgia Supreme Court heard arguments Tuesday in a case tied to the 2024 BioLab fire. 

The justices heard oral arguments in Bio-Lab, Inc. v. Tartt, a case that legal experts say could reshape how Georgia courts handle environmental exposure claims for years to come.

The court is weighing whether residents exposed to a chemical plume can seek long-term medical monitoring, even if they haven’t shown physical symptoms yet. 

U.S. District Judge Sarah Geraghty, who is overseeing a class-action lawsuit against BioLab and its parent company, KIK Consumer Products, sent the question to the state's highest court after saying in September that Georgia law is unclear on whether exposure alone is enough to justify those claims.

University of Georgia law professor Elizabeth Burch said the concept can sound unusual, but the logic behind it is grounded in basic tort principles.

"Medical monitoring seeks to intervene early on for people who have been exposed to a harmful substance, such that they can stave off any sort of harmful effects that might ultimately occur," Burch told GPB.

The goal, Burch said, is to create a structured medical program that gives exposed residents access to early screening.

Attorney Michael Terry, representing the plaintiffs, argued that those exposed to the plume are still living with the aftereffects.

"Thousands of people continue to live under that cloud because, for them, this is not yesterday's news, but it's also tomorrow's news and next year's news and next decade's news," Terry said, "because these citizens faced an increased risk of serious, even deadly health complications."

Attorneys for BioLab countered, saying allowing such a claim would "violate the traditional rule that personal injury liability may not be imposed unless the plaintiff has a present physical injury." 

At one point, the court also took up a procedural question of whether it should answer the certified question at all. Attorneys for residents argued the matter could be resolved in federal court, while BioLab's attorneys said it falls squarely upon Georgia law. 

Why it matters beyond this case

The case has drawn attention well beyond Georgia. A coalition of national business and industry groups — including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Manufacturers, and the Georgia Chamber of Commerce — filed an amicus brief supporting BioLab. They argue that allowing medical monitoring without proof of a current injury could expose companies to broad liability claims.

Burch said the brief could set a precedent. 

"It certainly can and will set precedent for the state of Georgia," he said. "In general, big companies — Big Pharma, places like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, they are trying to restrict tort law. They are trying to restrict the ability of Georgia citizens to be able to recover some sort of damages, if not now, then on down the line."

She also placed the case in the context of Georgia's recent lawsuit reform legislation, signed by Gov. Brian Kemp last year. 

"We went through tort reform that was principally focused on insurance claims, car insurance claims, property damage claims," she said. "This is another aspect of that: making it harder once they get into court to be able to recover things like punitive damages, like pain and suffering, these types of non-economic damages."

The Georgia Supreme Court is expected to issue a decision within the coming months.

For more on the 2024 BioLab fire and GPB’s investigation, Listen to Manufacturing Danger: The BioLab Story wherever you get your podcasts.