Michigan House Bill HB5241

Michigan 2023-2024 Regular Session

• Introduced: 10/25/23
• Refer: 10/25/23

Caption

Civil procedure: civil actions; action for medical monitoring for individuals exposed to a proven toxic substance; provide for. Amends secs. 20126 & 20140 of 1994 PA 451 (MCL 324.20126 & 324.20140) & adds sec. 20136.

Impact

The legislation will fundamentally change how liability is assigned in cases of environmental contamination. By allowing individuals who have been exposed to hazardous substances and exhibit a heightened risk of developing serious diseases to seek medical monitoring, the bill places greater responsibility on facility owners and operators. This legislative shift could lead to increased accountability for businesses and provide an avenue for those impacted to access preventive care, which could ultimately reduce healthcare costs associated with late-stage disease presentation.

Summary

House Bill 5241 aims to amend the Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act of 1994 in the state of Michigan, specifically sections 20126 and 20140. The bill introduces a framework for medical monitoring for individuals exposed to hazardous substances. It establishes the criteria under which individuals may bring a cause of action for medical monitoring against parties liable for the release of such substances. This is a significant move towards recognizing the health risks associated with environmental exposure, allowing individuals who demonstrate increased risks to seek necessary health screenings even in the absence of a current illness.

Contention

There may be notable contention regarding the liability provisions. Some stakeholders might argue that this could lead to increased litigation, potentially creating a burdensome environment for businesses, particularly small enterprises. On the other hand, advocates for environmental health and justice argue that the bill is necessary to protect vulnerable populations who may be adversely affected by environmental hazards. The requirement for a demonstrable risk and the need for periodic medical monitoring may also spark debates about the adequacy of such assessments and the responsibilities of the state in enforcing these provisions.