Simmons v. Pacor, Inc.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Torts

TortsAsbestos exposureCompensable injuryEmotional distressMedical monitoringasbestospleural thickeningasymptomatic injury

Facts

Each plaintiff had occupational exposure to asbestos and was later diagnosed by x-ray with pleural thickening. The medical evidence showed no lung-function impairment, no disabling consequences, and no physical symptoms attributable to the pleural changes, although plaintiffs were told their asbestos exposure increased their risks of cancer and mesothelioma. Plaintiffs claimed damages for increased risk and fear of cancer, mental anguish, and loss of life's pleasures. Their experts also recommended yearly examinations and x-rays to monitor their conditions.

Issue

Does asymptomatic pleural thickening caused by occupational asbestos exposure, without discernible physical symptoms or functional impairment, constitute a compensable injury? If not, may plaintiffs nonetheless recover damages for emotional distress based on fear of developing cancer?

Rule

Asymptomatic pleural thickening caused by occupational exposure to asbestos, unaccompanied by disabling consequences or physical impairment, is not a compensable injury and does not give rise to a cause of action for damages such as increased risk of cancer, fear of cancer, mental anguish, or loss of life's pleasures. Absent physical injury, emotional distress damages are not recoverable. A plaintiff may bring suit when symptoms and physiological impairment actually develop, and may later bring a separate action if cancer develops under the two disease rule. A limited exception permits recovery for reasonably necessary medical monitoring expenses, though such relief must be sought.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

Rafael Ortiz worked for years installing insulation in Cleveland, Ohio. A routine chest scan later showed pleural plaques caused by asbestos exposure, but his pulmonologist testified that Rafael has normal lung function, no pain, no shortness of breath, and no physical limitations.

If Rafael sues the product manufacturers for pain and suffering, loss of enjoyment of life, and damages based on the asbestos-related scarring itself, what is the strongest result?

Explanation. The majority held that asymptomatic pleural thickening or similar pleural scarring, unaccompanied by disabling consequences or physical impairment, is not compensable. A mere physical change shown on x-ray is not enough without detrimental effect. (Derived from Simmons v. Pacor, Inc. (n.d.).)