Sadler v. PacifiCare of Nev. ( 2014 )


Menu:
  •                                                  130 Nev., Advance Opinion   18
    IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA
    SUSAN SADLER; AND JACK SADLER,                      No. 62111
    SR., INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF
    OF ALL PERSONS SIMILARLY
    SITUATED,                                             FILED
    Appellants,
    vs.                                                    DEC 3 1 2014
    PACIFICARE OF NEVADA, INC., A
    Ye/ C
    TRAM LINDEMAN
    NEVADA CORPORATION,
    t FCLERK
    Respondent.
    Appeal from a district court order granting judgment on the
    pleadings in a negligence action. Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark
    County; Susan Scann, Judge
    Reversed and remanded.
    Marquiz Law Office and Craig A. Marquiz, Henderson; George 0. West,
    III, Las Vegas,
    for Appellants.
    Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP and Daniel F. Polsenberg and Joel D.
    Henriod, Las Vegas; Holland & Hart LLP and Constance L. Akridge and
    Matthew T. Milone, Las Vegas,
    for Respondent.
    BEFORE HARDESTY, DOUGLAS and CHERRY, JJ.
    OPINION
    By the Court, HARDESTY, J.:
    Following an outbreak of hepatitis C that was linked to unsafe
    injection practices used in procedures performed at certain health-care
    facilities in southern Nevada, patients of those facilities who had
    SUPREME COURT
    OF
    NEVADA
    ( 0) I947A
    /4 - 47E2
    undergone such procedures were advised to submit to testing for blood-
    borne diseases, including hepatitis B, hepatitis C, and HIV. This appeal
    concerns whether, in the absence of a present physical injury, those
    patients who have so far tested negative for such diseases, or who have not
    yet been tested, may state a claim for negligence based on the need to
    undergo ongoing medical monitoring as a result of the unsafe injection
    practices at these health-care facilities. Because we conclude that such
    individuals may state a claim for negligence, we reverse the district court's
    dismissal of the complaint and remand this matter to the district court for
    further proceedings
    FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
    Appellants Jack and Susan Sadler, on behalf of themselves
    and a proposed class of similarly situated individuals,' filed a complaint in
    the district court against respondent PacifiCare of Nevada, Inc., a health
    maintenance organization, asserting claims of negligence and negligence
    per se on the ground that PacifiCare failed to perform its duty to establish
    and implement a quality assurance program to oversee the medical
    providers within its network. In the complaint, the Sadlers alleged that
    PacifiCare's failure to monitor the medical providers allowed those
    providers to use unsafe injection practices, including reusing syringes and
    consequently injecting patients with medications from contaminated vials,
    which resulted in the Sadlers and the putative class members being
    "exposed to and/or placed at risk of contracting HIV, hepatitis B, hepatitis
    C and other blood-borne diseases, requiring subsequent medical
    'No class was certified in the district court before the entry of
    judgment on the pleadings.
    SUPREME COURT
    OF
    NEVADA
    2
    (0) 194M e
    monitoring ... for infections of the same." As relief for their negligence
    claims, the Sadlers sought to have the court establish a court-supervised
    medical monitoring program at PacifiCare's expense.
    PacifiCare moved for judgment on the pleadings, arguing that
    the Sadlers' complaint failed to state a negligence claim on the ground
    that they had not alleged an "actual injury," such as testing positive for a
    blood-borne illness. Instead, PacifiCare characterized the Sadlers' claim
    as one for a risk of exposure. And PacifiCare contended that the Sadlers'
    fear of injury or illness could not support their negligence claims. The
    Sadlers opposed the motion for judgment on the pleadings, arguing that
    the injury that must be alleged to state a tort claim does not need to be a
    physical injury, as suggested by PacifiCare. The crux of the Sadlers'
    opposition was that, by asserting that PacifiCare's negligence had caused
    them to need ongoing medical monitoring, they had alleged a legal injury
    sufficient to support their negligence claims.
    Following a hearing on the matter, the district court granted
    PacifiCare's motion for judgment on the pleadings. In addressing the
    question of injury, the district court found it significant that the Sadlers
    had alleged exposure to blood generally, but had not specifically alleged
    exposure to infected blood. The court therefore concluded that the Sadlers'
    claims were based on a risk of exposure to infected blood, which the court
    found was insufficient to allege an injury. On this basis, the court granted
    judgment in favor of PacifiCare. This appeal followed.
    DISCUSSION
    Standard of review
    Under NRCP 12(c), the district court may grant a motion for
    judgment on the pleadings when the material facts of the case "are not in
    SUPREME COURT
    OF
    NEVADA
    3
    (0) 1947A
    dispute and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law."
    Bonicamp v. Vazquez, 
    120 Nev. 377
    , 379, 
    91 P.3d 584
    , 585 (2004). Because
    an order granting a motion for judgment on the pleadings presents a
    question of law, our review of such an order is de novo. Lawrence v. Clark
    Cnty., 127 Nev. „ 
    254 P.3d 606
    , 608 (2011). As with a dismissal for
    failure to state a claim, in reviewing a judgment on the pleadings, we will
    accept the factual allegations in the complaint as true and draw all
    inferences in favor of the nonmoving party. Cf. Buzz Stew, LLC v. City of
    N. Las Vegas, 
    124 Nev. 224
    , 228, 
    181 P.3d 670
    , 672 (2008) (setting forth
    the standard of review for an order dismissing a complaint under NRCP
    12(b)(5)); see also Bernard v. Rockhill Dev. Co., 
    103 Nev. 132
    , 135, 
    734 P.2d 1238
    , 1241 (1987) (explaining that a "motion for a judgment on the
    pleadings has utility only when all material allegations of fact are
    admitted in the pleadings and only questions of law remain").
    Medical monitoring
    The goal of a medical monitoring claim is to require the
    defendant to pay for the costs of long-term diagnostic testing to aid in
    early detection of latent diseases that may have been caused by the
    defendant's tortious conduct.    Bower v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp., 
    522 S.E.2d 424
    , 429 (W. Va. 1999). This court has previously considered
    medical monitoring in only one opinion, Badillo v. American Brands, Inc.,
    
    117 Nev. 34
    , 
    16 P.3d 435
     (2001), in which the plaintiffs sought a judgment
    requiring the defendant tobacco companies to pay for the plaintiffs'
    ongoing medical monitoring for tobacco-related diseases. Id. at 38, 
    16 P.3d at 438
    . There, the federal district court certified a question to this court,
    asking whether Nevada common law recognizes medical monitoring as
    either an independent tort action or a remedy.      Id. at 37-38, 16 P.3d at
    SUPREME COURT
    OF
    NEVADA
    4
    (0) 1947A    (4Z4i0
    437. Considering the specific circumstances presented and the way such
    claims had been treated by other courts, the Badillo court concluded that
    there is no common law cause of action for medical monitoring in Nevada.
    Id. at 44, 
    16 P.3d at 441
    . Further, because Badillo had not identified an
    underlying cause of action, the court did not reach the question of whether
    medical monitoring is a viable remedy to a tort claim generally. Id. at 41,
    
    16 P.3d at 440
    .
    In this case, the Sadlers have specifically sought medical
    monitoring as a remedy for negligence, and thus, they do not ask this
    court to consider whether to recognize medical monitoring as an
    independent cause of action under the circumstances• presented here.
    PacifiCare does not dispute that medical monitoring may be a viable
    remedy for a properly stated cause of action, but it contends that the
    Sadlers have not alleged a present physical injury and, therefore, have not
    sufficiently stated a claim for negligence. As the Badillo court did not
    answer whether medical monitoring is a remedy for negligence, this
    appeal presents a question of first impression for this court. To address it,
    we look first to our general negligence law before turning to how other
    courts have analyzed the injury requirement in the context of medical
    monitoring as a remedy.
    Negligence
    In order to state a claim for negligence, a plaintiff must allege
    that "(1) the defendant owed the plaintiff a duty of care, (2) the defendant
    breached that duty, (3) the breach was the legal cause of the plaintiffs
    injuries, and (4) the plaintiff suffered damages." 2 DeBoer v. Senior
    As noted above, the Sadlers' complaint alleged both negligence and
    negligence per se. Because the issue on appeal concerns only whether the
    continued on next page...
    SUPREME COURT
    OF
    NEVADA
    5
    (0) 1947A    en
    Bridges of Sparks Family Hasp., Inc., 128 Nev. „ 
    282 P.3d 727
    , 732
    (2012). Thus, the third element of a negligence claim contemplates that
    the plaintiff has suffered an injury.   See 
    id.
     As the district court's order
    and the parties' arguments have all been limited to whether the injury
    requirement is satisfied in this case, we similarly limit our inquiry to that
    issue, leaving the remaining elements of the negligence claims to be
    considered by the district court on remand.
    Injury generally
    The Sadlers argue that they have alleged an injury based on
    actual exposure to infected blood by asserting that they were exposed to
    the blood of other patients and that they were "exposed to and/or placed at
    risk of contracting HIV, hepatitis B, hepatitis C and other blood-borne
    diseases." Alternatively, the Sadlers argue that, even if they did not
    allege actual exposure to contaminated blood, they nonetheless have
    stated a claim for negligence by alleging that Pacifieare injured them by
    causing them to need ongoing medical monitoring. Conversely, PacifiCare
    argues that a plaintiff attempting to state a claim for negligence must
    allege a present physical injury, such that, here, the plaintiffs would be
    required to allege that they had actually contracted an illness. In
    granting judgment in favor of PacifiCare, the district court appears to
    have recognized that an injury may be found on less than a showing of
    actual illness, but the court declined to find a cognizable injury because
    the Sadlers had not alleged actual exposure to contaminated blood.
    ...continued
    Sadlers sufficiently alleged an injury, which would apply to both claims
    equally, we do not distinguish between the negligence and negligence per
    se claims within this opinion.
    SUPREME COURT
    OF
    NEVADA
    6
    (0) 1947A    e
    We begin our inquiry with the broad question, which asks
    whether the injury needed to state a tort claim must be a physical injury,
    or instead, whether some other type of legal injury may satisfy that
    requirement. Although PacifiCare has not argued that the Sadlers' claims
    were barred by the economic loss doctrine, our review of the parties'
    respective positions leads us to conclude that this doctrine is implicated by
    the issue presented, as it is closely related to the injury requirement. In
    addressing negligence claims, this court has noted that the "economic loss
    doctrine marks the fundamental boundary between contract law, which is
    designed to enforce the expectancy interests of the parties, and tort law,
    which imposes a duty of reasonable care and thereby [generally]
    encourages citizens to avoid causing physical harm to others."      Terracon
    Consultants W., Inc. v. Mandalay Resort Grp., 
    125 Nev. 66
    , 72-73, 
    206 P.3d 81
    , 86 (2009) (alteration in original) (internal quotation marks
    omitted). Thus, under the economic loss doctrine, a plaintiff generally
    cannot recover on an unintentional tort claim for "purely economic losses."
    Id. at 73, 
    206 P.3d at 86
    .
    Here, we cannot say that the Sadlers have alleged purely
    economic losses. While their claims for medical monitoring are based in
    part on the expense of undergoing such testing, the complaint also alleged
    that PacifiCare's actions exposed the Sadlers and the other putative class
    members to unsafe injection practices, putting them at risk for contracting
    serious blood-borne diseases. 3 This exposure and increased risk are
    3 It
    is important to distinguish here between considering the
    increased risk of disease as a circumstance demonstrating that the Sadlers
    may have suffered a noneconomic loss, and viewing increased risk as an
    independent claim for damages, which some other courts have rejected as
    continued on next page...
    SUPREME COURT
    OF
    NEVADA
    7
    (0) 1947A Age
    noneconomic detrimental changes in circumstances that the Sadlers
    alleged they would not have experienced but for the negligence of
    PacifiCare. As a result, we conclude that the Sadlers' claims are not
    barred by the economic loss doctrine. Nevertheless, while these changes
    may constitute something other than economic losses, it still may be said
    that they do not amount to physical injuries. Thus, we still must
    determine whether tort law requires that the underlying injury be a
    physical one.
    In Terracon Consultants, this court referred to a goal of tort
    law being to "encourage H citizens to avoid causing physical harm to
    others," id. at 72-73, 
    206 P.3d at 86
     (internal quotation marks omitted),
    but this court has not previously addressed whether physical harm or
    physical injury is a necessary element of all tort claims. This court has,
    however, discussed physical injury in the context of negligent and
    intentional infliction of emotional distress claims. See Chowdhry v. NLVH,
    Inc., 
    109 Nev. 478
    , 482-83, 
    851 P.2d 459
    , 462 (1993); Nelson v. City of Las
    Vegas, 
    99 Nev. 548
    , 555, 
    665 P.2d 1141
    , 1145 (1983). In that context, this
    court has required a plaintiff alleging negligent infliction of emotional
    distress to demonstrate some "physical impact" beyond conditions such as
    insomnia or general discomfort, see Chowdhry, 109 Nev. at 482-83, 
    851 P.2d at 462
    , but a physical impact or injury, as opposed to an emotional
    ...continued
    not satisfying the present legal injury requirement, see, e.g., Burns v.
    Jaquays Mining Corp., 
    752 P.2d 28
    , 30-31 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1987), or as too
    speculative or difficult to quantify. See, e.g., Ayers v. Twp. of Jackson, 
    525 A.2d 287
    , 308 (N.J. 1987). Here, the Sadlers have not alleged a cause of
    action based on increased risk, and thus, whether this court would
    recognize such a cause of action is outside the scope of our inquiry.
    SUPREME COURT
    OF
    NEVADA
    8
    (0) 1947A    e
    one, has not necessarily been required to state a claim for intentional
    infliction of emotional distress. See Nelson, 99 Nev. at 555, 
    665 P.2d at 1145
     (setting forth the elements for an intentional infliction of emotional
    distress claim).
    As an intentional infliction of emotional distress claim does
    not require a physical injury, we cannot conclude that such an injury is
    necessarily a prerequisite to a tort claim generally.    See 
    id.
         Conversely,
    based on the requirements for a negligent infliction of emotional distress
    claim, we recognize that a physical injury may be required in order to
    establish certain torts.   See Chowdhry, 109 Nev. at 482-83, 
    851 P.2d at 462
    . We therefore now consider whether a physical injury must be alleged
    in order to state a claim for negligence with medical monitoring as a
    remedy. As the parties have not identified, and our research has not
    revealed, any Nevada authority specifically requiring a party to allege a
    physical injury in order to state a negligence claim, particularly one that
    seeks medical monitoring as a remedy, we look to the decisions of other
    courts for guidance on this issue.
    Physical injury in the context of medical monitoring
    Several courts that have considered this issue have rejected
    medical monitoring claims primarily on the ground that a physical injury
    must be shown in order to state such a claim. 4 See, e.g., Hinton ex rel.
    4 The courts addressing medical monitoring claims have not always
    clearly distinguished between medical monitoring as an independent
    cause of action and medical monitoring as a remedy for some other cause
    of action. Regardless, as our focus herein is on the injury requirement,
    which is relevant to all of these medical monitoring claims, we do not find
    it necessary to differentiate between the cases discussing medical
    monitoring as a cause of action and those applying it as a remedy for a
    continued on next page...
    SUPREME COURT
    OF
    NEVADA
    9
    (0) 1947A    e
    Hinton v. Monsanto Co., 
    813 So. 2d 827
    , 829 (Ala. 2001) (concluding that a
    plaintiff failed to state a claim in the medical monitoring context when he
    did not allege a present, physical injury); Wood v. Wyeth-Ayerst Labs., Div.
    of Am. Home Prods., 
    82 S.W.3d 849
    , 856-58 (Ky. 2002) (rejecting a claim
    for medical monitoring on the ground that traditional tort theory requires
    a plaintiff to demonstrate a present, physical injury). These cases tend to
    characterize medical monitoring claims as seeking compensation for the
    threat of future harm or for increased risk of harm.     See Lowe v. Philip
    Morris USA, Inc., 
    183 P.3d 181
    , 184 (Or. 2008). And they therefore
    conclude that the increased risk of harm and consequent need for medical
    monitoring are insufficient to constitute a present injury necessary to
    state a negligence claim.        See id. at 184-85; see also Paz v. Brush
    Engineered Materials, Inc., 
    949 So. 2d 1
    , 5 (Miss. 2007) ("The possibility of
    a future injury is insufficient to maintain a tort claim. Recognizing a
    medical monitoring cause of action would be akin to recognizing a cause of
    action for fear of future illness.").
    We are not convinced that such a restricted view of an injury
    is appropriate in the present context. As an initial matter, the
    Restatement (Second) of Torts § 7(1) (1965), broadly defines an injury for
    the purpose of tort law as "the invasion of any legally protected interest of
    another." Not only is this definition not limited to physical injury, the
    same section separately defines "harm" as "the existence of loss or
    detriment in fact of any kind to a person resulting from any cause," and
    "physical harm" as "the physical impairment of the human body, or of land
    ...continued
    different cause of action. Within this opinion, we therefore use the phrase
    "medical monitoring claims" to refer to both types of cases.
    SUPREME COURT
    OF
    NEVADA
    10
    (0) 1947A    ce
    or chattels."   Id.   Thus, while these concepts are related, the differing
    definitions indicate that they are not interchangeable, and more, that
    injury is generally not limited to physical injury.
    Applying the Restatement's definition of injury, a significant
    number of jurisdictions have concluded that the costs of medical
    monitoring may be recovered, either as an independent claim or as a
    remedy for an established tort, even in the absence of a present physical
    injury. See, e.g., Friends For All Children, Inc. v. Lockheed Aircraft Corp.,
    
    746 F.2d 816
     (D.C. Cir. 1984); Potter v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co., 
    863 P.2d 795
     (Cal. 1993); Ayers v. Twp. of Jackson, 
    525 A.2d 287
     (N.J. 1987);
    Hansen v. Mountain Fuel Supply Co., 
    858 P.2d 970
     (Utah 1993). One of
    the earliest cases to consider a medical monitoring claim was Friends For
    All Children, 
    746 F.2d 816
    . In that case, a group of orphans was being
    transported out of South Vietnam when a locking system on their aircraft
    failed, resulting in "an explosive decompression and loss of oxygen" on the
    plane. Id. at 819. Friends For All Children, an organization acting on
    behalf of the children, filed a complaint against Lockheed Aircraft
    Corporation, the manufacturer of the airplane, seeking the establishment
    of a fund to pay the costs for monitoring the children for a neurological
    developmental disorder that may have been caused by the sudden
    decompression or the crash itself.     Id.   In opposing the relief sought by
    Friends For All Children, Lockheed argued that the District of Columbia
    would not recognize a claim for damages in the absence of a present
    physical injury. Id. at 824.
    In addressing this claim, the Friends For All Children court
    first considered a hypothetical question in which an individual, Jones, was
    knocked down by the negligence of a second party, Smith. Id. at 825. The
    SUPREME COURT
    OF
    NEVADA
    11
    (0) 1947A    e
    court reasoned that if Jones went to the hospital and, on the
    recommendation of his doctors, underwent testing to determine whether
    he had suffered injuries, Smith would be responsible for the costs of such
    testing, even if the testing demonstrated that Jones had not actually
    suffered any physical injuries. Id. Following from this hypothetical, and
    based on the Restatement's definition of injury, the Friends For All
    Children court held that "an individual has an interest in avoiding
    expensive diagnostic examinations just as he or she has an interest in
    avoiding physical injury." Id. at 825-26. Thus, the court concluded that,
    when that interest is invaded, the defendant should be required to
    compensate the plaintiff for that invasion. Id.
    The California supreme court later applied similar reasoning
    to a claim for medical monitoring in Potter v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co.,
    
    863 P.2d 795
    . There, the plaintiffs alleged that the defendant had
    improperly disposed of toxic waste, exposing the plaintiffs to carcinogens
    that increased their risk of developing cancer. Id. at 801. In opposing the
    plaintiffs' request for medical monitoring costs, the defendant argued that,
    even if a present physical injury was not required, the plaintiffs were
    required to demonstrate that, as a result of the exposure, it was more
    likely than not that they would develop cancer. Id. at 822.
    With regard to the need for a present physical injury, the
    Potter court referred back to Friends For All Children and the
    Restatement definition of injury, concluding that these authorities
    persuasively demonstrated that no physical injury should be required for a
    medical monitoring claim.     Id. at 823-24. Moreover, the Potter court
    rejected the argument that the plaintiffs should be required to show a high
    likelihood that they would develop cancer, concluding instead that a court
    SUPREME COURT
    OF
    NEVADA
    12
    (0) 1947A
    considering the availability of a medical monitoring recovery should focus
    on the reasonableness of the need for medical monitoring. Id. at 822-23.
    Additionally, the Potter court outlined several important public policy
    considerations in support of recognizing a medical monitoring recovery,
    including deterrence against irresponsible handling of toxic chemicals,
    preventing or mitigating future illness and therefore reducing overall
    costs, and serving justice by requiring the responsible party to pay the
    expenses of reasonable and necessary medical monitoring.         Id. at 824.
    Relying on the Restatement, the decision in Friends For All Children,
    these policy considerations, and other similar reasoning, a number of
    other courts have likewise concluded that a physical injury is not required
    in order to recover the costs of medical monitoring that is reasonably
    required as a result of the defendant's tortious acts.   See Ayers, 
    525 A.2d 287
    ; Redland Soccer Club, Inc. v. Dep't of the Army & Dep't of Del of the
    United States, 
    696 A.2d 137
     (Pa. 1997); Hansen, 
    858 P.2d 970
    ; Bower v.
    Westinghouse Elec. Corp., 
    522 S.E.2d 424
     (W. Va. 1999).
    Our consideration of these authorities persuades us to
    recognize that a plaintiff may state a cause of action for negligence with
    medical monitoring as the remedy without asserting that he or she has
    suffered a present physical injury. As discussed above, we have not found
    anything in this court's precedent or in the Restatement's definition of
    injury that limits an injury only to a physical one. On the contrary, the
    Restatement definition specifically contemplates "the invasion of any
    legally protected interest of another" as an injury. Restatement (Second) of
    Torts § 7(1) (1965) (emphasis added). And the Restatement separately
    defines "physical harm," indicating that physical harm is not necessarily
    implicated by the term "injury." See id. § 7(3).
    SUPREME COURT
    OF
    NEVADA
    13
    (0) 1947A    ce,
    Further, we agree with the reasoning of the Friends For All
    Children court, which held that an individual has a legally protected
    interest in avoiding expensive diagnostic examinations. 
    746 F.2d at 826
    .
    And although the expense may be an economic loss, that economic loss is
    accompanied by noneconomic losses, including unwillingly enduring an
    unsafe injection practice and the resulting increase in risk of contracting a
    latent disease and need to undergo medical testing that would not
    otherwise be required. Moreover, as noted in Potter, there are significant
    policy reasons for allowing a recovery for medical monitoring costs, not the
    least of which is that early detection can permit a plaintiff to mitigate the
    effects of a disease, such that the ultimate costs for treating the disease
    may be reduced. 
    863 P.2d at 823-24
    . If medical monitoring claims are
    denied, plaintiffs who cannot afford testing may, through no fault of their
    own, be left to wait until their symptoms become manifest, losing valuable
    treatment time. See 
    id.
     Rather than allowing this result, it is more just to
    require the responsible party to pay for the costs of monitoring
    necessitated by that party's actions.      See Friends For All Children, 
    746 F.2d at 826
     ("When a defendant negligently invades [an individual's legal]
    interest [in avoiding the need for medical testing], the injury to which is
    neither speculative nor resistant to proof, it is elementary that the
    defendant should make the plaintiff whole by paying for the
    examinations.").
    PacifiCare argues that a "need to be tested" is far too broad to
    constitute a legal injury, and indeed, some of the courts that have declined
    to recognize medical monitoring claims have expressed concern that
    allowing such claims will open the floodgates to litigation because "tens of
    millions of individuals may have suffered exposure to substances that
    SUPREME COURT
    OF
    NEVADA
    14
    (0) 1947A    cep
    might justify some form of substance-exposure-related medical
    monitoring." Metro-North Commuter R.R. Co. v. Buckley, 
    521 U.S. 424
    ,
    442 (1997). We do not consider this concern to be persuasive, however, as
    any given plaintiff will still be required to plead and prove the essential
    elements of their underlying claim, including, for the purpose of a
    negligence claim, that the defendant actually caused the need for medical
    testing through a breach of a duty owed to the specific plaintiff.       See
    DeBoer, 128 Nev. at , 282 P.3d at 732.
    Further, in order to establish damages• for such a medical
    monitoring claim, a plaintiff will have to show that he or she incurred
    costs as a result of the defendant's actions.   See id.; see also Restatement
    (Second) of Torts § 902 (1979) (defining damages as "a sum of money
    awarded to a person injured by the tort of another"). To satisfy this
    element, it will be necessary for the plaintiff to demonstrate that the
    medical monitoring at issue is something greater than would be
    recommended as a matter of general health care for the public at large.
    See Redland Soccer Club, 696 A.2d at 146 (requiring a medical monitoring
    plaintiff to demonstrate that the "prescribed monitoring regime is
    different from that normally recommended in the absence of the
    exposure"). Otherwise, it could not be said that the need for testing was
    caused by the defendant's breach, and thus, the element of a negligence
    claim requiring that the defendant's breach be the legal cause of the
    plaintiffs injuries would not be satisfied. See DeBoer, 128 Nev. at , 282
    P.3d at 732. Thus, we cannot agree that permitting recovery based on a
    need to be tested will open up the courts to extensive new litigation from
    individuals exposed to everyday toxic substances.
    SUPREME COURT
    OF
    NEVADA
    15
    (0) 1947A    4440
    Before we move on to address the specific allegations in the
    Sadlers' complaint, we note that, in recognizing medical monitoring
    remedies, several courts have identified elements or factors that a plaintiff
    must satisfy in order to recover the costs of monitoring.   See, e.g., Potter,
    
    863 P.2d at 823
    ; Redland Soccer Club, 696 A.2d at 145-46. At this early
    stage of the district court action, and in light of our treatment of medical
    monitoring as a remedy, rather than a cause of action, we decline to
    identify specific factors that a plaintiff must demonstrate to establish
    entitlement to medical monitoring as a remedy. Instead, we conclude
    that, in a negligence action for which medical monitoring is sought as a
    remedy, a plaintiff may satisfy the injury requirement for the purpose of
    stating a claim by alleging that he or she is reasonably required to
    undergo medical monitoring beyond what would have been recommended
    had the plaintiff not been exposed to the negligent act of the defendant.
    The Sadlers' complaint
    Having concluded that a physical injury is not required to
    state a negligence claim with medical monitoring as the remedy, we now
    turn to whether, in light of our decision herein, the Sadlers' complaint
    sufficiently alleged an injury to state a negligence claim. As noted above,
    the Sadlers asserted that, as a result of PacifiCare's actions, they were
    "exposed to and/or placed at risk of contracting HIV, hepatitis B, hepatitis
    C and other blood-borne diseases." Based on this assertion, the Sadlers
    argue that they alleged actual exposure to blood-borne diseases, but
    alternatively, they contend that the allegations regarding their exposure
    to unsafe injection practices and a need for testing sufficiently alleged an
    injury. PacifiCare, on the other hand, argues that this statement in the
    Sadlers' complaint does not amount to an allegation of actual exposure.
    And PacifiCare asserts that actual exposure to contaminated blood was, at
    SUPREME COURT
    OF
    NEVADA
    16
    (0) 1947A    e
    a minimum, what the Sadlers must have alleged to state their negligence
    claim.
    By using "and/or," the Sadlers failed to connect any particular
    plaintiff to the allegation that they were "exposed to" a blood-borne
    disease, as opposed to simply being "placed at risk of contracting" a blood-
    borne disease without necessarily having been actually exposed to such a
    disease.   See Gregory v. Dillard's Inc., 
    565 F.3d 464
    , 473 n.9 (8th Cir.
    2009) (explaining that where an allegation referred generally to all
    plaintiffs and used the• "and/or" formulation, it did not "connect any
    particular plaintiff to any particular allegation"). Thus, we cannot
    conclude that the Sadlers have alleged actual exposure to a blood-borne
    disease. Nevertheless, we disagree with PacifiCare that actual exposure
    to contaminated blood was required.
    Because medical monitoring claims largely arise out of the
    toxic tort area of litigation, most of the cases addressing these claims have
    involved some form of actual exposure to toxic substances, such as
    asbestos or potentially harmful chemicals. See, e.g., Potter, 
    863 P.2d 795
    ;
    Ayers, 
    525 A.2d 287
    . And several jurisdictions have concluded that a
    plaintiff must be required to show actual exposure to a known hazardous
    substance in order to recover on a medical monitoring claim. See Cook v.
    Rockwell Inel Corp., 
    755 F. Supp. 1468
    , 1477 (D. Colo. 1991) (concluding
    that the Colorado courts would find a complaint for medical monitoring to
    be deficient insofar as it failed to alleged that the plaintiffs had actually
    been exposed to a toxic substance); Hansen, 858 P.2d at 979 (providing
    that to recover medical monitoring damages, a plaintiff must demonstrate
    exposure to a toxic substance); Redland Soccer Club, 696 A.2d at 145
    (holding that a plaintiff must prove "exposure greater than normal
    SUPREME COURT
    OF
    NEVADA
    17
    (0) 1947A    44P4fre.
    background levels. . . to a proven hazardous substance" in order to recover
    on a medical monitoring claim). Indeed, in the context of a toxic tort
    action, requiring exposure to a toxic substance is logical, as a plaintiff
    could not set forth an argument that he or she needed medical monitoring
    for something to which he or she had not been exposed.
    But it cannot be said that exposure to a toxic substance will
    always be necessary to demonstrate a reasonable need for medical
    monitoring. In Friends For All Children, 
    746 F.2d at 819
    , for example, no
    exposure to toxic substances was involved at all. There, the need for
    medical monitoring was caused by "an explosive decompression and loss of
    oxygen" that occurred during an airplane crash and by the airplane crash
    itself.   
    Id.
        In considering these cases and the concerns •at issue, we
    conclude that the relevant inquiry is not on actual exposure to a toxic
    substance, but on whether the negligent act of the defendant caused the
    plaintiff to have a medical need to undergo medical monitoring.
    Here, while the Sadlers may not have alleged that they were
    actually exposed to contaminated blood, they have alleged, and at this
    stage in the proceedings their allegations must be accepted as true, that
    they were exposed to unsafe injection practices and that these unsafe
    injection practices caused them to need to undergo medical monitoring.
    The injury that they have alleged is the exposure to the unsafe conditions
    that caused them to need to undergo medical testing that they would not
    have needed in the absence of the PacifiCare's purported negligence. As
    demonstrated by this case and Friends For All Children, to require a
    specific exposure to a contaminant would unnecessarily limit the ability of
    a plaintiff whose need for medical monitoring arises out of something
    other than direct exposure to a toxic material. Thus, we conclude that the
    SUPREME COURT
    OF
    NEVADA
    18
    (0) 1947A -
    Sadlers' complaint adequately alleged an injury in the form of exposure to
    unsafe injection practices that caused a need for ongoing medical
    monitoring to detect any latent diseases that may result from those unsafe
    practices.
    We therefore further conclude that the district court erred by
    granting PacifiCare judgment on the pleadings in this case based on the
    failure of the Sadlers to allege a cognizable injury. As a result, we reverse
    the judgment on the pleadings and remand this matter to the district
    court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. 5
    Hardesty
    We concur:
    Do LA../     k -S               J.
    Douglas
    ,   J.
    5 Given our conclusion herein, we need not address the Sadlers'
    alternative argument that the district court improperly dismissed the
    medical monitoring claim before they had the opportunity to conduct
    discovery.
    SUPREME COURT
    OF
    NEVADA
    19
    (0) 1947A    4E99