Also known as: medical histories · patient history · health history
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
A category of information recounted by a patient to a physician. It encompasses past or present symptoms or sensations, their inception, or their general cause when the statements are made for and are reasonably pertinent to medical diagnosis or treatment.
After a collision during a soccer match, Sandra described to team physician Carlos the immediate onset of dizziness following head contact and the coach's instruction to keep playing. At trial in her negligence suit against the team, Birch Peak offered Carlos's testimony about those statements. The court admitted the testimony because the details described the inception of symptoms and their general cause in a medical examination setting.
Maria sought to represent a nationwide class of patients alleging that Cardion Pharmaceuticals' cholesterol drug caused liver damage. Cardion argued that differing medical histories among patients defeated commonality for certification. The court rejected the argument, holding that whether Cardion misrepresented the liver risk remained a common question capable of classwide resolution even though individual medical histories would later affect causation and damages.
In the early 1990s, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation transferred all pending federal asbestos cases to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania for pretrial proceedings before Judge Weiner. Attorneys from the Plaintiffs' Steering Committee and the Center for Claims Resolution, a consortium of twenty former asbestos manufacturers, began settlement negotiations that initially addressed pending inventory claims but soon expanded to cover future claims. After CCR settled thousands of inventory plaintiffs' claims for more than $200 million through separate agreements, the parties on January 15, 1993, filed a single-day package. This package consisted of a complaint, answer, proposed settlement stipulation exceeding one hundred pages, and joint motion for conditional class certification in a new action not part of the MDL transfer. The complaint defined the class as all persons in the United States or its territories who had been exposed occupationally or through a spouse or household member to asbestos products attributable to CCR defendants and who had not filed suit as of January 15, 1993. This class encompassed both individuals with manifest diseases such as mesothelioma, lung cancer, and asbestosis and exposure-only individuals with no current symptoms. The group potentially numbered in the hundreds of thousands or millions. The accompanying stipulation created a no-fault administrative compensation matrix with fixed, non-inflation-adjusted award ranges for four disease categories. It imposed numerical caps on extraordinary claims and excluded compensation for medical monitoring, fear of future injury, and loss-of-consortium claims. A three-month opt-out period applied. The District Court conditionally certified the class under Rule 23(b)(3) for settlement purposes only, appointed class counsel, approved an extensive notice plan that reached millions of individuals, conducted fairness hearings, and entered orders finding the settlement fair while enjoining class members from pursuing separate asbestos suits. Objectors appealed, the Third Circuit vacated the certification, and the Supreme Court granted certiorari.
View caseStatements describing past or present symptoms or sensations, their inception, or their general cause qualify when made for and reasonably pertinent to medical diagnosis or treatment. The exception focuses on the purpose of the statement and its pertinence to care rather than on whether the examination was solely for treatment.
Supporting sources
An accusation of intent or fault is not reasonably pertinent to diagnosis or treatment and falls outside the exception. A court may exclude the portion attributing blame while admitting the clinically relevant description of the mechanism of injury and symptom onset.
Supporting sources
Differences in individual medical histories affect causation and damages but do not automatically defeat commonality. A uniform question about the defendant's labeling or marketing conduct can still support certification when it is capable of classwide resolution.
Supporting sources