Colorado Rejects No-Injury Medical Monitoring

Key Takeaways

The Colorado appellate decision in Smith joins a growing contingent of cases that reject causes of action for medical monitoring absent physical injury.

On October 30, the Colorado Court of Appeals issued the state's first appellate court decision addressing whether Colorado recognizes claims for medical monitoring without manifested physical injury. Smith v. Terumo BCT, Inc., No. 24CA1393, 2025 WL 3029699 (Colo. App. Oct. 30, 2025). The court held that "a plaintiff cannot establish standing to sue under Colorado law based solely on an allegation that the defendant's actions have increased the plaintiff's risk of future illness or disease." Id. at *1, 6-7.

In Smith, the plaintiff filed a putative class action, alleging that residents were exposed to chemical emissions from defendant's manufacturing facility. Id. at *1-3. The district court dismissed the complaint, concluding that the plaintiff did not allege "any adverse physical effects" from the alleged exposure. Id.

On appeal, the court affirmed, stating that the lower court "correctly concluded" that the plaintiff "had not alleged an injury 'where there was no manifestation of illness or disease.'" Id. at *6-7. The court held that plaintiff's claim of "increased risk" of illness or disease "amounts to nothing more than a hypothetical claim of 'future physical injury.'" Id. at *6.

The court further dismissed the argument that mere "absorption" of a chemical constitutes "bodily harm." Id. at *6-7. Without allegations of "changes in the body's structure or function," the court deemed such allegations conclusory. Id. Additionally, the court rejected an argument for "economic injury" from medical monitoring costs, finding that a plaintiff "cannot recover economic damages associated with a medical monitoring claim without first establishing that he has suffered an injury in fact." Id. at *7.

Importantly, this decision diverges from the Colorado federal district court's prior predictions. The federal court previously predicted that the Colorado Supreme Court would "probably recognize" no-injury medical monitoring. Cook v. Rockwell Int'l Corp., 755 F. Supp. 1468, 1477 (D.Colo. 1991); see also Bell v. 3M Co., 344 F.Supp.3d 1207, 1224 (D. Colo. 2018). However, in the recent Smith decision, the Court of Appeals highlighted "Colorado's longstanding rejection of tort claims based on the potential of future physical harm" in denying no-injury medical monitoring. 2025 WL 3029699, at *7.

The Smith decision is similar to recent decisions across the country that have rejected no-injury medical monitoring, including in Delaware and Pennsylvania as previously covered by Re:Torts.

Read the Latest Issue of Re:Torts

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.