On August 18, 2026, the Georgia Supreme Court declined to decide whether medical monitoring is an available remedy under Georgia law, holding instead that the question was premature at the motion-to-dismiss stage.
In Bio-Lab Inc. v. Tartt, the court explained that before deciding whether medical monitoring may be available, courts should first determine whether plaintiffs have alleged a legally cognizable injury and, if so, whether that injury supports a claim for equitable relief.
Background
The case arose from a September 2024 fire at Bio-Lab’s Rockdale County facility that allegedly released a toxic chemical plume and prompted an evacuation order affecting more than 17,000 people.
In a federal diversity action in the Northern District of Georgia, the plaintiffs asserted negligence, trespass, nuisance, and strict-liability claims and sought, among other relief, a defendant-funded medical monitoring program for plaintiffs who did not allege a present physical injury.
Threshold Questions for Medical Monitoring
After the defendants moved to dismiss the medical monitoring claims, arguing that such claims are not cognizable under Georgia law, the district court certified the question to the Georgia Supreme Court.
The court held that a party seeking medical monitoring must first sufficiently plead a legally cognizable “wrong” or “injury,” a threshold question the district court had not yet reached.
The court noted that Georgia law recognizes injuries other than physical harm, including invasions of property rights and, at the pleading stage, sufficiently “imminent and substantial” harm.
The Georgia Supreme Court instructed the district court to determine first whether the plaintiffs alleged a legally cognizable injury and, if so, whether that injury satisfies the requirements for equitable relief. The court declined to conduct that analysis itself because doing so would require applying those principles to the specific factual allegations, effectively deciding the merits of the defendants’ motion to dismiss.
The court also explained that ordinary equitable principles apply to the analysis. A plaintiff must show more than a cognizable injury: Equitable relief generally is unavailable when an adequate legal remedy exists, and threatened injury must be imminent rather than remote or based on mere apprehension.
What the Decision Means for Defendants
Although the court did not decide whether medical monitoring is available under Georgia law, the decision provides guidance on how defendants can frame their arguments at the motion-to-dismiss stage.
First, defendants should focus on whether plaintiffs have established a legally cognizable injury. Second, even if a court finds a cognizable injury, defendants should argue that the complaint fails to plausibly allege the prerequisites for equitable relief.
Because the court indicated that it may address whether medical monitoring is a viable remedy under Georgia law in a different procedural posture, defendants also should consider opportunities to raise the issue before the court after the threshold pleading questions have been resolved.
If you have any questions, or would like additional information, please contact one of the attorneys on our Environmental, Land Use & Natural Resources team or one of the attorneys on our Industrials & Manufacturing team.
You can subscribe to future advisories and other Alston & Bird publications by completing our publications subscription form.