the nd principle is that an increased risk of harm is not an injury this is one of the holdings of oil versus manchester the rd principle that never just claim requires both injury and damage is a separate elements that having our argument yes ok just discretionary policy making yes you are or you can perceive class lacked the special damages necessary for their inverse condemnation plan and the set recognize plans have the same kind of damage as any other president of the service lines that is eighty percent of the popular city's population was that would be correct i would think a plaintiff were alleging that something about the water main improvement itself he preferred water pressure rendered their existing lines inadequate or obsolete and  therefore they were in need of replacement but as they started earlier and you hear the plaintiffs are alleging that the city damaged plaintiff supplier such that they now have to be replaced  and i think the same cases when you look at these other cases where the poor as hell know that every three shared by the general public that likewise would have everyone damage for example in the union building case i just mention that not everyone who goes down size of population that would be affected so if i understand your argument they're alleging that the city affectively broke their right that's that's damaged but it's not damage because they broke other barred is the cities of this court's decision city chicago versus pro lotus lotus fault that quote where loss or injury are the consequences of a lawful government action the government is not owed just compensation another party has caused that tree who in the interest of justice should pay for the consequences of that looking st at the issue of medical monitoring how the science provides an answer and this law understand what is it worth well i don't think i don't think that tort law has a sara lee requires just an a and nor do i for example the donovan case out of massachusetts that we say it there's a long discussion about this other release fashion and it's the injury that's a lapse and that this is an injury that should be comp was negligent there's no question that that oxygen causes cancer and there's no dispute that everyone who lives along the river well they're going to me some form of  it's not just any exposure in fact some cases about exposure to a toxin at all for example in one case that were seated in the illinois district the federal courts in illinois judge me before just leave that was the  negligence created this are these athletes now to to undergo medical testing that the other way so it's not just it's not just exposure to a toxin issue a cause of action well i only bring up that case as an example because in that instance the exposure to that amount of radiation from an x ray would require any other fall that would require a medical monitoring  in that situation in other words they have not defined in that case did not create a health problem that wire medical tests in the future one could argue that well now if someone's been exposed to that three x ray hypothetically there could be some potential damage there in the future but it's not say the defendant have made it medically necessary now undergo testing for some disease you would agree that different rules apply the different cause of action right now we look at things i mean we have to look at what the cause of action is maybe wouldn't be here today well what we're saying is what are what are the negligence wasn't there this decision to improve the water system   but not only we also want to encourage those affected if you seek medical treatment because you probably all know someone who is perhaps a bit like you because they caught something early or perhaps  fortunate you know someone who didn't and so sometimes people aren't even aware of the harm they've been exposed to the harm that they suffered and the mirror case itself and the class action mechanism can provide notices and i think the city you know the city is claiming that well the justification here for not a document is we're going to open the floodgates it's probably an argument you have heard many many times but not very often are we actually given the benefit of hindsight we have decades of case law in other states in fact we have it's been over twenty years since louis was decided longer since illinois federal courts have been allowing it's possible and i think the fact that it is taken that long just to reach here gives you a sense of it these are pretty rare cases these are not you're not going to get the level of abuse that the city claims there will be and time has proven  lot of instances eminent domain cases effect of a lot of people and you can think of hypotheticals if the city of chicago were to build a new ally which is something that is actually talked about doing a lot of homes are going to be affected a lot of backyards will be damaged a lot class of two separate issues right here we're dealing with the issue of a very just wouldn't be huge property well they would be special damages under the law under illinois law which is where there is a direct that the city is doing here prevents anyone from cheating really medical treatment of eighty if they need it you know if they wish someone wants to go seek medical monitoring you know they are perfectly free to go pay for that or buy insurance medicare or medicaid the be early medical monitoring even if you recognize what they're asking for because you're going to have years of litigation as we've had here before you reach the question of whether any medical monitoring it has could be a worry especially s