-A +A

Scott vetoes medical monitoring bill opposed by business groups

Submitted by tim on

Vermont Business Magazine Governor Phil Scott today announced actions on the following bills, passed by the Legislature. While signing several bills into law, the governor vetoed the medical monitoring bill, which was widely opposed by business organizations. The Senate passed the bill 19-11 and the House passed it 100-42. The Legislature will not be able to attempt a veto override before it reconvenes next January. Speaker of the House Mitzi Johnson, meanwhile, said the governor has chosen "corporations that pollute over Vermonters’ health" and vowed to take up the bill again next January.

The organizations said in a letter to the governor last week that they are not opposed to companies being held liable for causing harm from toxic contamination, but that Vermont's law is inconsistent with other states and that the language is too broad and lacks sufficient clarity. All this would add cost and uncertainty to Vermont businesses, they said.

The bill says in part: "This bill proposes to hold any person who releases a toxic substance strictly, jointly, and severally liable for any harm resulting from the release. The bill also proposes to establish a private right of action for medical monitoring damages incurred due to exposure to a toxic substance."

William Driscoll, Vice President of Associated Industries of Vermont, one of the business groups which urged a veto, said: "As we have stated repeatedly this year, we are not opposed to medical monitoring liability, companies that act negligently and put people at significant risk of developing a serious disease should be accountable. But we should have fair and reasonable standards for determining liability like the other states around the country that have addressed this issue." (See full AIV statement below.)

In opposing the veto, Jon Groveman, Policy and Water Program Director for the Vermont Natural Resources Council (VNRC), a main proponent of the bill, stated: "S.37 would have provided Vermonters harmed by toxic contamination with just a little bit of fairness. In vetoing the bill, Governor Scott has deprived them of this fairness. Instead of holding polluters responsible for medical costs and damage to Vermont's environment, he has sided with corporate lobbyists that have misinterpreted the impacts that S.37 will actually have on business in Vermont." (see full VNRC statement below)

In vetoing S37, An act relating to medical monitoring, Scott said in his message to the Legislature (full veto message below): “Since I took office, we have taken many steps to ensure safe drinking water in our communities and hold responsible parties accountable for toxic pollution, including:

“As a state, we have shown a significant commitment to ensuring Vermonters have clean and safe water and have existing legal avenues to pursue bad actors who jeopardize Vermonters’ health – and we will continue to do so.

“While we made progress this year in the discussion about medical monitoring, S.37 as passed, lacks the clarity needed by Vermont employers who our state relies on to provide good jobs. Numerous Vermont employers have expressed concerns to me, and to Legislators, that the unknown legal and financial risks, and increased liability, is problematic for continued investment in Vermont.

“If Vermont manufacturers and others cannot secure insurance or cover claims, then our economy will weaken, jobs will be lost, tax revenue will decline and, ultimately, all Vermonters lose.

“I continue to believe we do not have to choose between Vermonters health and the availability of jobs.

“The good news is there is a path forward. The bipartisan amendment introduced by Representatives Beck, Houghton, Gannon, Bancroft and Fagan, during third reading of the bill on the House floor on May 16, would provide affected Vermonters with a remedy based on a well-established legal test. If the Legislature makes these changes, I can support this proposal.

“Based on the objections outlined above, I must return this legislation without my signature pursuant to Chapter II, Section 11 of the Vermont Constitution. I am very confident that we are close to a solution that will benefit Vermonters without causing Vermonters to lose their jobs and harming our economy, should the Legislature choose to revisit this bill in January.”

House Speaker Mitzi Johnson issued a lengthy statement challenging the governor's veto and promising to fight for it again next January:

“Today the Governor chose corporations that pollute over Vermonters’ health when he vetoed the Medical Monitoring Bill, S.37. When corporations pollute our environment or water supply with toxic chemicals or expose Vermont workers to harmful chemicals, they should be held accountable for their wrongdoing.

“In the legislature, we are working hard to pass policies that ensure our state works for all of us, not just the privileged few. Yet our families and communities cannot thrive if our Governor continues to prioritize protecting corporations over people.

“We must do better. Vermonters should be protected from exposure to harmful chemicals and helped when they are impacted by toxic contamination. Vermont faced a hard and very frightening reality when the toxic chemical PFOA was found in the drinking water around Bennington. When corporate polluters wrongfully expose Vermonters to toxic substances known to cause diseases, like PFOA, the entity profiting from that pollution - not the individuals harmed - should bear the costs of monitoring health impacts. It is outrageous that the Governor is siding with corporations over Vermonters with his veto of the Medical Monitoring Bill.

“Medical monitoring allows for the earliest detection and treatment of the diseases caused by toxic chemical exposure. Similar to early detection efforts such as mammograms and colonoscopies, this program encourages early detection and early treatment interventions to ensure the best possible health outcomes at the lowest cost.

“To protect businesses, S.37 does not allow frivolous or unfounded claims. A high burden of proof is required to access assistance. Individuals would have to convince a judge or jury that a company wrongfully exposed them to a known toxic substance; that the exposure increases their risk of developing a latent disease and could credibly trigger the need for medical monitoring; and that there are diagnostic tests that can detect the latent disease. Yet the Governor would still have Vermonters bear the cost of their own health monitoring and treatment even after a judicial decision agreed that the polluter was responsible. I disagree with the Governor who thinks this places too much responsibility on businesses. There is a high burden of proof in the bill required to mitigate this concern, while providing a path for Vermonters to receive a remedy that is not available under current law.

“100 House members and 19 Senators supported this bill in tri-partisan votes when it passed in May. The right thing to do is to pass this legislation and to support Vermonters over corporations, and I look forward to taking this bill up again in January.”

Meanwhile, Governor Scott signed bills of the following titles:

S.30, An act relating to the regulation of hydrofluorocarbons

S.40, An act relating to testing and remediation of lead in the drinking water of schools and child care facilities (Click here to see story)

S.107, An act relating to elections corrections

S.111, An act relating to the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs’ Airborne Hazards and Open Burn Pit Registry (Click here to view Governor Scott’s signing ceremony remarks)

S.113, An act relating to the management of single-use products

H.16, An act relating to boards and commissions (a signing letter, sent to the Legislature, is attached)

H.63, An act relating to weatherization, a Public Utility Commission proceeding, and unclaimed beverage container deposits

H.524, An act relating to health insurance and the individual mandate

H.525, An act relating to miscellaneous agricultural subjects

VNRC: Governor Scott's Veto of Medical Monitoring Bill Protects Corporate Polluters Rather than Vermonters

Today Governor Scott vetoed S.37, a bill that would have helped victims of toxic contamination by allowing Vermonters to seek medical monitoring expenses from the polluter that released toxic chemicals. The bill also would have authorized the State of Vermont to sue companies that manufacture chemicals that contaminate the environment and cause harm to our air, land, and water. 

Jon Groveman, Policy and Water Program Director for the Vermont Natural Resources Council (VNRC), a main proponent of the bill, stated: "S.37 would have provided Vermonters harmed by toxic contamination with just a little bit of fairness. In vetoing the bill, Governor Scott has deprived them of this fairness. Instead of holding polluters responsible for medical costs and damage to Vermont's environment, he has sided with corporate lobbyists that have misinterpreted the impacts that S.37 will actually have on business in Vermont."

Lauren Hierl, Executive Director for Vermont Conservation Voters, added: “After hearing the pleas for support from Vermonters harmed by toxic PFAS contamination in Bennington, it’s shameful that the Governor sided with corporate polluters rather than victims of toxic pollution. We hope Vermont lawmakers will vote to override this veto so that the next time a contamination crisis impacts a community, the victims have one less thing to worry about, and the responsible party -- the toxic polluter -- pays its fair share."

The bill had broad support in the House and Senate, passing by votes of 100-42 and 19-11, respectively. VNRC, VCV, and allies are hopeful that legislators will override the Governor’s veto of this important legislation.

Groveman added, "S.37 is an important step forward to addressing toxic pollution and holding polluters accountable, and should become law.”
AIV Welcomes Veto of S.37, Reiterates Call for Stakeholders to Support a Consensus Approach on Medical Monitoring

Montpelier -- Associated Industries of Vermont (AIV) today welcomed Governor Scott's veto of S.37, a bill addressing liabilities that companies could face for medical monitoring costs, and reiterated a call for the Administration, Legislature, business community, and other stakeholders to work together to develop new medical monitoring legislation that would be consistent with other states that have established medical monitoring through the courts.

AIV was joined by more than 40 other business associations, regional development corporations, and chambers of commerce during the legislative session in expressing their opposition to S.37 and their support for medical monitoring criteria based on those in the 16 states have recognized medical monitoring through court decisions.

"As we have stated repeatedly this year, we are not opposed to medical monitoring liability," stated William Driscoll, Vice President of Associated Industries of Vermont, "Companies that act negligently and put people at significant risk of developing a serious disease should be accountable. But we should have fair and reasonable standards for determining liability like the other states around the country that have addressed this issue."

The key problem with S.37 is that it is inconsistent with other states in ways, including standards for exposure, risk, and seriousness of potential disease, that would not only present serious risks and potential costs to manufacturers and other covered companies operating responsibly, but the Department of Financial Regulation and insurance experts have raised concerns that the significant and broad potential liabilities created by S.37 could make insurance coverage for medical monitoring extremely expensive or even unavailable.

"The debate over S.37 should not be a false choice between that bill's version of medical monitoring liability and no liability," noted William Driscoll, "and it is unfortunate that some have cast this issue in polarizing terms.  There is a responsible path forward on this issue, which can be found in the consensus provisions that are clearly consistent in states that have recognized medical monitoring.  We believe that all stakeholders should be able to work together toward such an approach, and will be working to build support for such an approach when the Legislature returns to this issue next year."