In Labcorp v. Davis, Supreme Court Passes On Chance To Clarify Issue Of Uninjured Class Members

Published: 2025-06-13 04:10:13 ET LH

Published on 06/13/2025 at 04:10

The U.S. Supreme Court last week declined to resolve a potentially landmark issue in class action law. In the closely watched case of Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings v. Davis, the Court delivered a per curiam decision dismissing the writ of certiorari, which it granted in January, as improvidently granted, leaving unresolved the question of who could be included in the definition of a class. In a detailed dissent, Justice Kavanaugh warned that leaving this issue unaddressed has problematic, tangible consequences.

The Decision

On June 5, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to resolve a potentially landmark issue in class action law. In the highly anticipated decision of Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings v. Davis, the Supreme Court issued a per curiam decision dismissing a writ of certiorari as improvidently granted, with Justice Kavanaugh dissenting.

The question presented by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision was significant: "Whether a federal court may certify a class action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3) when some members of the proposed class lack any Article III injury." However, the Court declined to resolve whether these individuals have the requisite standing to proceed on a class-wide basis, leaving a significant division among federal courts on this critical class action question.

The Case

The case centered on legally blind patients who sued Labcorp, alleging its self-service check-in kiosks in California violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Plaintiffs claimed the kiosks were inaccessible, denying them full enjoyment of Labcorp's services, and sought statutory damages of $4,000 per class member. The putative class included all legally blind individuals who visited a LabCorp patient service center in the United States and were allegedly denied full and equal enjoyment of its goods and services due to "LabCorp's failure to make its e-check-in kiosks accessible."

In May 2022, the district court certified this broad class definition, emphasizing that individualized damages questions do not defeat the predominance requirement. Labcorp filed an interlocutory appeal, arguing plaintiffs' class definition was overbroad because it would sweep in many uninjured members, including blind patients who would not use kiosks anyway.

Thereafter, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision, allowing certification even if more than a de minimus number of uninjured class members might be included. Labcorp sought review, and the Supreme Court granted certiorari in January 2025.

Despite oral arguments and briefing by both parties, including the compelling argument by Labcorp that, as it stood, the certification of the class was inconsistent with both standing principals and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court declined to resolve the critical issue as to whether or not uninjured parties may be included in the definition of a class, and ultimately class settlements and damages payouts.

Notably, this is not the first time the Supreme Court has declined to address this question. In 2021, in TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, the Court explicitly stated, "[w]e do not here address the distinct question whether every class member must demonstrate standing before a court certifies a class."

Justice Kavanaugh's Dissent

Justice Kavanaugh dissented from the majority's decision to dismiss the case.

He expressed that, if given the opportunity, he would hold that, "Federal courts may not certify a damages class under Rule 23 when, as here, the proposed class includes both injured and uninjured class members." He warned that leaving this issue unaddressed has tangible consequences. Permitting certification of classes with uninjured members allows class action litigants to inflate damages for those unaffected by the relevant complaint, increasing risks for businesses and potentially coercing them into costly settlements. These costs, he argued, are ultimately borne by consumers, retirees, and workers.

Implications

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.

Erin M. Wilson Ballard Spahr LLP 1735 Market St 51st floor Philadelphia PA 19103 UNITED STATES Tel: 2156658500 E-mail: [email protected] URL: www.ballardspahr.com