In West Virginia, healthy smokers can now sue tobacco companies to require them to fund medical monitoring for health risks associated with smoking. In Blankenship, formally known as In re Tobacco Litigation (Medical Monitoring Case), the Circuit Court for Ohio County permitted a jury to decide the medical monitoring claim, despite the clam’s novelty and controversy. The unanimous jury refused to enforce the plaintiffs’ demands, and the court denied a motion for retrial. This trial was the second attempt of the class action lawsuit; the court had previously declared a mistrial when an attorney used the word “addiction” in front of the jury.

The court certified a class of residents of the state of West Virginia with more than a five “pack-year history” (at least one pack per day for five years) of smoking the defendant tobacco companies’ cigarettes, who did not have any of a list of named smoking-related illnesses, including various cancers and coronary heart disease, and who did not receive health care paid for – or reimbursed by – the state of West Virginia.

In J.E.M. AG Supply, Inc. v. Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc., the U.S. Supreme Court held that utility patents may be issued for newly developed, sexually reproduced plants and plant seeds. Specifically, the Court denied the petitioner's contention that the exclusive means of protecting sexually reproduced plants and plant seeds are found in the Plant Patent Act of 1930 (PPA) and the Plant Variety Protection Act (PVPA). The Court instead affirmed the decisions of the District Courts and the Federal Circuit and held that 35 U.S.C. § 101 (§ 101 or the Utility Patent Act) also allows for the patenting of living organisms.

The respondent, Pioneer Hi-Bred, a large seed producer, filed suit for patent infringement on the part of the petitioner, J.E.M. AG Supply, doing business as Farm Advantage, Inc., for reselling bags of respondent's patented hybrid seeds. Pioneer is a major producer and manufacturer of hybrid seeds.

In United States ex rel. Quirk v. Madonna Towers, Inc., the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit held that the failure of a skilled nursing facility's executives to seek a legal opinion regarding a billing practice they considered valid did not meet the definition of knowingly presenting a false claim for payment to the federal government under the False Claims Act (FCA). Alleging that the facility that provided care to his aunt fraudulently submitted claims to Medicare for services provided free of charge, the appellant brought this case qui tam on behalf of the federal government under the FCA.

The FCA was passed by the legislature in an effort to punish and deter fraud against the federal government. It provides financial incentives for private individuals to come forward with information about fraudulent activity.

In M.A.K. v. Rush-Presbyterian-St. Luke's Medical Center, the Illinois Supreme Court reversed the appellate court and held that the phrase any physician, medical practitioner, hospital, clinic, health care facility or other medical or medically related facility, in a patient's signed consent form met the general designation requirement of the Code of Federal Regulations for the release of alcohol and drug abuse treatment records. Thus, the Illinois Supreme Court held that the medical center's release of a patient's records did not violate the federal Confidentiality of Alcohol and Drug Abuse Patient Records regulations.