825 (DC Cir 1984), current tort principles permit diagnostic testing: “Jones is knocked down by a motorbike which Smith is riding through a red light. Jones lands on his head with some force. Understandably shaken, Jones enters a hospital where doctors recommend that he undergo a battery of tests to determine whether he has suffered any internal head injuries. The tests prove negative, but Jones sues Smith solely for what turns out to be the substantial cost of the diagnostic examinations.” Medical monitoring is simply a continuing series of diagnostic tests used to determine the extent of the injury and the appropriateness of treatment. In Oregon, a plaintiff in a negligence action may recover the costs of diagnostic testing, see Zehr v. Haugen, 318 Or 647, 656-57, 871 P2d 1006 (1994) (<HOLDING>), and there is no reason that such a plaintiff
recognizing that when a defendants negligence causes bodily injury the plaintiff can recover damages for past present and future medical expenses bodily injury and emotional distress holding that it was a double jeopardy violation to convict and sentence for both dui with serious bodily injury and driving without a valid license with serious bodily injury based on an injury to a single victim holding that a plaintiff may recover damages for emotional distress caused by observing the negligently inflicted injury of a third person if but only if said plaintiff 1 is closely related to the injury victim 2 is present at the scene of the injury producing event at the time it occurs and is then aware that it is causing injury to the victim and 3 as a result suffers serious emotional distress holding that the fatal injury to a murder victim may be considered as satisfying the bodily injury component of the capital felony of kidnapping with bodily injury holding that bodily injury does not include purely emotional injuries