cost of diagnostic testing, even if periodic or ongoing, likely is a compensable injury under Illinois law. Whether the Plaintiffs’ allegations will be borne out by the evidence remains to be seen after the close of discovery on the merits. In the context of a motion for judgment on the pleadings, the question is not whether the Plaintiffs have presented sufficient “evidence to the effect that ‘medical monitoring is, to a reasonable degree of medical certainty, necessary in order to diagnose properly the warning signs of disease.’ ” Jensen, 308 Ill.Dec. 888, 862 N.E.2d at 1100. Rather, the question is whether there are any material issues of fact and whether the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See Sikirica v. Nationwide Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 214, 219-20 (3d Cir.2005) (<HOLDING>). At this stage of the proceedings, however,
holding that a probable cause determination is appropriate for summary judgment where there are no genuine issues of material fact and no credibility issues holding that when there are no genuine issues of material fact summary judgment is appropriate holding that claimant moving for summary judgment on its claim must conclusively prove all the essential elements of the claim and that claimant has the burden to show that there are no genuine issues of material fact and that claimant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law holding that motion to dismiss should not  be granted unless the moving party has established that there is no material issue of fact to resolve and that it is entitled to judgment in its favor as a matter of law holding that judgment on the pleadings will not be granted unless the movant clearly establishes that there are no material issues of fact and that he or she is entitled to judgment as a matter of law