under 23(b)(2) in case where employees sought injunctive relief in form of court-administered medical monitoring program against manufacturers of chemicals to which employees were allegedly exposed in the workplace); German v. Federal Home Loan Mortgage Cor p. 1466, 1477 (N.D.Cal.1987) (Medical monitoring program “which will pool and share knowledge about the results of the alleged exposure and will provide for diagnosis and preventive medical advice” is equitable relief); Ayers v. Jackson Township, 106 N.J. 557, 525 A.2d 287, 314 (1987) (“[T]he use of a court-supervised fund to administer medical-surveillance payments in mass exposure cases ... is a highly appropriate exercise of the Court’s equitable powers.”); Burns v. Jaquays Min. Corp., 156 Ariz. 375, 752 P.2d 28, 34 (App.Ct.1987) (<HOLDING>). Nor does the proposed remedy suffer from the
holding that a courts equitable powers must yield in the face of an unambiguously worded statute holding that it was within the bankruptcy courts equitable powers to award damages in an action for fraud on the court holding that courtsupervised medical surveillance fund is exercise of courts equitable powers recognizing equitable powers necessary and appropriate to carry out the provisions of this title recognizing that court may intervene in arbitration proceeding by invoking equitable powers