Is employer liable for toxic mold in building?

[Guest guest]

http://www.presstelegram.com/Stories/0,1413,204~21478~1471143,00.html

Is employer liable for toxic mold in building?

Sunday, June 22, 2003 - Darcy's work assignment required her to assist scientists and researchers with animal experiments. She visited her employer's occupational nurse, complaining of headaches, skin rashes and fatigue. Darcy thought she might be allergic to working with the animals used in the scientific experiments. She was immediately transferred to work in a different building and her health improved. Shortly thereafter, a mushroom was discovered in the building where Darcy formerly worked. Environmental testing revealed the presence of toxic mold in the air system, although the level of mold inside the research building was lower than outdoor air. Darcy's employer promptly informed its workers of the problem which was mold discovered in the air delivery system. Her employer immediately had the air system thoroughly cleaned. Although Darcy's employer did everything possible to make certain the air in its buildings was safe, Darcy sued her employer, alleging fraudulent concealment of the mold in the building where she previously worked. Darcy's employer replied that it immediately minimized the effects of the toxic mold, which was found in the air system of the building where Darcy had worked. If you were the judge would you rule Darcy's employer is liable for her health complaints? The judge said no. Employers are liable when employees are injured during the course of their employment, the judge began. However, in this situation there is no evidence Darcy's employer knew of any defects in its workplace so there were no negligent or intentional acts involved, he continued. At first, Darcy thought her headaches, skin rashes and fatigue might be due to her working with experimental animals, the judge emphasized. However, her employer promptly transferred her and her condition improved, he noted. Upon discovery, Darcy's employer did not conceal the toxic mold found in her former workplace, the judge explained. Nor did the employer hide any possible connection to her distress, he added. There was no evidence presented that Darcy's employer knew of her injury before she did or that it concealed the toxic mold in its air delivery system which was cleaned as fast as possible, the judge commented. Without evidence of negligent or intentional acts, the judge concluded, there can be no employer liability in this situation. Therefore, Darcy's damage recovery is limited to workers' compensation coverage, if any the judge ruled. Based on the 2003 California Court of Appeal decision in Jensen v. Amgen Inc., 129 Cal.Rptr.2d 899.