Court Finds Toxic Mold Caused Worker's Health Problems

[Guest guest]

This article can be viewed at

http://safety.blr.com/display.cfm?id=104952

____________________________________

11/30/2007

Court Finds Toxic Mold Caused Worker's Health Problems

Cameron worked for Merisel Americas, Inc., a computer hardware and

software company. Between December 1998 and April 2000 he worked in the

company's Cary office. This office had a history of water leaks and moisture

problems. Cameron noticed that his windows leaked when it rained and that the

walls,

ceilings, and carpets in his office had been damaged by water and mold. In

1999, the office next door to Cameron's flooded, increasing the water damage

to the carpets and the mold on the walls.

While he was working in the Cary facility, Cameron started to have trouble

with his balance and vision. In the fall of 1999 a doctor determined that he

had developed irreversible damage to his inner ear and vestibular system,

resulting in a permanent loss of balance. In 2002 Cameron and his wife sued

Merisel, claiming that Cameron's workplace was contaminated with toxic molds

and

that its failure to correct the problem or warn Cameron caused his permanent

injuries.

After numerous pre-trial activities, the case went to trial in Wake County in

March 2006. The jury found that Merisel was liable for damages to Cameron.

It awarded him $1,600,000 for his injury and awarded his wife $200,000 for her

loss of his company and services. Merisel appealed to the North Carolina

Court of Appeals.

Merisel argued that Cameron had not proven that his illness was caused by

exposure to toxic molds at work and that the trial court therefore should have

dismissed the case. The court disagreed, finding that Cameron had produced

ample evidence of the Merisel's mold having caused his problems.

According to Cameron's account, before Merisel purchased the facility in

1998, it had received inspection reports indicating that it had moisture

problems. A number of Cameron's co-workers claimed that they had various

respiratory

problems and complained about the mold to Merisel's maintenance supervisor,

Goldsworthy. Goldsworthy notified company administrators, but the mold

problem continued. Goldsworthy reportedly expressed that he thought the

complaining employees were trying to avoid work.

In 1999, air quality tests confirmed that mold was present in the building.

After these test results, Merisel replaced Goldsworthy with another

supervisor, who was entrusted with building maintenance and specifically

instructed to

solve the moisture problems in the Cary building. In January 2000 a Merisel

employee lodged a complaint about mold and moisture with NC OSHA. In March,

tests revealed the presence of Stachbotrys mold in Cameron's office.

Cameron's health had been fine before he went to work at Merisel, but it

quickly deteriorated while he worked in the Cary facility. Cameron's doctor

diagnosed him with bilateral vestibular dysfunction. The doctor testified that

he

had considered other causes of ear diseases, such as brain tumors, skull

fractures, chemotherapy, and various other factors that can affect vestibular

function, but had ruled them out. In his opinion, Cameron's condition was caused

by poisoning of the ears by exposure to some toxin. He did not learn that

Cameron had been exposed to toxic molds until after making this initial

diagnosis. Once he heard about the presence of Stachybotrys mold in Cameron's

office, he concluded that the loss of Cameron's vestibular function was, in his

best medical judgment, due to exposure to a mycotoxin from the fungus.

Cameron also brought in two other expert witnesses, an expert in

environmental medicine and a mold expert, who also testified that the mold at

the Cary

facility presented a health hazard and that mold was most likely the cause of

Cameron's illness. The court held that this was more than ample evidence that

the mold at Merisel had caused Cameron's problems. It affirmed the trial

court's decision. Cameron v. Merisel Properties, Inc., Court of Appeals of

North

Carolina, No. COA07-54 (11/06/07)

OSHA requires employers to protect their workers from a variety of hazards,

known and unknown. An employer who knows about a hazard should address it

immediately. It appears clear that if the supervisor and administrators who

received the employees' complaints about the mold had responded quickly and

adequately, the company could have avoided paying such hefty damages.

_©1997-2007 Business & Legal Reports, Inc. _

(http://www.blr.com/press_center/reprints.cfm)

No part of this site may be _reproduced_

(http://www.blr.com/press_center/reprints.cfm) in any form without permission

of Business & Legal Reports, Inc.

**************************************Check out AOL's list of 2007's hottest

products.

(http://money.aol.com/special/hot-products-2007?NCID=aoltop00030000000001)