North Carolina Case Brings Toxic Mold Concerns Back Into The Courtroom

[Guest guest]

United States: North Carolina Case Brings Toxic Mold Concerns Back

Into The Courtroom

14 January 2008

Mondaq News Alerts (subscription) - London,UK*

Article by C. O'Neill

http://www.mondaq.com/article.asp?articleid=55802

Just a few years ago, " toxic mold " cases were resulting in multi-

million-dollar awards. Health agencies, insurance companies,

builders, architects, employers, homeowners, and personal injury

attorneys all showed significant interest in mold. However, within a

few years, mold was no longer in the headlines, and plaintiffs

struggled to satisfy courts and juries that their injuries were

caused by exposure to mold. But a recent case from North Carolina

may reinvigorate litigation relating to mold claims.

In Cameron v. Merisel Properties, Inc. and Goldsworthy, N.C.

Ct. App., No. 07-54, November 6, 2007 (unofficial), the plaintiff

worked for a computer company in North Carolina from December 1998

to April 2000. The building in which his office was located had a

history of leaks and dampness. During the time of his

employment, " he developed irreversible damage to his vestibular

system, which is the inner ear organ responsible for balance "

allegedly due to his exposure to toxic mold. The plaintiff sued his

employer and building owner and ultimately recovered $1.6 million

under a negligence theory of premises liability against the building

owner. The defendant challenged the sufficiency of evidence on

causation. The court held that sufficient evidence was presented to

show that the plaintiff's injuries were proximately caused by his

exposure to mold.

While the plaintiff was in excellent health when he started working

in the North Carolina facility, after just a few weeks, he started

to have balance and vision problems. Over the next six months, the

symptoms worsened. In fall 1999, he was diagnosed with permanent and

irreversible bilateral vestibular dysfunction — the loss of the

balance function in both ears. When the plaintiff began working for

the defendant in December 1998, the walls, carpeting, and ceiling in

his office had evidence of water damage, including the presence of

mold. Air quality tests performed by the defendant in November 1999

confirmed the presence of mold in the North Carolina facility, and

further testing in March 2000 identified Stachybotrys mold in the

plaintiff's office.

The plaintiff was treated by Dr. ph Farmer, who performed many

tests and ruled out most known causes of vestibular dysfunction. Dr.

Farmer concluded that the plaintiff's bilateral vestibular

dysfunction was " caused by ototoxicity, or poisoning of the ears. "

After his review of the 2000 air sample results that identified

toxigenic molds, including Stachybotrys, Dr. Farmer concluded that

the ototoxin causing the plaintiff's vestibular dysfunction was a

mycotoxin, or mold byproduct, from the North Carolina facility.

The plaintiff presented testimony from Dr. Eckhardt Johanning, an

expert in the area of occupational and environmental medicine and

the effects of mold on human health. Dr. Johanning testified that

exposure to mold was " more likely than not " the cause of the

plaintiff's disorder. The plaintiff also offered the testimony of

Dr. Jerry Tulis, who was qualified as an expert in mold science,

assessment, control, and remediation. Dr. Tulis testified that the

plaintiff " was exposed to mold and mycotoxins " at the North Carolina

facility, and such exposure " presented a health hazard. "

The defendant argued that Dr. Farmer's testimony was " mere

conjecture and speculation. " However, the court disagreed, finding

that Dr. Farmer's opinion was based upon " far more than speculation "

and other evidence offered at trial " established that exposure to

toxigenic molds can cause vestibular dysfunction. "

The court's finding of a causal link in this case could prove to be

significant as other cases make their way through the courts, and as

additional medical research comes to light. This is an important

reminder that clients should continue to adhere to best practices to

evaluate, prevent, and address any indoor moisture conditions.

[Guest guest]

It just blows my mind that these bureaucrats can sit there and say mold

doesn't cause illness when so many people are sick. I think that the winds

of change are blowing, though. People should try to get these people to go

on the record with their pontifications, and hopefully, then when its

obvious that they are wrong, we will see some very sorry people, or ruined

careers. Especially in public health.

Any public health official who ignores mold illness is not doing their job

and in fact, is actively harming society.

The people who are doing that need to be held accountable.