Suing for Mold Exposure at Work: What You Should Know

December 11, 2024 @ 2:18 pm

Everyone deserves a safe, healthy workplace. In fact, federal law mandates that employers must provide a safe and healthy environment for their workers. When workplaces fail to address known hazards that could harm employees, those employees may have the right to compensation. 

Since mold qualifies as a hazard that can lead to serious health problems, mold exposure at work may be legal grounds to initiate a case. If you think you or someone you know has been affected by mold at work, let’s take a look at what necessitates a toxic mold case—and what steps you can take to get compensated.

Your Right to Work in a Toxin-Free Environment

In the US, the Occupational Safety and Health Act—OSHA—establishes that employees have the right to a safe workplace. OSHA mandates that employers maintain health standards that minimize hazards, including exposure to harmful substances.

While OSHA does not have a specific standard for mold to determine how much mold is toxic, mold is recognized as a harmful substance. So, under OSHA’s General Duty Clause, employers must take steps to minimize exposure to mold once they are aware of it. If mold has developed because of poor ventilation or leaks, for example, an employer may be held accountable—especially if it poses a serious risk to health.

Since Louisiana does not operate its own OSHA-approved occupational safety and health program, workplace safety regulations and inspections are overseen by the federal-level OSHA program. The state does require licensing for mold remediation that exceeds $7,500 in value but specifies only that any needed repairs must be made within a reasonable timeframe. 

Otherwise, the state relies on federal OSHA standards mandating that employers must provide a work environment free of recognized hazards. An OSHA guide titled “Preventing Mold-Related Problems in the Indoor Workplace” flatly states that “there should not be visible mold growth or objectionable moldy odors in the workplace.”

It’s important to acknowledge that, while OSHA sets workplace safety standards and employers are required to comply with them, OSHA violations do not automatically create a private right of action for employees to sue their employers. OSHA violations can, however, serve as evidence in a workers’ compensation claim or toxic tort suit.

Mold as a Workplace Hazard

Mold is a hazard because even some of the most common molds are capable of producing mycotoxins. Some molds even produce several mycotoxins. Mycotoxins are microscopic particles that protect the mold’s growth and allow it to distribute its seedlike spores and spread. 

As long as a spore has the correct conditions—sufficient moisture, oxygen, nutrients and temperatures—it can thrive. Leaks, poor ventilation, lack of insulation or the buildup of condensation can create prime conditions for mold growth.

OSHA recognizes three degrees of health-related adverse reactions to mold—allergies, infection and toxin-mediated conditions:

• Allergies can range from the red eyes and runny nose of allergic rhinitis to the breathing difficulties of allergic asthma all the way to the debilitating fibrosis associated with hypersensitivity pneumonitis. 
• Systemic infections like histoplasmosis and cryptococcosis are examples of issues that can result from accumulations of bird or bat droppings contaminating soil, surfaces, storage areas or even HVAC systems.
• Toxin-related conditions include issues caused by ingesting, inhaling or having skin contact with mycotoxin-producing mold. One of the most recognized mycotoxins is aflatoxin, a potent liver carcinogen typically found on peanuts, grains, and other foods.

Establishing the relationship between a set of physical symptoms and mold can be challenging. As OSHA’s guide states, “the presence of mycotoxin-producing mold in a building does not necessarily mean that mycotoxins are present or that building occupants have been exposed to mycotoxins.” However, the same guide also states that “all molds under the right conditions have the potential to cause allergic reactions, infections, and toxin-mediated conditions.” 

Certain types of mold—Stachybotrys chartarum, for example (also called black mold)—can be particularly harmful. Exposure to this mold can lead to severe symptoms, especially in people with existing respiratory conditions or weakened immune systems.

Suing for Mold Exposure at Work

The legal pathway for a worker to sue their employer over mold exposure depends on the specific circumstances associated with the case. Most workplace injury claims are typically handled under workers’ compensation laws. In Louisiana, workplace injuries and illnesses—including mold exposure—are handled through the Louisiana Workers’ Compensation Act. However, some cases may merit toxic tort lawsuits:

Workers’ Compensation

In most states—including Louisiana—workers’ compensation laws provide the only remedy for employees who are injured or become ill on the job. Under exclusive remedy, workers are limited to the benefits that workers’ compensation provides and are unable to sue their employer for additional damages. Workers’ compensation typically covers medical treatment, lost wages and disability benefits for injuries or illness caused by workplace conditions.

However, exceptions to exclusivity are warranted under certain circumstances—most commonly, intentional harm or negligence on the employer’s part or third-party liability. In those cases, workers may be able to bypass the workers’ compensation system to pursue a personal injury lawsuit. If mold is involved, they may be able to file a toxic tort lawsuit.

Toxic Tort Law

In the world of tort law, the term “toxic substances” refers to any materials that can cause harm through exposure, whether they’re chemicals, gases, or even biological agents like mold. So, toxic tort law deals with a wide variety of claims that address harm due to exposure to dangerous substances. Often, toxic tort law deals with substances like asbestos, benzene, pharmaceuticals, pesticides and even mold.

Toxic tort cases can involve all sorts of legal relationships—often between product manufacturers and consumers or between landlords and tenants. However, workers seeking compensation in mold-related toxic tort cases are usually limited to a few sets of circumstances.

• Third Party Liability. Workers’ compensation exclusivity applies only to direct employers. If a third party—a contractor, building owner or equipment manufacturer, for example—contributed to the mold exposure, employees can sue the third party for negligence or product liability, for example.
• Intentional Harm. If an employer intentionally causes harm to an employee, workers’ compensation exclusivity no longer applies. Intentional harm means that the employer knowingly engaged in conduct that was certain to result in injury or illness. For example, an employer knowingly allowing or directing employees to work in mold-infested conditions without remediation or protective measures could qualify as an intentional act.

Proving a case of workplace mold exposure can be tricky, but understanding the options and various avenues is important. While workers’ compensation offers the most straightforward path and covers many workplace-related illnesses, toxic tort claims may come into play if a third party’s negligence or an employer’s intentional misconduct is involved. 

Proving Workplace Mold Exposure

To bring a legal case against an employer for mold exposure, an employee must prove four elements.

• Duty of Care. The employer had a responsibility to maintain a safe work environment.
• Breach of Duty. The employer allowed unsafe mold levels to exist and persist.
• Causation. Mold exposure directly caused the employee’s health problems.
• Damages. The employee suffered measurable harm that may include medical costs, lost wages, and pain and suffering, for example.

One of the most challenging aspects of a mold exposure case is proving causation—showing that exposure to mold at work directly caused an illness or harm. Typically, this involves combining documentation and environmental testing with medical records and expert testimony to link the mold at work with a particular set of health problems. 

A sticking point has been the need to meet the requirements of an “occupational disease” while being able to link an employee’s duties and responsibilities—and resulting illness—with the presence of mold.

Mold Lawsuits in Louisiana

Even today, proving what would seem to be a straightforward case can be challenging. Here are a few recent cases that shed light on the current perception of employer responsibility when it comes to worker injury.

The Case of LeCompte vs. St. Tammany Parish School Board

Another significant case in Louisiana involving exposure to mold in the workplace, LeCompte v. St. Tammany Parish School Board, also focused on causation and establishing the link between long-term mold exposure and the claimant’s illness. The original court attempted to dismiss a claim of mold exposure by the employee, a high school teacher, coach and athletic director, by equating his work to clerical work. 

However, the appellate court reversed the decision in 2021 and charged the original court to determine “whether the employee suffered an occupational disease based on his work as a teacher, coach, and athletic director.”

The Case of Martin v. Thomas et al.

In a ruling in 2022 on Martin v. Thomas et al., however, the Louisiana Supreme Court may have left room for more scrutiny of employer practices. The case centered on an accident involving the driver of a commercial tractor-trailer after work hours and had nothing to do with mold. However, it did look at whether the truck driver’s employer could be charged with negligence even though the truck driver was not at fault. 

Parting from tradition, the court emphasized that all parties’ faults must be assessed independently—including that of the employer. This may leave the door open for increased claims against employers for negligence in other areas like unsafe working conditions.

What to Do If You’ve Been Exposed to Mold at Work

If you suspect that you are suffering from mold exposure at work, taking the right steps early on can make a difference in protecting both your health and your rights.

• Document the mold problem. Take photos of any visible mold or signs of water damage. Keep a journal to record your exposures and symptoms. Detailed documentation can support any future complaint or legal action.
• Report the issue to your employer. Report the mold in writing to your supervisor or human resources department. Include a dated description of where it is located and any symptoms you’re experiencing.
• Seek medical help. If you’re experiencing symptoms such as trouble breathing, headaches, sinus infections or other physical issues, see a healthcare provider. Medical records showing the onset and severity of symptoms will be valuable if you later pursue a claim.
• File an OSHA complaint. If your employer fails to address the mold issue, you can file a complaint with OSHA. OSHA inspectors may assess your workplace and require corrective actions if they confirm the hazard.
• Speak with an attorney. If you’re experiencing long-term health issues and believe they are linked to mold exposure at work, consult an attorney with experience in toxic torts and workplace safety cases. They can help you understand the strengths of your case and the steps to take if you want to pursue compensation.

Get Guidance for a Mold Injury with MMRBH

Suing your employer or other third parties for mold exposure is a complex undertaking, but your health and wellbeing are at stake. Employers have the responsibility of making sure that their workplace is safe for workers, and they also have the responsibility to provide compensation to workers when people are injured or become ill because of their job. 
If the issue of mold exposure strikes a chord, reach out to the experienced toxic tort lawyers at Morrow, Morrow, Ryan, Bassett and Haik. Let us help you get the compensation you need and deserve. Schedule your free consultation today.

Sources:

https://www.osha.gov/publications/shib101003
https://www.lexisnexis.com/community/insights/legal/workers-compensation/b/recent-cases-news-trends-developments/posts/louisiana-office-worker-s-mold-exposure-does-not-qualify-as-occupational-disease?srsltid=AfmBOopy9j3wyD97a064K7wImRQdCczaBCTSr7JaAgUj7A42WZGSFxiu
https://codes.findlaw.com/la/revised-statutes/la-rev-stat-tit-40-sect-1289-1/
https://ldh.la.gov/index.cfm/faq/category/41
https://www.osha.gov/sites/default/files/publications/preventing_mold.pdf
https://lslbc.louisiana.gov/wp-content/uploads/cib/cib_mold_remediation.pdf
https://law.justia.com/codes/louisiana/revised-statutes/title-40/rs-40-1289-3/
https://www.osha.gov/publications/shib101003
https://www.moldcareer.com/blog/louisiana-state-mold-laws/#:~:text=Is%20a%20license%20required%20for,up%20without%20a%20proper%20license.
https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/toxic-torts-overview-32204.html#:~:text=A%20toxic%20tort%20is%20a,drug%2C%20pesticide%2C%20or%20chemical.
https://consciousspaces.com/en-us/blogs/science/everything-you-need-to-know-about-damp-mould-and-mycotoxins
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8945704/
https://digitalcommons.law.lsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4842&context=lalrev
https://www.lexisnexis.com/community/insights/legal/workers-compensation/b/recent-cases-news-trends-developments/posts/louisiana-office-worker-s-mold-exposure-does-not-qualify-as-occupational-disease?srsltid=AfmBOopy9j3wyD97a064K7wImRQdCczaBCTSr7JaAgUj7A42WZGSFxiu case
https://law.justia.com/cases/louisiana/first-circuit-court-of-appeal/2021/2020ca0333.html
https://keoghcox.com/louisiana-supreme-court-now-allows-direct-negligence-claims-against-employer/ new ruling
https://www.deutschkerrigan.com/news-insights/insights/the-reptiles-are-coming-martin-v.-thomas-decision-issued-regarding-direct-negligence-claims-from-employee-actions#:~:text=The%20reason%20for%20the%20majority,negligent%20in%20causing%20the%20accident. New ruling discussion