Toxic Mold Litigation and Mold Exposure Lawsuits in New Jersey and New York
Search Site
Menu
Proof Issues in Mold Exposure Litigation in New Jersey and New York

Proof Issues in Mold Exposure Litigation in New Jersey and New York

Exposure to mold and the physical effects resulting from such exposure has always been an extraordinarily difficult condition to assess for many medical professions.  A large reason for this issue stems from the fact that mold is ubiquitous, and exposure to differing types and quantities of mold spores affects each person differently with possible injuries varying widely.  One person’s exposure to certain quantities of the stachybotrys mycotoxins spore, for instance, may render nothing more than a runny nose, whereas another person’s identical exposure may render them bedridden with major or even potentially fatal respiratory conditions if not timely treated.  One explanation for the disparity is whether or not the affected person possesses a genetic hypersensitivity to microbes typically found in wet and damp environments.

In New York, persons exposed to toxic mold had increased difficulty bringing successful cases due to the lack of scientific consensus regarding causation.  New York courts require that a theory regarding causation of a personal injury, such as mold exposure causing certain physical symptoms, be generally recognized by the scientific or medical community.  See Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013 (D.C. Cir. 1923).  In New Jersey, on the other hand, a causation theory “may be found to be scientifically reliable if it is based on a sound, adequately founded scientific methodology involving data and information of the type reasonably relied on by experts in the scientific field.”  Rubanick v. Witco Chem. Corp., 125 N.J. 421 (1991); Landrigan v. Celotex Corp., 127 N.J. 404 (1992).

New Jersey’s standards for admissibility, widely believed to be less demanding, has provided injured parties in New Jersey with greater leeway in presenting expert testimony regarding toxic mold causation than may be the case in other states.  As such, New Jersey courts have been more permissive in admitting expert testimony concerning toxic mold exposure, even when where such testimony lacks details regarding the level of dampness or mold.  See e.g., Smith v. Northridge at Edison, No. A-2482-07T1 (N.J. App. Div. Oct. 6, 2009). New York’s high threshold for admissibility, meanwhile, has excluded such expert testimony due to the uncertainty of the effects of mold exposure.  Thus, New York courts have required evidence of specific causation exactly detailing the level of dampness or mold sufficient to cause the alleged injuries.  See Fraser v. 301-52 Townhouse Corp., 870 N.Y.S.2d 266 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008).

In recent years, there has been increasing recognition by the scientific community concerning the nature and extent of the harm caused by toxic mold exposure.  As such, courts in many jurisdictions have begun according more weight to expert testimony regarding causation of alleged injuries in toxic mold lawsuits.  In March 2012, the New York Appellate Division found that it was undisputed that exposure to damp buildings with excessive and atypical mold contamination was a recognized cause of respiratory health complaints and conditions such as asthma, rhinosinutis, bronchitis, allergies, infections and skin and mucous membrane irritation.  See Cornell v. 360 West 51st Street Realty, LLC, 939 N.Y.S.2d 434 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012). Specifically, the Court clarified prior, contrary New York decisions by indicating that an expert’s use of a differential diagnosis–a methodology used by physicians in assessing causation and diagnosing illness–was now a sufficient and scientifically sound method for establishing the requisite causation. The decision was further recognition of the fact that injured parties do not need to precisely quantify exposure levels, but must use a methodology establishing causation that is generally accepted in the scientific community. See B.T.N. v. Auburn Enlarged City School District, 845 N.Y.S.2d 614 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007).

New York and New Jersey’s growing acceptance of mold related expert testimony mirrors the growing recognition of the fact that mold exposure is harmful and needs to be taken seriously as a highly injurious toxin. In the event that there is an unabated water source in your home or workplace that consistently feeds the damp environment necessary for mold growth, specific remedial steps may need to be taken by you, your landlord, your homeowners/condominium association or employer to adequately prevent the growth and/or re-occurrence of toxic mold.  It may be the case that bleaching or treating certain mold growths with over-the-counter chemicals is insufficient, and that trained remediation professionals must be employed to ensure the source of the moisture is adequately addressed without further harm.

In light of the recent tragedies wrought by Hurricane Sandy, many communities in New York and New Jersey may begin experiencing growth of mold in homes and workplaces due to the heavy damage caused to buildings. Causes of mold can be overlooked by the general public as seemingly benign.  Also, these causes are often hidden, such as condensation or leaks from plumbing, air conditioning, windows, or roofs.  If you are concerned about your exposure to mold, you should contact a mold remediation specialist and discuss any health issues or symptoms with your physician or allergist immediately.

Lieberman Blecher & Sinkevich is an environmental law firm with offices in New Jersey and New York and has an abundance of experience in handling toxic mold exposure claims.  If you have experienced injury from toxic mold exposure and have questions or concerns about your legal rights, please do not hesitate to contact our office to speak with one of our attorneys.  We will gladly assist you in any way we can.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Our Attorneys

Recent Twitter Posts

  • New report finds that significant offshore wind capacity exists along the Atlantic coast. https://t.co/EQG8d5VMw2
    3 weeks ago
  • The Murphy Administration plans to spend $200 million on wind port. https://t.co/Se09U5ZHvy
    1 month ago
  • NJDEP aims to simplify permitting process. https://t.co/UTm92DtrAC
    1 month ago
  • U.S. Supreme Court will hear PennEast Pipeline appeal of New Jersey eminent domain dispute. https://t.co/AqqvTw1QD2
    2 months ago

Recent Blog Posts

Environmental remediation timeframes extended again in February 2021 due to COVID-19

Throughout the COVID-19 public health emergency, keeping up with deadlines and time frames has been a difficult task for many. The State of New Jersey as well as the New
Read More
Environmental remediation timeframes extended again in February 2021 due to COVID-19

New Jersey Courts Make it Easier for Commercial Landlords to Change the Locks and for Lenders to Foreclose

The COVID pandemic began in March of 2020 and placed many individuals, businesses and mortgage lenders in circumstances which seemingly only ever existed in their wildest dreams. Among those impacted
Read More
New Jersey Courts Make it Easier for Commercial Landlords to Change the Locks and for Lenders to Foreclose

Changes to Phase I Environmental Site Assessment standards may change federal environmental due diligence requirements.

At both the state and federal levels, purchasers of commercial property are required to perform certain environmental investigations in order to shield themselves from liability for contamination found after the
Read More
Changes to Phase I Environmental Site Assessment standards may change federal environmental due diligence requirements.

Appeals Court Critical of Law Firm’s “Scorched Earth” Collected Tactics in Landlord Tenant Case

Law firms hired by landlords in collection actions against tenants can be liable to pay the tenant both statutory penalties and attorneys fees if they use improper collection practices. That’s
Read More
Appeals Court Critical of Law Firm’s “Scorched Earth” Collected Tactics in Landlord Tenant Case

In the media

  • Gulf Coast Town Center facing foreclosure

    Naples Daily News, September 16, 2015

    Wells Fargo filed a lawsuit Sept. 8 against an affiliate of CBL & Associates, the owners of the decadeold, 1.2 million-square-foot mall in south Fort Myers for a $190.9 million unpaid loan. The center has 94 stores on 204 acres, with such anchors as Super Target, Belk, Best Buy, Dick’s Sporting Goods, Marshalls and Costco...

    Read More
  • Town liable for private company's leaking underground tanks, court rules

    NJ.com Jul 26, 2017

    CRANFORD -- A couple that owned a businesses in town and became sick from leaking underground tanks owned by an adjacent business can sue the township for damages because the tanks were partially ...

    Read More
  • Dark Waters: How a Class Action Catapulted NJ to Forefront of 'Forever Chemicals' Battle

    NJ Law Journal Jan 09, 2020

    As property owners become increasingly aware of PFAS contamination, and as individuals exposed to PFAS learn of the health risks associated with exposure, liability will likely affect entire supply chains.

    Read More
  1. 1
  2. 2
  3. 3
  4. 4
  5. 5
Contact Our Firm

Quick Contact Form

Toxic Mold Litigation and Mold Exposure Lawsuits in New Jersey and New York