Information Center Toxic Mold
Experts and Toxic Mold Cases
In order to win a toxic mold case for personal injury, the plaintiff must be able to prove that exposure to the toxic mold caused the injuries he or she has suffered. Given the lack of scientific evidence directly linking mold exposure to ill health effects in humans, plaintiffs must rely on expert testimony to show causation. Defendants also will use expert witnesses to discredit the plaintiff's witnesses, leading to a "battle of the experts."
If you or a family member has been exposed to toxic mold and your health has declined as a result, contact an experienced toxic tort lawyer at Herrig & Vogt LLP in Sacramento, California today to have your case evaluated. An attorney can explain your rights and options to you.
The Problems with Causation
Proving causation in a toxic mold case - that the toxic mold caused the injuries alleged by the plaintiff - is the most difficult part of any toxic mold litigation. To make it more difficult, the plaintiff must show both general and specific causation in order to prevent his or her case from being dismissed.
- General Causation: toxic mold in a particular place for a specific period of time can cause the type of illness and injuries claimed by the plaintiff
- Specific Causation: proof that toxic mold caused this particular plaintiff's injuries in this specific case
The Daubert Challenge
There are certain requirements that must be met in order for expert testimony to be admissible in court. The requirements for expert testimony in federal cases were changed with the 1993 U.S. Supreme Court case, Daubert v. Merelll Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. According to this case, the court must determine if expert testimony constitutes scientific knowledge before the expert can testify. The court determines whether the testimony is scientific knowledge by applying a four-prong test:
- Has the theory been subject to peer review or publication?
- Has the theory been or capable of being tested?
- Is there a known, acceptable rate of error?
- Has the theory been generally accepted?
After considering these factors, the court will then determine whether the expert's underlying reasoning and methodology is scientifically valid and can be applied to the specific case's facts. If the testimony meets these criteria, the expert can testify.
Passing the Daubert test in toxic mold cases can be difficult because of the lack of scientific evidence that there is a link between toxic mold exposure and adverse health effects in people. If the court determines that the expert testimony does not constitute scientific knowledge, then the testimony cannot pass the Daubert challenge, the plaintiff most likely will be unable to prove causation and may lose the case. However, despite the difficulties of the standard, many plaintiffs' experts have successfully passed the Daubert test. It is important to note that not all states have adopted the Daubert test, so you will want to speak with an experienced attorney to learn more about qualifying expert witnesses in your jurisdiction.
Conclusion
Proving causation in toxic mold cases seeking recovery for personal injuries is much more difficult than proving causation in property damage suits. Contact Herrig & Vogt LLP in Sacramento, California to speak with an attorney about recovering damages for your personal injuries from toxic mold exposure. A lawyer experienced in these types of cases can determine the strength of your claim.
Copyright ©2009 FindLaw, a Thomson Business
DISCLAIMER: This site and any information contained herein are intended for informational purposes only and should not be construed as legal advice. Seek competent legal counsel for advice on any legal matter.
