TERRI F. LOVE, Judge.
This appeal arises from damage awards to eighteen plaintiffs for mold exposure and health problems suffered therefrom while working in the Plaquemines Parish 911 center between 1998 and 2002. The building housing the 911 center was owned by the Plaquemines Parish Government. The Plaquemines Parish Government asserts that the trial court erred, alleging that the plaintiffs failed to prove a causal link between its alleged tortious conduct and the alleged subsequent injuries. The Plaquemines Parish Government contends that the lack of medical evidence at trial mandates a reversal. We find that the trial court did not err in awarding the eighteen plaintiffs damage awards after weighing their testimony and the scientific evidence presented at trial. Therefore, we affirm.
Brenda Reddoch and Lettie Marinovich ("Plaintiffs") filed a Class Action Petition for Damages, seeking certification, as potential class representatives against Plaquemines Parish, Plaquemines Parish Council, and ABC Insurance Company. The Plaintiffs alleged that they suffered health problems as a result of working in a hazardous, mold-infested building ("Building") owned by the Plaquemines Parish Government ("PPG") from 1998-2002, which housed the 911 center and jail. The trial court found that the Plaintiffs failed to establish commonality and denied the request for class certification. Supplemental and amended petitions for damages were then filed to include additional plaintiffs.
Prior to trial, a majority of the Plaintiffs and all of the defendants
June Isaacs $20,000 Lynn Sanger $25,000 Dorothy Barnie $25,000 Michael Hudson $15,000 Albert Perry $15,000 Melissa Buras $25,000 S.E. Roberts $15,000 Mary Ann Bell $ 5,000 Danyl Cosse $ 5,000 Aretha Etienne $25,000 Michael S. Etienne, Jr. $ 5,000 Marie Etienne $ 5,000 Michael Etienne, Sr. $15,000 Arthur Reddick $15,000 Sandra Ritchey $ 5,000 Morris Roberts $10,000 Thomas Reddoch $25,000 Jaunh Dorsey $25,000
PPG then filed a Motion for a New Trial, and the Plaintiffs' opposition noted that the trial court's judgment omitted two Plaintiffs. The trial court denied the Motion for New Trial and held that the Plaintiffs did not file a motion for new trial to address the two allegedly omitted Plaintiffs. PPG's suspensive appeal followed.
PPG asserts that the trial court erred because no causal link between the alleged tortious conduct regarding the mold and the alleged subsequent injury was proven and that it is entitled to a judgment of reversal based upon La. C.C.P. art. 2164.
The manifest error or clearly wrong standard of review is utilized when appellate courts review findings of fact. Rosell v. ESCO, 549 So.2d 840, 844 (La.1989). The Louisiana Supreme Court has established "a two-part test for the reversal of a factfinder's determinations." Stobart v. State through Dep't of Transp. & Dev., 617 So.2d 880, 882 (La.1993). First, "[t]he appellate court must find from the record that a reasonable factual basis does not exist for the finding of the trial court." Id. Second, "the appellate court must further determine that the record establishes that the finding is clearly wrong (manifestly erroneous)." Id.
"[W]here there is conflict in the testimony, reasonable evaluations of credibility and reasonable inferences of fact should not be disturbed upon review, even though the appellate court may feel that its own evaluations and inferences are as reasonable." Rosell, 549 So.2d at 844. "[T]he court of appeal may not reverse even though convinced that had it been sitting as the trier of fact, it would have weighed the evidence differently." Id. If two reasonable views of the evidence exist, then the factfinder cannot be manifestly erroneous. Id. When findings of fact "are based on determinations regarding the credibility of witnesses, the manifest error-clearly wrong standard demands great deference to the trier of fact's findings" because "only the factfinder can be aware of the variations in demeanor and tone of voice that bear so heavily on the listener's understanding and belief in what is said." Id.
"However, if a legal error interdicts the fact finding process, the manifest error standard of review is no longer applicable, and, if the record is otherwise complete, the appellate court should make an independent de novo review of the record and determine which party should prevail."
June Isaac worked for the Plaquemine's Parish Sheriff's Office ("Sheriff's Office") as a 911 dispatcher from December 1999 until March 2002. Ms. Isaac viewed mold on the ceiling tiles and the vents and stated that "the smell was really bad." Ms. Isaac began to suffer from headaches, congestion, breathing problems; and her asthma was exacerbated by the mold. While working in the Building, Ms. Isaac had to increase the frequency of her asthma inhaler refills and took Claritin every day. "The longer I [Ms. Isaac] worked in the building it [health problems] got progressively worse." However, Ms. Isaac's health improved when she was not at work and after the 911 center moved out of the Building. Ms. Isaac worked next to Ms. Reddoch.
Lynn Sanger was also a 911 dispatcher from 1998 — 2002, while the Sheriff's Office housed the 911 center in the Building. Ms. Sanger saw mold on the ceiling tiles and the carpet and stated that "the equipment room flooded several times ... and you could smell like, it smelled musty when you went in there, it never smelled fresh." Ms. Sanger and other dispatchers complained about the mold to PPG. Some of the ceiling tiles were replaced several times and other remediation attempts were made. However, Ms. Sanger suffered from an irritated throat and headaches and had to begin taking over the counter medications to try to alleviate her symptoms. When the 911 dispatchers were removed from the Building, Ms. Sanger's symptoms improved.
Dorothy Barnie worked as a 911 dispatcher with the Sheriff's Office in the Building from 1998-2002. Ms. Barnie "started with all kind of allergies which is sneezing, coughing, runny nose, fever." She did not suffer from these problems prior to working in the building and her symptoms worsened the longer she worked in the Building. Further, Ms. Barnie testified that Plaquemines Parish attempted remediation, but the attempts made her symptoms worse. When the 911 dispatchers moved out of the Building, Ms. Barnie's symptoms improved.
Michael Hudson was incarcerated in the jail located in the Building from 1998-2001. Mr. Hudson experienced a "sore throat and nose problems" that he did not have prior to his incarceration in the Building. Mr. Hudson stated that his health problems ceased after his release.
Albert Perry, a smoker, was also incarcerated in the jail from 1998 — 2002. Mr. Perry cleaned the "911 room up from the top to the bottom" every day. Mr. Perry had to exit the Building and get fresh air because of breathing problems he developed. He did not previously have breathing problems. Mr. Perry knew he "was cleaning up, all I know it [sic] was some kind of mold." Mr. Perry did not have the breathing problems when he was not around the mold.
S.E. Roberts, a past smoker, was employed as a "jailer" from 1998-2002. Mr. Roberts saw mold in the Building. Mr. Roberts testified that the ceiling was always black and that the upstairs carpet
Mary Ann Bell's husband
Darryl Cosse was assigned to the Building for nine or ten months, between 1998-2002, as a "jailer" and then worked transporting prisoners. Mr. Cosse, a smoker, noticed a mildew smell. Mr. Cosse's doctor told him that a past infection was probably caused by the mold. Mr. Cosse never experienced that same infection again, but the infection caused pain in his chest, headaches, and allergies that lasted "[a] couple days, three or four days."
Aretha Etienne was employed at the 911 center from 1998-2002. She was in the 911 center every day and could see and smell the mold. While working in the Building, Mrs. Etienne suffered from "[c]oughing, headaches, nausea, [and a] scratchy throat." Mrs. Etienne did not have those health problems prior to working in the Building. After the 911 center moved out of the Building, Mrs. Etienne's symptoms lessened. Mrs. Etienne's two children stayed with her in the Building every day after school for a couple of hours. Her childrens' health problems were similar to allergies, so Mrs. Etienne gave them over the counter medications to relieve their symptoms. Mrs. Etienne's childrens' health problems ceased after the 911 center relocated.
Michael Etienne, Jr., Mrs. Etienne's son, remained with his mother in the Building after school until her workday ended. Michael "would be congested like my nose would start running, I would have headaches." Michael no longer experienced these health problems after the 911 center was relocated.
Maria Etienne, Mrs. Etienne's daughter, also remained with her mother in the Building after school. Maria suffered from headaches, nausea, and a runny nose. Maria did not experience these health problems before her mother worked in the Building or after the 911 center was relocated.
Michael Etienne, Sr., Mrs. Etienne's husband, was at the jail every day from 1998-2002, and maintained all personnel files in the Building. He stated that the Building had a "stale smell." Mr. Etienne suffered from headaches, sinus problems, and nausea. His symptoms improved after leaving the Building. Mr. Etienne reiterated that his two children were at the Building daily and that he witnessed the symptoms of both his children and his wife.
Arthur Reddoch worked as a "jailer" in the Building from 1998-2002, and also went into the 911 center. Arthur saw mold and noticed a smell in the Building. Arthur suffered from a runny nose that ceased when he stopped going to the Building.
Sandra Ritchey's husband was a "jailer" in the Building for an unspecified period of time between 1998-2002. Ms. Ritchey visited the 911 center almost every day that her husband worked. She brought her husband lunch and visited with him. She also visited with the 911 center dispatchers. Ms. Ritchey noticed moldy smells and saw black mold. She experienced "[a]llergies, [a] burning nose, [and a] throat, itchy." Ms. Ritchey did not have these health issues "much" prior to working in the Building and her symptoms ceased after leaving the Building.
Morris Roberts, a road deputy for the Sheriff's Office and a smoker, went to the 911 center on a daily basis for work. Mr. Roberts also visited the 911 center on some of his days off from work. Mr. Roberts noticed the mold and testified that the mold smell was very strong in the 911 dispatchers' office. Mr. Roberts' health problems included "sneezing, runny nose, burning eyes, [and] coughing real bad." Mr. Roberts did not experience these health problems prior to working in the Building, and his symptoms "ceased somewhat" after he stopped working in the Building.
Thomas Reddoch, the husband of deceased plaintiff Mrs. Reddoch,
Jaunh Dorsey was employed as a 911 dispatcher from 1998 to May 2000. Ms. Dorsey saw and smelled the mold in the Building. She suffered from headaches and "more allergy and the sinus definitely." Ms. Dorsey did not suffer from these health problems before working in the Building, and her health problems improved after leaving the Building. However, Ms. Dorsey's symptoms "still act up sometimes." PPG's attempt at remediating the mold "kind of made it worse, the smell and with the bleach and all that, it did, it kind of made the situation worse." Ms. Dorsey testified that the attempted remediation did not alleviate the problems in the Building.
Melissa Buras worked in the criminal records room and the 911 center as a dispatcher from 1998-2002. Ms. Buras witnessed the mold "dripping from the ceiling, the carpet" was "always wet dew," and could always smell mold. She suffered from "[h]eadaches, sore throat," and nausea. She did not suffer with these health problems prior to working in the Building, and her health problems diminished once the offices moved out of the Building. Ms. Buras no longer has any nose related health problems.
All of the parties stipulated to and entered into evidence a "Report of Fungal
Following the identification of the fungal activity present, the Scott Report contained these conclusions:
The Scott Report also made recommendations based on the information that six of the fungal organisms present "are known and documented aeroallergens" and that "[a]t least" one of the fungal organisms is "classified as toxigenic." According to the Scott Report, PPG should "[e]liminate the current source of condensation in the above-ceiling area of the structure," "[r]emove and dispose of building materials that show substantial and visible fungal growth," "[c]onduct the removal of building materials that show visible fungal growth under containment conditions, with the use of negative or positive pressure ventilation, as applicable," "HEPA vacuum all surfaces of the structure, to the extent possible, to capture fungal spores that have been spread by renovation and other activities," "[d]evelop a specification for the remedial work," and "[r]etain the services of a qualified remediation contractor, with appropriately trained and equipped personnel to carry out the above outlined actions."
PPG contends that the trial court erred because the Plaintiffs failed to establish a causal link between their mold exposure and their alleged resulting symptoms. PPG states that the Plaintiffs did not introduce any medical evidence, "[n]ot a medical report, not a medical bill, not a prescription receipt, not so much as a drug store receipt for a package of cough drops."
PPG contends that the Plaintiffs failed to prove general and specific causation between their alleged health symptoms and the mold present in the Building due to a lack of specific medical testimony.
In Watters, this Court explained that:
Watters v. Dep't of Soc. Servs., 08-0977, pp. 16-17 (La.App. 4 Cir. 6/17/09), 15 So.3d 1128, 1142-43. Additionally, in Housley, the Louisiana Supreme Court held that:
Housley v. Cerise, 579 So.2d 973, 980 (La. 1991), quoting Lucas v. Ins. Co. of N. Am., 342 So.2d 591, 596 (La.1977). This Court expounded upon Housley, which required proof of a "causal connection between" the alleged tortious conduct and the resulting injury, by stating that Housley represented "an extension of this presumption into the realm of general delictual actions." Juneau v. Strawmyer, 94-0903, p. 5 (La. App. 4 Cir. 12/15/94), 647 So.2d 1294, 1298. This Court further held that the causal connection must be demonstrated "through evidence — medical, circumstantial, or common knowledge" and provide "a reasonable possibility of causation between the accident and the claimed injury." Id., 94-0903, p. 6, 647 So.2d at 1299.
"A trial court's finding of causation is a factual finding that should not be disturbed unless the record does not furnish a basis for that finding, and it is clearly wrong or manifestly erroneous." Watters, 08-0977, p. 32, 15 So.3d at 1152. "While expert medical evidence is sometimes essential, it is self-evident that, as a general rule, whether the defendant's fault, was a cause in fact of a plaintiff's personal injury or damage may be proved by other direct or circumstantial evidence." Lasha v. Olin Corp., 625 So.2d 1002, 1005 (La.1993).
Eighteen plaintiffs testified during the trial about the mold in the Building, its smell, and the health problems they suffered as a result of exposure to the mold. The presence of mold in the Building was undisputed. In further support, the Scott Report confirmed the presence of seven kinds of fungal organisms in the Building. The Scott Report also described the symptoms the seven types of fungal organisms can cause, most notably "allergic disease" and "allergic reaction."
PPG next asserts that this Court should review the record de novo based upon La. C.C.P. art. 2164, which provides that:
PPG also avers that the trial court committed legal error by applying incorrect principles of law. However, this Court, as discussed above, found that the trial court was not manifestly erroneous in its findings.
For the above-mentioned reasons, we find that the trial court did not commit manifest error in awarding damages to the eighteen plaintiffs based on the evidence presented at trial and affirm.
