Roundup, one of the most popular weed killing products in the U.S. (and the world), relies on the active ingredient glyphosate, a chemical compound discovered in the early 1970s. Glyphosate is fairly unique among "herbicides" (vegetation-killing chemicals) in that it doesn't target weeds or any other specific kind of plant. Instead, glyphosate is a "non-selective" herbicide, meaning it kills all plants or crops it comes into contact with.
Monsanto started manufacturing Roundup in the mid-1970s, but it wasn't until 1996 that product sales really took off. That's when the company started marketing seeds that were genetically modified to resist glyphosate. This meant Roundup could be used on and around crops, ornamental plants, and flowers, which could continue to thrive while weeds and other invasive kinds of vegetation were eliminated.
In 2018, German pharmaceutical giant Bayer bought Roundup creator and manufacturer Monsanto, and ended up inheriting all of Monsanto's emerging Roundup-related legal problems. The safety of pesticides and herbicides has been under scrutiny for decades, but in 2015 the World Health Organization's International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) announced a new classification of glyphosate as "probably carcinogenic" (meaning it likely causes cancer).
Use of Roundup and similar weed killing products is so pervasive that in 2022, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) announced the results of a study finding measurable levels of glyphosate in 80 percent of urine samples tested in the U.S.
By the time Bayer bought Monsanto in 2018, thousands of lawsuits linking Roundup to the development of a form of cancer known as non-Hodgkin's lymphoma had been filed in courts nationwide. (The business entity known as "Monsanto" no longer exists, though the name appears to live on in court filings related to Roundup litigation.)
That same year, in the first of these cases to go to trial, a California jury found in favor of Dewayne Johnson, a 46-year-old groundskeeper who used Roundup on the job. Bayer/Monsanto was ordered to pay $289 million in damages. That award has twice been reduced on appeal (to $20.5 million), but Bayer/Monsanto's liability has been upheld both times. (Learn more about different kinds of damages in a personal injury case.)
Since then, tens of thousands of Roundup lawsuits have been filed. Plaintiffs have scored some big victories against Bayer with some high-profile verdicts, but the company has also won several verdicts of its own, with juries finding that the company wasn't responsible for the plaintiffs' claimed illnesses. A number of massive settlement deals have also been announced. More on these later.
Bayer is said to be facing more than 50,000 lawsuits alleging that Roundup caused illness, as of the end of 2023.
There's no scientific consensus that glyphosate causes cancer in humans.
In 2017, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency declared that the herbicide was not likely to cause cancer. The EPA largely reiterated this stance in 2019, when the agency concluded that glyphosate is "not likely to be carcinogenic to humans." In relating this less-than-definitive conclusion, the EPA actually went out of its way to declare its disagreement with the IARC's 2015 finding that glyphosate is "probably carcinogenic," and even claimed to have "considered a significantly more extensive and relevant dataset" than the IARC apparently used. The EPA then went on to list other authorities whose research showed no link between glyphosate and cancer, including top health and safety agencies in Australia, Canada, Germany, Japan, and New Zealand.
But the IARC finding isn't the outlier that the EPA and Bayer/Monsanto seem to suggest it is. Numerous studies point to a clear causal link between Roundup and cancer, including 2019 University of Washington research that found exposure to glyphosate-based herbicides like Roundup is associated with a 41% increased risk of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma.
In 2022, a federal appeals court asked the EPA to take a second look at its ruling that glyphosate is non-carcinogenic. More updates to follow as the situation evolves.
Most injury-related lawsuits involving the safety of Roundup are brought by plaintiffs who have been diagnosed with a type of cancer noted above: non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, which forms in the body's disease-fighting lymphatic system.
Whether or not you've used Roundup or another glyphosate product, if you're experiencing a health issue or have concerns about specific symptoms, contact your doctor rather than trying to self-diagnose on this or any other website. With that caveat, let's look at some of the most common symptoms of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma:
Roundup has not been subject to any widespread product recall, and for the time being it remains on the shelves of most "big box" home improvement centers and neighborhood hardware stores—favored by farmers, groundskeepers, and backyard gardeners alike. But changes are on the way (more on this below).
There's been little in the way of changes to Roundup labeling, and no mention of cancer risk. California's Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment listed glyphosate as cancer-causing in 2017, but in July 2020 a federal court judge in California prevented state officials from requiring that Roundup contain a prominent "Prop 65" safety warning. (Prop 65 warnings come from a 1986 state ballot initiative requiring California businesses to provide warnings to consumers about products that could bring significant exposure to chemicals that cause cancer and birth defects).
While there's no mention of cancer risks, various iterations of Roundup warning labels have stated:
Bayer has announced that it will remove glyphosate-based Roundup from the consumer market in 2023. The German manufacturing giant hopes that the move will take some of the air out of its ballooning liability over the popular weed killing product. But what will a glyphosate-free Roundup look like? According to a statement from Bayer, new formulations will "rely on alternative active ingredients," subject to review and approval from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and state safety agencies.
In order to file a personal injury lawsuit against Bayer/Monsanto or another manufacturer of glyphosate products, you'll almost certainly need to demonstrate that you've been diagnosed with an illness (such as non-Hodgkin's lymphoma) that might be attributable to your exposure to the herbicide.
The mere fact that you've used Roundup or have a bottle of it in your house isn't enough to file an injury- or illness-related lawsuit against Bayer/Monsanto. It's also not enough to be concerned over Bayer/Monsanto's failure to properly warn consumers of potential risks inherent to use of the product. There may be other non-injury kinds of class actions you can join in those situations, but the Roundup MDL and other illness-related lawsuits against Bayer/Monsanto require measurable harm caused by the product.
Diagnosis of a Roundup-related illness like non-Hodgkin's lymphoma goes straight to the nature and extent of your losses ("damages" in legalese). The plaintiff in a Roundup case almost always experiences both "economic" damages (including the cost of past and future medical treatment, lost income, and other quantifiable losses) and "noneconomic" damages such as "pain and suffering" and similar, more subjective impacts related to the Roundup-related health problems. It's obviously a good idea to see a doctor at the first sign of any glyphosate-related health problems—to protect not only your legal rights, but also your health. The specifics of your health problems are critical to shaping the value of your Roundup case, and it all starts with an accurate diagnosis.
Most lawsuits over the safety of Roundup rely on a personal injury fault theory known as "product liability," which can be used to hold manufacturers like Bayer/Monsanto responsible for illness and injury caused by a dangerous or defective product, or for failure to adequately warn consumers of risks associated with the product's use.
In a number of lawsuits in which plaintiffs allege that their illness was caused by use of Roundup, Bayer/Monsanto has asked the court to essentially dismiss any allegations that the product causes cancer. But most of these requests have been denied, on the grounds that a reasonable jury could potentially find that glyphosate causes cancer.
There's a significant liability-related theme threaded through the Roundup lawsuits that have gone to trial and resulted in big verdicts for the plaintiffs. In most of those cases, the juries didn't conclude that glyphosate caused the plaintiffs' non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. Instead, they found that Bayer/Monsanto didn't do enough to warn the plaintiffs of the potential health risks associated with use of Roundup.
Science aside, the juries’ conclusions bring up an important point that's more practical than legal: From Bayer/Monsanto's perspective, more so than any study or agency finding, big jury verdicts against the company likely represent the most damaging indication of its exposure to financial responsibility for Roundup-related illness. That exposure was tempered somewhat in recent years, when a handful of jury verdicts came back in Bayer's favor. But given that plaintiffs' verdicts amounted to more than $2 billion to close out 2023, the only trend here seems to be unpredictability.
Like all injury-related legal claims, the value of a Roundup lawsuit will depend on the plaintiff's specific circumstances and experience, including:
If you've been diagnosed with non-Hodgkin's lymphoma or any other health condition linked to your use of Roundup, and you've undergone treatment, the costs of all testing and care would be counted as part of your damages. The same goes for any care you'll require in the future, including costs of monitoring your condition.
If you haven't received a reliable prognosis, or the full extent and impact of your medical problems isn't well-defined, it's not a good idea to accept an injury settlement offer. Your attorney will almost certainly want to wait until both of you have a clear understanding of your condition and the care you'll require in the future, because once you accept a settlement, you can't go back and reopen your claim, even if you learn that your Roundup-related health problems are worse than you first thought.
If you've been forced to take time off from your job or have otherwise been unable to earn income because of a Roundup-related illness like non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, those economic losses will also factor into your damages.
Income-related damages based on future income are characterized as compensation for the injured person's "loss of earning capacity" or "diminished earning capacity" in legalese.
While medical bills and lost income are fairly easy to calculate in a Roundup illness case, "pain and suffering" damages aren't so easy to assess, but they can be a crucial factor in the value of a Roundup lawsuit.
Pain and suffering is often broken down into two components:
Time limits for filing a Roundup lawsuit are set by a law called a "statute of limitations." In some states, the statute-of-limitations deadline that will apply to a Roundup lawsuit is the same as the one that applies to most personal injury lawsuits. But other states have a separate statute of limitations for product liability lawsuits. Whichever statute applies, you'll typically have two to three years to get your lawsuit filed (the deadline is shorter in some states, longer in a few), but it's not always easy to figure out when the "clock" starts ticking in a Roundup case.
A lawsuit over the safety of a product like Roundup isn't like most other kinds of personal injury cases. If you're hurt in a car accident, for example, your injuries typically make themselves known right away, and there's little doubt about the cause of your harm. With product-related injuries, especially cases involving illness linked to chemicals like glyphosate, there's often a gap between the exposure to the harmful chemical and the onset of a disease or other health problem caused by that product. When it comes to cancers like non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, there's even a term for this gap: "latency period."
This latency is a big reason why the statute of limitations "clock" might not necessarily start running on the date of the plaintiff's last use of Roundup. Under the "discovery rule" in most states, the clock might start only when the plaintiff discovers (or should reasonably have discovered) that they were harmed by Roundup. That date might coincide with a diagnosis of a health problem caused by exposure to glyphosate, or the plaintiff's first experience of symptoms of such a health problem (alongside indications that glyphosate may be linked to those symptoms). But keep in mind that if a significant number of years have passed between your last use of Roundup and the onset of your illness, another time limit called the "statute of repose" might prevent you from bringing a case against Bayer/Monsanto.
Regardless of how long it’s been since you used Roundup, talk to an attorney for details on lawsuit-filing deadlines and how they might apply to your specific situation.
An important way to establish your use of Roundup is through documentation. That could mean receipts showing that you purchased the product for use at your home, or written employment protocols, work orders, or invoices if you used Roundup as part of your job.
If you've got bank statements or other financial records showing you made a purchase at a home improvement or gardening store on a particular day, you might be able to contact the store and ask if there's an itemized record of your transaction showing that you purchased Roundup. If you've got empty or partially used bottles of Roundup, those might come in handy too.
But as a practical matter, it's pretty unlikely that Bayer/Monsanto's legal team will pour time and resources into a significant fight over whether or not you actually used Roundup. That's especially true if you've been diagnosed with non-Hodgkin's lymphoma or some other cancer. It's more likely that Bayer/Monsanto's legal team will argue that you failed to follow labeling and instructions on proper use of the product (including specific guidelines on safe ratios for mixing concentrated Roundup with water). The company may also try to argue that you failed to take reasonable safety precautions—like use of a face mask or protective clothing—when applying Roundup.
In addition to Bayer/Monsanto, an employer might be liable for an employee's illness caused by on-the-job use of Roundup or another glyphosate product. That's especially true if a lack of proper safety equipment (or defects in the equipment provided to you) made it more likely that you'd inhale or come into direct contact with higher levels of glyphosate. But keep in mind that if you've already accepted workers' compensation benefits in connection with your glyphosate-related illness, or if you're still working for the employer, you might not be able to sue for on-the-job exposure to glyphosate—a workers' compensation claim could be your exclusive remedy. (This potential workers’ compensation issue is another point to discuss with an attorney.)
Note that if your lawsuit involves a defendant other than Bayer/Monsanto (if you're also suing your employer, for example), that fact might affect your options in terms of where you can file your lawsuit. A number of Roundup lawsuits have been removed from the federal multi-district litigation (which we'll discuss a bit later) and "remanded" back to state court for this very reason (plaintiffs were suing employers in their own state, along with Bayer/Monsanto). Most of those lawsuits will proceed as individual cases back in the state where the plaintiff lives.
State workers' compensation schemes vary, but a worker may be able to bring a personal injury lawsuit against an employer (instead of filing a workers' compensation claim) if one of three main exceptions apply:
There is no class action involving claims that use of Roundup or exposure to glyphosate caused actual illness or injury. Note that there's been at least one class action over inadequate product warnings of health risks posed by Roundup. That case settled for $45 million in July 2022, but the class's claims were limited to the potential dangers of Roundup. No allegations of actual illness were included.
The closest thing to a Roundup-related class action over illness caused by the weed killer is the consolidation of around 4,000 Roundup claims in a federal "multidistrict litigation" (MDL) action. But note that the MDL is a consolidated group of individual cases in which the plaintiffs still largely control their own legal destinies. In a class action, one or a few individuals represent the interests of all class members, and everyone in the class is bound by the result.
The Roundup MDL (officially called "In re: Roundup Products Liability Litigation") is being handled by Judge Vince Chhabria in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. This MDL also includes many cases originally filed in state court and later "removed" to the MDL, usually at Bayer/Monsanto's request. But it’s important to note that the majority of Roundup lawsuits aren't included in the MDL. So the procedural ins and outs of that action aren't a concern for many current and future Roundup claimants.
In 2020, Bayer announced a $10 billion agreement to settle a large chunk of Roundup lawsuits, but it's estimated that as many as 50,000 such cases remain underway, in one form or another.
Bayer has also announced that it has set aside as much as $6.5 billion to resolve future Roundup cases, and despite a series of big plaintiffs' verdicts handed down to close out 2023, the company says it intends to continue fighting these lawsuits. The announcement that Roundup (in its current form) won't be sold for residential use after 2023 seems to dovetail with company strategy.
It's important to note that no Roundup-related legal action that's taken place—or any settlement agreement that's been reached—so far will affect the rights of anyone who has yet to file their own Roundup lawsuit.
For now, if you're experiencing health problems that could be linked to your use of a glyphosate product like Roundup, it's important to get a complete picture of your rights and your options. Your best first step is discussing your situation with an attorney.
The first step in evaluating a potential toxic mold claim is to identify who is responsible for the mold infestation or exposure. You can file a claim against anyone who intentionally or negligently caused or contributed to your mold problem.
In this article, we'll walk you through potential targets for toxic mold claims (called "defendants"). You can file a claim against one or more defendants. Toxic mold claims typically involve disputes over property damage, personal injury, and professional malpractice.
Mold is a common term for fungi that are found in all environments all around the world. Mold can cause serious property damage and require expensive cleanup. Mold can also cause some people to get sick.
According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the health effects of mold exposure include:
Some people claim that mold exposure can lead to more serious health problems, such as pulmonary hemorrhage (bleeding in the lungs), exhaustion, memory loss, and even death. The CDC says further research is necessary to prove a definitive link between these more serious conditions and mold exposure.
If you discover a mold infestation in your home, apartment, condominium, vacation home, or some other building that you own, here is a list of the types of defendants who might be legally responsible.
When you file a lawsuit, you should include anyone who may share responsibility for your losses—you don't have to choose between defendants. Your case may involve some or all of the potential defendants listed below or defendants not listed here depending on the circumstances of your case. You'll likely need the help of a lawyer to suss out all of the potential defendants in a toxic mold claim.
In most cases, your first step should be to file a homeowners’ insurance claim. You'll need to carefully read your policy to find out what type of mold infestation is covered and what is excluded from coverage.
Homeowners' insurance typically covers mold only when it's caused by a "covered peril.” A peril is an event that damages your home or belongings. The perils covered by your homeowners' insurance are listed in your policy. Homeowners' insurance typically doesn't cover mold caused by neglect or lack of regular upkeep, including termite damage.
Examples of covered perils that can cause mold include:
Some insurance companies limit the amount they will pay for mold removal. Read your policy carefully and call your insurance agent if you have questions about what your policy covers.
Most homeowners' policies also have a list of "exclusions," meaning perils that aren't covered by the policy. For example, standard homeowners' insurance policies generally exclude flooding. If flood damage caused your mold problem your homeowners’ insurance won’t cover it unless you purchased flood insurance.
In dealing with your insurer, you have at least one ace in your hand. Insurance companies are bound by a legal doctrine called the "covenant of good faith and fair dealing," meaning that, in dealing with a policyholder, the insurance company is held to a high standard of conduct.
In practical terms, this means that if your insurance company drags its feet, tries to trick you or wriggle out of the terms of your homeowners' policy, or otherwise plays fast and loose with you, you may have a bad faith claim against it for violation of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing.
To learn more about homeowners' insurance, check out: Homeowners' Insurance: What You Need to Know.
If the mold infestation is the result of shoddy construction or materials, you may have a legal claim against the builder, general contractor, or one or more subcontractors for negligence—the failure to use reasonable care in the construction process.
Some states require builders or contractors to guarantee their work in the form of a warranty; you may be able to claim that the builder or contractor violated or "breached" such a warranty.
If the mold infestation is the result of poor architecture or engineering, such as a failure to include proper ventilation in the design of the home, you may have a claim against the architect or structural engineer for negligence.
Some states require architects or engineers to guarantee their work in the form of a warranty; you may also be able to claim that the architect or engineer breached that warranty.
If you can show that the mold infestation in your home was "imported" into it by way of moldy construction materials such as siding or drywall, you may have a claim against the commercial supplier of the mold-infested materials.
Most states require the seller of a home to disclose any known problems such as the presence of a mold infestation. If the prior owner knew of the presence of mold but didn't tell you when you bought your home, the owner may be liable to you for violating these disclosure laws.
Learn more about how to recognize potential mold problems before buying a house.
The seller's realtor (who is an agent of the seller) may also be liable for selling you a home with a mold infestation.
If you hired a property inspector to inspect your home before you bought it, the inspection company may be liable to you if it missed a mold infestation. You will need to carefully review the property report you were given, especially the language at the beginning regarding the scope of the inspection and any disclaimers.
Because of the special status of owners in a condominium complex, the condo association may be on the hook for a mold infestation, especially if it occurs in a common area.
Under the landlord-tenant laws of most states, landlords are subject to a legal doctrine called the "implied warranty of habitability," which makes the landlord responsible for keeping the rental property free of health hazards, including mold infestations.
Because the implied warranty of habitability is an obligation imposed by state law—whether the landlord likes it or not—it overrides any language in your lease that is inconsistent with that responsibility. So be skeptical and persistent if your landlord denies responsibility for a mold infestation under the terms of your lease.
Learn more about your landlord's liability for mold problems.
If you've developed health problems because of a mold infestation at your place of work, you may be able to file a workers' compensation claim. Whether workers' compensation will cover your mold-related injuries—and prevent you from taking your employer to court—is an evolving area of the law and will depend on the particular circumstances of your case.
To learn more about worker's compensation, check out: Your Right to Worker's Comp Benefits FAQ.
It's no secret that many schools are old and in need of repair, which is a recipe for mold growth. If you're a student or teacher at a school with a mold infestation, you may be able to sue the school district and others responsible for building and maintaining school facilities, but it won't be easy. Public schools and other government agencies have sovereign immunity, which shields them from many lawsuits. You'll have to follow special rules, which vary from state to state. A lawyer can help you figure out how to file a lawsuit against a school and whether your claim is worth pursuing.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) publishes a guide to Mold Remediation in Schools and Commercial Buildings.
The EPA has reliable information about mold on its website, including articles about:
The American Industrial Hygiene Association (AIHA) has also put together a Mold Resource Center with helpful infographics, FAQs, and resources. Finally, you can get tips on how to control mold from the CDC.
Before you make a decision about filing a toxic mold lawsuit, read up on toxic mold and the health risks of mold exposure.
The science behind mold can be complex and proving a link between health problems and mold exposure is especially difficult, so you'll want a lawyer on your side who has experience with mold claims.
Learn more about finding a personal injury lawyer. When you're ready, you can also connect with a lawyer directly from this page for free.
]]>Roundup remains on store shelves nationwide, and corporate giant Bayer (which acquired Roundup manufacturer Monsanto in 2018) is working toward resolving thousands of lawsuits over health problems linked to the popular weed killer. These settlement talks include creation of a class action to resolve future Roundup injury claims, but for now "joining" an existing Roundup group action—at least one for claims for illness caused by Roundup—probably means adding your lawsuit to the Roundup multi-district litigation.
Get the basics on filing a lawsuit over cancer caused by use of Roundup.
Note that there's been at least one Roundup-related class action settlement. In July 2022, Bayer/Monsanto agreed to pay $45 million to settle a class action alleging that the company didn't do enough to warn consumers about the risk that Roundup can cause cancer. But that class action was related to the potential dangers of Roundup use. It contained no allegations of actual Roundup-related illness by class members. This brings us to a key distinction between a class action and multi-district litigation.
A class action is one large lawsuit in which one or a few designated class representatives bring suit on behalf of many other similarly-harmed individuals (the "class"). This representative (usually through a team of lawyers) handles the litigation on behalf of the class, and what happens in the case is legally binding on all class members who did not "opt out" beforehand. Learn more about how class actions work.
But class actions aren't usually an effective or fair way to handle cases in which a large number of people have been harmed in significant (and potentially different) ways, even if that harm was caused by use of the same product. So while the class action we mentioned above relates to Bayer/Monsanto's failure to issue proper warnings over Roundup-related health risks, most of the thousands of cases alleging actual health problems caused by Roundup are currently making their way through state courts, or in the federal multi-district litigation (MDL) action called In re: Roundup Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 2741.
MDL consolidates multiple cases into a single federal district, before a single judge, who will shepherd the MDL through the pre-trial process, including rulings about evidence and discovery that will apply to every individual case. The parties and the judge will choose a few representative cases for "bellwether trials," which will give all parties an idea of what to expect if their own cases go to trial, and are typically meant to spur settlement talks. But if no settlement occurs, each case goes back to its respective home court, and the litigation proceeds on an individual basis. Learn more about how multi-district litigation works.
The majority of the $10 billion settlement proposal between Bayer and current plaintiffs goes to resolution of existing claims, but $1.25 billion is earmarked for a new class action that would help Bayer resolve many of the future Roundup cases brought against it. The settlement agreement (which has yet to be approved by the judge in the MDL) proposes the creation of a Class Science Panel which would decide (within four years) whether Roundup causes non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, and if so, how much exposure to glyphosate is necessary to cause the illness. The Panel's conclusion would be binding on both Bayer and all future members of the class action. But creation of the Panel and its impact on the rights of future claimants also seems to be a big reason why the MDL judge won't sign off on the settlement, so the future of the Roundup class action remains unclear.
If you're thinking about filing a lawsuit over health problems caused by your use of Roundup, you might not necessarily be bound by any class action that's created when (or if) the big settlement is finalized, but you may need to "opt out" in order to preserve your right to bring your own case. Your best first step is discussing your situation with an attorney. Get tips on finding the right lawyer for you and your case.
]]>If you have discovered mold in your home or think you may be suffering from mold-related health problems, it's important to learn what we know and don't yet know about the health risks associated with exposure to mold.
Mold is a form of fungus that grows both indoors and outdoors and thrives in warm, damp, and humid environments. There are over a thousand varieties of indoor mold, and the good news is that the presence of a moderate amount of mold in your home or workplace does not generally pose much of a health risk. Most health problems related to mold exposure arise only when there is a build-up of high concentrations of mold. (To learn more about mold in general, read Nolo's article Toxic Mold Basics.)
Relatively little is known for certain about the health effects of exposure to mold. Despite a number of high-profile cases in which serious illnesses were claimed to have resulted from exposure to mold, there are still relatively few established links between mold exposure and any particular medical diagnosis.
Any discussion of the health threats caused by mold should take the following into consideration:
It is generally accepted that certain people are more likely to be sensitive to mold exposure, including those with asthma or other lung conditions, compromised immune systems, or other pre-existing illnesses. Infants and the elderly are probably also at higher risk of developing health problems as a result of exposure to mold.
Based on current scientific knowledge, mold-related health problems generally fall into one of the following categories:
Like allergies in general, sensitivity to mold varies from one person to the next. Symptoms typically include nasal stuffiness, irritated eyes, coughing, wheezing, or skin irritation. More severe reactions may include flu-like symptoms, fever, and shortness of breath.
Aspergillosis is actually the name for a family of diseases related to the commonly occurring mold genus Aspergillis. Allergic bronchopulmonary aspergillosis (known as "ABPA") is a non-invasive form of the disease that typically causes the allergic-type symptoms described above.
Invasive apergillosis, a far more serious form of the disease, actually invades and damages body tissue, usually in the lungs, but sometimes in other organs as well, and is capable of spreading throughout the body.
Here again, although healthy people can contract aspergillosis, the disease in its various forms is most common in people with asthma, cystic fibrosis, or other pre-existing lung conditions or health problems. Keep in mind that aspergillis is environmentally common in low levels and does not generally pose a health risk; only in unusually high concentrations is it considered potentially hazardous.
There have been many attempts in recent years to link exposure to toxigenic mold with a number of serious diseases and injuries, including infant lung hemorrhaging, cancer, brain damage, and other cognitive deficiencies, fibromyalgia, chronic fatigue syndrome, reactive airway dysfunction syndrome ("RADS"), and various other health problems. Although these efforts to link mold exposure to such serious health risks have been the subject of much media attention, at the present time the medical or scientific evidence for such links is shaky at best.
The energy crisis of the 1970s led to changes in building construction emphasizing increased insulation and more tightly-controlled airflow and ventilation in order to achieve greater energy efficiency. Some suggest that the lack of ventilation in newer buildings, combined with increased use of mold-friendly building materials, has facilitated mold infestations and resulted in "sick buildings." Sick building syndrome has been proposed as an explanation or diagnosis in situations in which a large number of people who happen to work in the same building begin to experience similar health symptoms.
It is known that mold spores travel and spread quickly and easily through air ducts and ventilation systems. But the difficulty in proving that the common health symptoms experienced by a group of fellow office workers were all caused by mold in the building -- as opposed to any number of other environmental health hazards -- has limited the effectiveness of sick building syndrome as the medical basis for a lawsuit.
If you are thinking of buying a home with noticeable mold problems, read Nolo's article Mold in the Home: What Homebuyers Need to Know. If you suspect mold in your apartment (or other rental), read Nolo's article Mold in Rentals: Landlord Liability, Responsibility, and Prevention.
]]>This article is a primer on what we know and don't yet know about mold. Separating fact from fiction may help if you've discovered mold in your home or think you may be suffering from mold-related health problems. (To learn more about mold-related health issues, read Nolo's article Health Risks of Mold Exposure.)
Mold is a form of fungus that grows both indoors and outdoors and thrives in warm, damp, and humid environments. There are over a thousand different varieties of indoor mold, and the good news is that the presence of a moderate amount of mold in your home is generally not harmful to your health. Most health problems related to mold exposure arise only when there is a build-up of high concentrations of mold for some reason.
Mold spreads by generating spores, and like so many nuisances in life, mold spores are able to survive for long periods even in harsh, dry environments in which mold itself could not grow -- which is one of the things that makes mold so hard to eliminate. Mold spores are invisible to the eye and can become airborne -- an important consideration during efforts to clean up and eliminate a mold infestation.
Where mold is found. Some amount of mold is more or less everywhere all the time. Its many forms are so common and it travels so easily that trying to make your home or any other building totally mold-free would be next to impossible. But high concentrations of mold -- which might result from flooding, for example -- can be cleaned up and eliminated for the most part (though such cleanup may in some cases prove costly and laborious).
Because mold thrives in warm, damp, and humid places, indoor mold is most commonly found in areas of high moisture and low ventilation, such as bathrooms and basements. It is also commonly found in and around leaks in roofs, pipes, windows, or where there has been flooding. Potted plants are also a common location for mold.
Because of its resilience, mold also grows in all sorts of common building materials. It thrives in wood and wood products, paper and paper products such as wallpaper, ceiling tiles, drywall, and cardboard. It grows in fabrics such as carpets and upholstery. It can also be found in other building products including paint and insulation. It even likes dust.
How mold travels. Mold travels in all sorts of ways, including through open doors and windows and through air conditioning, heating, and ventilation systems. It can be carried indoors on shoes and clothing or brought inside by pets.
Detecting and preventing mold. You may detect mold by seeing it (usually in the form of spots of almost any color) or smelling its musty odor. Once mold can be detected either by sight or smell, it may have built up a high enough concentration to present a health hazard, and you should take steps to eliminate it (a procedure called "mold remediation").
Because mold generally thrives in warm, damp, and humid environments, a helpful way of approaching mold prevention is to focus on moisture and ventilation. Keeping suspect areas of your home dry and well-ventilated will usually be enough to prevent the appearance of mold.
The term "toxic mold" is somewhat misleading and has led to misunderstandings and confusion regarding the health-related dangers of mold. In high enough concentrations, all molds -- toxic or otherwise -- may cause health problems. As a result, some sources refer to all mold as "toxic mold."
Strictly speaking, however, there is no such thing as toxic mold. A few forms of mold are called "toxigenic," meaning that under certain conditions they can produce small molecular toxins, called "mycotoxins." These mycotoxins are usually spread by way of the mold's spores and may be the cause of potentially serious health problems if ingested in sufficient quantities over time.
In contrast with mold in general, which is to be found virtually everywhere, toxigenic molds are less common. Two of the best-known examples of so-called "toxic mold" include:
Stachybotrys chartarum. Sometimes called S. chartarum or Stachybotrys atra, and popularly known as "black mold," this toxigenic mold is a greenish-black fungus that requires a moist environment in which to grow and is most commonly found in flood-damaged buildings. The mycotoxins produced by Stachybotrys chartarum are potent, but there is some evidence that only a few strains of Stachybotrys chartarum are toxigenic, indicating that this particular type of "toxic mold" may be quite rare.
Aspergillis. Aspergillis is a family of molds, and only some aspergillis molds are toxigenic. The mycotoxins produced by toxigenic strains of Aspergillis are less potent than stachybotrys chartarum mycotoxins, but infestations of Aspergillis mold are probably far more common. Aspergillis may be found in any of the mold-friendly environments discussed above.
Though some people become ill from these mycotoxins and toxigenic mold, many of the more common health problems thought to be potentially mold-related may be caused by mold that is not strictly speaking toxic (or toxigenic).
As noted above, there is always a little mold present in any building, and this does not generally pose a health risk to its occupants. Once a mold infestation has been detected, however, clean-up and removal of the mold (often referred to as "mold remediation") is strongly recommended, regardless of whether the mold is toxigenic or not. (To learn about who might be legally liable to you if you discover a mold infestation in your home or elsewhere, read Nolo's article Toxic Mold: Who to Sue)
Hard surfaces. Removal of mold from hard surfaces can normally be achieved by using special cleaning methods or "protocols" developed specifically for eliminating mold. It is very important to strictly follow such cleaning protocols because of the danger of mold spores being released and spreading invisibly during cleanup.
Porous surfaces. Where mold has infested porous or absorbent surfaces, however, usually the only viable solution is removal and replacement of the material that has been infested. This includes everything from rugs to drywall, to wallpaper to ceiling tiles. Where mold has penetrated behind walls and inside building materials, extensive renovations may be required.
Needless to say, mold remediation can be a costly and labor-intensive project. Care must be taken not to allow the release of mold spores during mold remediation; otherwise, the mold is likely to return. It is especially important to prevent mold spores from entering a building's ventilation system, through which the spores can quickly and easily spread throughout the building. Depending on the extent and location of the mold infestation, it may be advisable to hire professional mold remediators.
If you are thinking of buying a home with noticeable mold problems, read Nolo's article Mold: Is It Hiding in the Home You're Buying? If you suspect mold in your apartment (or other rental), read Nolo's article Mold in Rentals: Landlord Liability, Responsibility, and Prevention.
For a full discussion of mold in residential buildings, see Every Landlord's Legal Guide, by Marcia Stewart, Ralph Warner, and Janet Portman (Nolo).
]]>In recent years, a few states (like Ohio) have enacted laws that set medical eligibility guidelines for people who want to file a lawsuit over exposure to silica. In these states, workers whose health problems are not severe enough under the eligibility guidelines may have to wait until their health worsens before they can bring a lawsuit for silica exposure.
Plaintiffs in silica lawsuits can use a number of legal theories to prove that an employer, manufacturer, or some other company is liable for injuries caused by silica exposure. Two of the more common liability theories are negligence and products liability. (To learn more about these and other possible claims in toxic tort cases, see Nolo's article Toxic Torts: Legal Theories of Liability.)
In a lawsuit for injuries, a defendant can be found negligent for failing to use ordinary or reasonable care in dealing with the plaintiff. For example, in a silica case, a group of workers (the plaintiffs) might allege that their employer (the defendant) was careless when it allowed employees to be exposed to excessive amounts of silica dust on the job. The claim might revolve around the employer's failure to take proper safety precautions to protect workers from inhaling silica dust. As evidence of negligence, plaintiffs in the lawsuit could point to the employer's failure to adhere to OSHA guidelines on workplace safety. Plaintiffs might also introduce evidence that levels of airborne silica dust found at the workplace exceeded OSHA's minimum safety standards.
In silica exposure cases, negligence claims can also be based on the failure to give proper warnings of safety risks. For example, workers might allege that a manufacturer of a product containing silica (such as blasting sand) did not act reasonably when it failed to warn employers and employees that the product contained silica and that silica is dangerous when inhaled. This theory might be especially effective in lawsuits by workers who became sick after being exposed to silica in previous decades, when the dangers of silica were not well known or typically made public.
In a silica exposure injury claim based on a products liability theory, plaintiffs allege that a product containing silica is dangerous or that the manufacturer failed to provide adequate warnings or instructions on safe use of the product. In these claims, plaintiffs typically sue the manufacturer and distributor of the product.
Plaintiffs can also use products liability claims against manufacturers of safety equipment. For example, if a ventilator is defective and fails to protect workers from inhalation of silica dust, the workers could sue the manufacturer of the ventilator. (To learn more about types of product liability claims and what a plaintiff must prove to be successful, see Nolo's Product Liability FAQ.)
Claims involving silica exposure are usually not the kind of lawsuits in which you can represent yourself effectively. The legal and scientific issues in such cases are often complex and sophisticated. Depending on your case, you may wish to retain the services of a lawyer who specializes in products liability, workplace toxins, or other types of silica litigation.
You may also want to consult with a lawyer to find out if there is an existing silica exposure class action lawsuit related to your specific circumstances and, if so, whether it is advisable for you to join that class action. (If there is an already existing class action, consider contacting the lawyers for the class directly; they will likely be very interested in talking with you.) Such initial consultations are usually free of charge.
For help in choosing a good personal injury attorney, read Nolo's article Finding a Personal Injury Lawyer.go to Nolo's Lawyer Directory for a list of personal injury attorneys in your geographical area (click on the "Types of Cases" and "Work History" tabs to find out about the lawyer's experience, if any, with silica cases).
1 | 2
]]>This article discusses the basic law underlying toxic torts—what plaintiffs must prove in order to prevail, situations in which most toxic tort cases arise, who to sue, special proof issues in toxic tort claims, and what types of damages are available to plaintiffs.
In a toxic tort claim, the plaintiff (the person who sues) alleges that exposure to some dangerous substance caused an injury or illness. These claims are sometimes brought on behalf of a group of people, in what is called a class action lawsuit, or as consolidated lawsuits known as multi-district litigation (MDL), but an individual may also bring a toxic tort lawsuit.
Toxic tort claims usually arise in the following contexts:
The specific elements that a plaintiff must prove in a toxic tort case vary depending on the legal theories involved, but generally the plaintiff must show that 1) the substance was dangerous, 2) the plaintiff was exposed to the substance, and 3) the substance caused harm to the plaintiff. (Learn about theories of liability in a toxic tort case.)
Defendants in toxic tort cases often mount a vigorous defense. They can poke holes in a plaintiff's case or present evidence that the plaintiff has not proved all of the necessary elements of their claims. Defendants can also present more procedure-based defenses. For example, a defendant might try to prove that a plaintiff did not bring their toxic tort lawsuit in a timely manner under the applicable statute of limitations laws. (Learn more about common defenses in toxic tort litigation.)
Although each toxic tort case is unique—depending on the toxin involved, the way plaintiffs were exposed, and the alleged resulting illness—there are some common issues that crop up in many toxic tort cases.
The battleground in most toxic tort cases is causation. There are several reasons for this. In many cases it is difficult to trace the source of the chemical or substance that caused the injury. Also, many illnesses caused by exposure to toxins don't manifest until years after the exposure. Plaintiffs must weed out intervening factors (such as exposure to other chemicals) in proving the key element of their case: that it was the specific chemical manufactured or distributed by the defendant that caused the plaintiff's illness.
When a lawsuit is brought years after the initial exposure to the chemical at issue, evidence may be hard to come by. Documents related to the original exposure may no longer be around, witnesses can be hard to track down, and memories may become fuzzy over time.
Toxic tort lawsuits are hugely dependent on science. Studies linking substances to certain diseases or health conditions can make or break a case. Changing scientific developments can instantly change the legal landscape. For example, lawsuits alleging that a certain workplace chemical caused cancer could fail for years, but if a single study linking the chemical to cancer emerges, plaintiffs in the same type of lawsuit may begin winning large damage awards.
Figuring out who to sue in toxic tort cases is another tricky problem. Plaintiffs often don't know who manufactured a dangerous product. For example, suppose a patient is taking a drug that is manufactured by several different pharmaceutical companies. If the patient develops cancer years later, it may be difficult to determine which company manufactured the particular drug the patient took. Similarly, residents who live in an industrial area might allege a link between their health problems and airborne contaminants in the area, but the residents may not know which local factory is actually responsible for the release of those contaminants.
As a rule, plaintiffs usually sue anyone and everyone that could have any possible link to the dangerous substance. This may include:
This article looks at BP's compensation fund for businesses and workers affected by the oil spill and the process for getting a claim filed with the fund. (For a broader look at legal issues related to the BP oil spill, check out Nolo's article BP Oil Spill Lawsuits and Legal Issues.)
After some prodding from President Obama and his administration, BP set up a $20 billion escrow fund to be used to compensate businesses and workers whose financial livelihood has been damaged or threatened as a result of the BP oil spill disaster. The fund is primarily meant to help individuals and companies located in Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Florida, and Texas.
Early on, claims were handled by BP itself, but as of August 23, 2010, an independent entity called the Gulf Coast Claims Facility began accepting and processing claims related to the Gulf oil spill (see the GCCF's official website at www.gulfcoastclaimsfacility.com). Individuals and businesses that file a claim can be compensated for a variety of economic damages attributable to the oil spill and cleanup efforts, including:
If you or your business has been hit hard financially as a result of the BP oil spill, filing a claim with the Gulf Coast Claims Facility might be a quick way to get compensation and keep your doors open or your bills paid. But, as a condition of receiving a lump-sum payment under the fund, you'll probably be asked to waive your right to file a lawsuit against BP and others (the waiver probably won't be made a condition for the receipt of monthly "emergency" payments). It could be risky to accept a one-time payment now and waive your right to file a lawsuit when the scope of your financial losses may not be fully defined. Keep in mind also that not all claims will speed through the process. Claims for $5,000 or more are considered "large loss" claims by BP, and those claims will go through a longer review process. And as more and more claimants get in line, there's no guarantee that the $20 billion fund will be enough to compensate everyone. Before you file a claim with the Gulf Coast Claims Facility, you may want to speak with an attorney to make sure all your legal bases are covered. You can use Nolo's Lawyer Directory to locate and talk with an attorney in your area.
The more evidence you can show to a Gulf Coast Claims Facility adjuster, the better your chances of getting back as much of the money you lost as possible -- and getting it as quickly as possible. BP has called the lack of documentation "the single biggest issue holding up claims."
So what kind of documentation do you need to speed up your claim and collect compensation? Whether you own a business or worked in the Gulf region, you should provide a "before and after" economic snapshot. First, what did your economic situation -- business profits, sales, income, wages, tips, and the like -- look like in the months before the BP oil spill? Second, what has happened to those profit and income numbers since the spill? Here's a look at the kinds of documentation that you should locate and submit, for different types of claims.
Separate claims forms are available for commercial fishermen, crabbers, oyster lease owners, and commercial shrimpers. Once you file a claim, you will be assigned a claim number, and then a Gulf Coast Claims Facility adjuster will contact you to discuss the specifics of your claim, including what kinds of supporting documentation you will need.
If you decide to file a claim with the Gulf Coast Claims Facility, here's how to get started:
A toxic tort is a legal claim for harm caused by exposure to a dangerous substance —such as a pharmaceutical drug, pesticide, or chemical. Most toxic tort injuries arise in one of the following ways:
Learn more about the basics in our toxic torts overview.
Plaintiffs in toxic tort lawsuits can use a number of legal theories to try to establish liability and receive compensation for their injuries. Some common claims in toxic tort cases include:
Learn more about legal theories of liability in toxic tort cases.
Figuring out who is responsible for a toxic tort victim's exposure to a dangerous substance can be difficult. Plaintiffs generally sue anybody that had a link to the toxin—including the manufacturer of the toxin, the manufacturer of machinery that exposes workers to toxins, the owner or lessor of a building or site that contains or emits a toxin, companies that store toxins, and manufacturers of safety equipment intended to protect employees from toxins. To learn more about possible defendants in a toxic tort lawsuit, see our toxic torts overview.
An injured plaintiff must bring a lawsuit within a certain period of time after harm occurred—under laws called statutes of limitations. In toxic tort cases, many plaintiffs don't discover their injuries until many years after the harm occurred, because symptoms often take years to show up. Luckily, most courts follow the "discovery rule," which means the clock doesn't start ticking on the statute of limitations time period until the plaintiff actually discovers the harm (or when the circumstances are such that the plaintiff reasonably should have discovered it). If you just recently became ill from your exposure to a dangerous chemical, meaning you just discovered that the chemical harmed you, it is probably not too late to sue. Contact a lawyer immediately. Learn more about the statute of limitations and other common defenses to toxic tort cases.
Probably. Mesothelioma, an often fatal lung disease, is caused by prolonged exposure to asbestos. Lawsuits have established that the asbestos industry hid the health dangers of asbestos for decades, and workers were needlessly exposed to asbestos (a serious carcinogen) as a result. For this reason, if you suffer from mesothelioma because you worked with asbestos, you have a very good chance of recovering money damages for your illness—either from the company that manufactured or installed the asbestos or through an insurer or victims' compensation fund that has assumed liability on the company's behalf. Learn more about mesothelioma and asbestos claims.
For information on filing a personal injury claim, see How to Win Your Personal Injury Claim, by Attorney Joseph L. Matthews (Nolo).