VENTURA, Calif. (Legal Newsline) - A Santa Barbara County judge was wrong to exclude the expert testimony for a plaintiff hoping to prove mold caused her illness, a California appeals court has ruled.
The Second Appellate District's Oct. 16 decision revives Dana Brancati's lawsuit against landlord Cachuma Village. Without the expert testimony on causation of Dr. Ronald Simon, Brancati's case had been tossed.
But the appeals ruling says Simon's conclusion Brancati's health problems were caused by toxic mold were based on facts and not on a "leap of logic or conjecture."
"(O)n a motion in limine, the trial court 'does not resolve scientific controversies' and it does not weigh the opinion's 'probative value,'" the ruling says.
"Those are matters for the jury at trial. Even if a theory involves a matter of scientific controversy, history shows new theories often replace the conventional scientific wisdom."
Brancati lived at Cachuma for four years and complained about mold and Cachuma's failure to correct it. In 2016, a mold-testing company found there were high levels of many dangerous types of mold at her residence.
She sued over her "respiratory illnesses," seeking $50,000. She turned to Simon, a doctor who also says he researches the effects of mold on health. Simon is board certified in allergy and immunology.
Simon will testify Brancati suffers from the typical combination of respiratory problems associated with mold exposure, like nasal congestion, coughing, sneezing, lack of sleep and exacerbation of migraine headaches.
He'll also state those issues began shortly after she moved to Cachuma Village.
"As a medical doctor, Simon could rule out other causes with his differential diagnosis and reach a probable diagnosis of toxic mold exposure as the cause of Brancati's respiratory illness," the ruling says.