BNA Toxics Law Reporter reported on December 31, 2009, that a Michigan Appeals Court affirmed a mold exposure verdict for $303,260, finding that expert testimony was not necessary under Michigan State law to prove either general causation or specific causation. In Genna v. Jackson, Mich. Ct. App., No. 285746, the Michigan Court Of Appeals (Oakland Circuit Court) affirmed the trial court's denial of defendant's post-judgment motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV) and for a new trial. Based upon a review of the decision, it is not disputed ( at least by this writer) that defendant's negligent conduct resulted in substantial flooding in the plaintiffs' home and the gross mold contamination that resulted. Plaintiff's microbial expert identified two molds in the home--penicillum and aspergillus--which he testified at trial could affect human health and pose safety issues. Plaintiffs' children began to experience what the court described as "flu-like symptoms including: diarrhea, vomiting, congestion and nosebleeds". Over a period of months, these symptoms worsened and the symptoms did not respond to aggressive treatment. Plaintiffs did not call an expert to testify that these symptoms were the result of the mold contamination. Nonetheless, the appeals court held that plaintiff did not have to demonstrate that the alleged toxin is "capable" of causing injuries like those suffered by the children, let alone requiring the plaintiffs to prove that these children's symptoms were caused by mold exposure. The court reasoned as follows: "This is not a complicated case: the children were removed from the home, the mold was discovered, and the children recovered". Thus, the court based its decision on "circumstantial evidence that would 'facilitate reasonable inferences of causation, not mere speculation'." With due respect to the appellate panel, which was obviously impressed with the graphic description of "patches of mold of all different colors all over the walls and ceilings in her kitchen, family room and dining area", this is a really bad decision and a potentially dangerous precedent in Michigan! It is a mistake to base toxic tort causation on a temporal relationship,i.e., the "children were removed from the home, the mold was discovered, and children recovered." Flu-like symptoms can be caused by......well, the flu. That the children's symptoms went away could signify that they had recovered from a prolonged bout of the flu. Based upon this court's reasoning, the children's illness could have been caused just as easily by lead paint poisoning, contamination of their drinking water, VOC's emanating from their carpeting, formaldehyde in the walls....or just a really bad allergic reaction to the family's cats. Did anyone check the family furnace for carbon monoxide gas? It is not as if the symptoms that the children suffered from were unique to mold "poisoning". Moreover, no one appears to have apprised the trial court that it is not unusual that the antibiotics the children were administered did not cure a viral infection! We also suffer from flu-like symptoms all the time. It is not unusual, particularly in the frigid month of February in Royal Oak, Michigan, when this incident occurred, for these symptoms to occur and to persist in the absence of an exposure to toxic mold. The court faults the defendant for not submitting "any scientific evidence that the mold in her condominium could not have caused plaintiffs' injuries." (emphasis theirs). And since when does the burden in a negligence case shift to the defendant, and to prove a negative no less?