In a shocking turn of events, an employee filed a tort lawsuit against his former employer. He alleges that the bird infestation and bird feces accumulation in his former workplace were substantial factors that caused his histoplasmosis. The lawsuit has brought to light the dangers of unsanitary working conditions which have the potential to cause severe health problems.
Flocks of migrating swallows plagued the facility, roosted under the roof of an open pole barn, and left sizable accumulations of bird feces. Despite attempts by the owner to get rid of the birds, including bringing in a falcon, the infestation persisted. The accumulation of bird feces posed a significant health risk to the employees, including the plaintiff.
Employee’s diagnosis of histoplasmosis and resulting impairments
Sometime after ending his work at the facility, the plaintiff received a diagnosis of histoplasmosis, a fungal infection which had spread to his brain and led to permanent impairments. The diagnosis left the plaintiff with mounting medical bills and significant physical and emotional damage.
The defendants objected to the declarations of two of the plaintiff’s expert witnesses: an expert in infectious diseases who was also the plaintiff’s treating physician, and an expert in occupational safety and health and standard of care. The defendants claimed that the expert witness statements were speculative and should not be admissible in court.
Granting summary judgment and excluding expert witness declarations
Despite the objections, the trial court granted summary judgment in the defendants’ favor and excluded the declarations of the plaintiff’s two experts. However, this ruling has since been challenged.
Ruling by the California Court of Appeal, Fifth District
In a ruling that has set a precedent for similar cases, the California Court of Appeal for the Fifth District reversed the judgment and returned the case to the trial court for more proceedings. The appellate court ruled that summary judgment was improper because the plaintiff raised a material factual issue that should be subject to a trial regarding whether there was a reasonable medical probability that the conduct of the facility’s owner, relating to the birds and their feces, was a substantial factor that caused his illness.
Testimonies from Braaten’s employees regarding workplace conditions
Apart from the plaintiff, a number of Braaten’s employees gave testimonies as evidence of the working conditions at the nut facility at that time. These testimonies included accounts of how the bird infestation had been a long-standing issue that was never adequately addressed.
Material factual issue raised by the plaintiff and the need for a trial
The appellate court ruled that there was a material factual issue raised by the plaintiff, which required a trial. The trial would determine whether the conduct of the facility’s owner regarding the bird infestation and feces accumulation was a substantial factor that caused the plaintiff’s histoplasmosis. The expert witness declarations should be considered, and the trial court should not have excluded them as speculative.
The facility’s owner made ineffective attempts to get rid of the birds
The story of the lawsuit’s resolution serves as a cautionary tale for business owners who may not be taking the health and safety of their employees seriously enough. In this case, the owner of the facility brought in a falcon in an attempt to get rid of the birds, but this did not have much of an effect. All too often, it takes a lawsuit before some business owners take the necessary steps to ensure that their workplaces are safe and healthy environments for their employees.
The lawsuit serves as a reminder of the importance of addressing any workplace hazards promptly, particularly those related to unsanitary conditions. Employers must pay close attention to employee complaints and make quick decisions to ensure that their workplaces are safe and healthy environments free of any hazards that might affect the health and well-being of their employees.