January 27, 2008 6:17 PM
 
The Housing Authority of Baltimore City must pay more than $375,000 to three people who were sickened by black mold and fungi in their apartments, the Court of Special Appeals has held.

The unanimous three-judge panel upheld the award of non-economic damages, which the HABC argued was “shocking and excessive.”

Scott E. Nevin of the Law Offices of Peter T. Nicholl, who represented Mary Roy, Louise Bills and Johnnie Pratt, was gratified by the holding and hoped the HABC would not challenge it further.

“It’s unfortunate … they seem to put more effort into trying to fight these cases than trying to fix the property,” he said.

Carrie Blackburn Riley, who handled the trial and appeal for the HABC, was out of the office and did not return a call for comment on Friday. Cheron Porter, a spokeswoman for the HABC, had not seen the opinion and declined to comment.

‘Years of neglect’

Roy , Bills and Pratt were residents of Homewood House, a converted three-story schoolhouse that provides housing for people with disabilities. Roy had arthritis, Pratt was a recovering addict with mental depression, and Bills had been diagnosed with degenerative spinal disease.

“The building itself was as ailing as were its tenants, and that is the nub of the case,” retired Judge Charles E. Moylan Jr. wrote for the appellate panel. “It had been suffering from years of neglect at the hands of the HABC.”

The evidence showed that the roof and ventilation system were in poor repair, allowing water to infiltrate the building and pool at the bottom of the elevator shaft. This led to the formation of stachybotrys and penicillum/aspergillus, which the plaintiffs said caused their respiratory distress and neurological damage.

In September 2006, the jury awarded Pratt, who was then 55, $175,000 in non-economic damages. Bills and Roy, both in their 60s, were awarded $100,000 each. The plaintiffs were also awarded a small amount for economic damages.

HABC appealed, and the court heard argument in November 2007.

“Obviously unable to mount any defense with respect to the condition of the building itself,” Moylan wrote, “HABC focused its defense on the [residents’] proof of the causal connection between the mold in 2200 Homewood Avenue and the medical conditions [they] suffered.”

But HABC’s attack on the legal sufficiency of the evidence, including the methods and conclusions of the plaintiffs’ expert, was “way off the mark,” Moylan wrote.

The court also rejected HABC’s challenge to a jury instruction and what Moylan deemed “a grab bag of complaints” that were made without any indication of where, in the 1,235-page appellate record, the objectionable testimony could be found.

Nevin, who filed the case in January 2005, said Pratt and Roy have since moved out of Homewood House.

He has another mold case pending against HABC, on behalf of a client in a different building. That case is scheduled for trial in June, he said.http://www.mddailyrecord.com/article.cfm?id=4145&type=UTTM