Top College News Subscribe to the Newsletter

Fungal disease victims sue Ohio State

cubert.1@osu.edu

Published: Thursday, March 11, 2010

Updated: Monday, March 15, 2010 13:03


Two Ohio State employees sued the university Thursday, claiming they contracted a serious lung disease last year while working at Hitchcock Hall.

Olga Stavridis and Amy Franklin, who work at the Ohio State College of Engineering Career Services, became ill with a lung infection called histoplasmosis. Their husbands were also included in the suit.

University officials have stated in the past that histoplasmosis is commonly found in the central Ohio region, and that the building is safe.

The employees and their attorney say otherwise.

The women became infected after workmen placed fans in the ceiling above Stavridis's desk, the suit says.

The maintenance workers were trying to dry out a suite of offices in Hitchcock after the area became flooded when a pipe burst during the night in March 2009. The suit says the fans blew histoplasmosis spores out of the ceiling.

The university had the suite tested for mold soon after the flooding, and for histoplasmosis in November. An outside consultant determined that there was not any significant evidence of histoplasmosis in the suite.

Testing for histoplasmosis in the suite was completed after renovations had been done to Stavridis's office.

The suit states that "space in the ceiling of Hitchcock Hall was known to be infested with birds, bats, and mice."

Histoplasmosis is a fungal infection commonly found in bat and bird droppings.

Also according to the suit, OSU "knowingly required" the employees to work in a "dangerous and harmful work environment."

Stavridis had part of her lung removed after being treated at Riverside Methodist Hospital for what was believed to be cancer.

Doctors at the Mayo Clinic later determined that she actually had histoplasmosis.

Franklin was not diagnosed until October, and court documents say that she became ill after cleaning out Stavridis's office.

Other employees in the suite have also complained of symptoms.

In November, the university began evacuating dozens of workers after the women were diagnosed.

David Shroyer, their attorney, said he will begin gathering evidence for an eventual trial.

Typically the fungal spores do not result in severe illness unless a person has been heavily exposed or has immune problems. Stavridis has said in the past that she did not have any immune issues.

"The university took timely and extensive steps to evaluate the health and safety of the work environment for these employees after a flood
last spring, and our tests from outside experts did not reveal anything
substantial," Jim Lynch, OSU director of media relations, said in an e-mail Monday.

"To this day, we remain sympathetic to the health conditions that these two employees have faced, but the cause remains a mystery to us all. The university places a high priority on employee safety and we will share with the court our extensive measures to address this matter, " the e-mail said.

"The process could take about a year or two," Shroyer said. "We're going to proceed, do depositions and find out exactly what happened."

 

Recommended: Articles that may interest you

1 comments

Michael J. McFadden
Fri Jul 22 2011 13:27
One of the "unintended consequences" that Antismokers never like to talk about is the decrease in ventilation in buildings once a smoking ban goes in place. That reduction is almost universal since it saves building managers money and no one notices because there's no smoke building up in the air. Instead you get buildups of all the toner copier chemicals and particle board and carpeting outgassing etc.

When the FAA banned smoking in aircraft they came back a couple of years later and tested the aircraft air. They found full 50% increase in the amount of "fungal colony forming units" floating around in all that nice clean smoke-free air that the passengers were breathing.

Maybe the Ohio State employees should sue the university for imposing a smoking ban rather than simply setting up decently ventilated situations where people could smoke comfortably inside without bothering their neighbors and without folks getting histoplasmosis and other nasty things. Of course solutions like that won't fly very well with antismoking advocates: they're not really concerned about the quality of the air people breathe: they just want to set up conditions to make it difficult and unenjoyable for people to smoke.

That's called behavioral conditioning -- treating people like lab rats whose behavior can be "nudged" into proper channels with little electric shocks.

People are not lab rats. And they don't need histoplasmosis.

Michael J. McFadden
Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"







log out