Police building lawsuit thrown out

By George P. Hassett

The city is calling it a “major legal victory” but to Somerville police officer Jack Leuchter Superior Court  Judge Dennis J. Curran's ruling that there is insufficient evidence to continue a lawsuit against the city by 60 employees who work in the public safety building is irrelevant.

“That's just a case. There is nobody who works in this building who feels comfortable here. No court ruling is going to change that,” he said.

More than 60 city employees, including cops and firefighters, filed a lawsuit in 2005 to get to the bottom of health problems plaguing people who worked inside the building 220 Washington St. This week the lawsuit ended with Curran's ruling.

The plaintiffs claimed 16 city employees have died in the past 10 years because they “were subjected to prolonged exposures, to chronic damp conditions, and the types of molds that produce toxins as well as other hazardous substances present in their workplace environment.” The lawsuit alleged the site was once used as an MBTA bus garage, where car batteries were routinely split open and emptied into the ground.

In a decision received by city officials on Monday, Curran wrote the plaintiffs had failed “to establish a causal connection between [their] claimed injuries and the [city's] conduct.” “There is no documentation of a causal connection anywhere in papers filed in this motion. The plaintiff's evidence, thus, is insufficient,” he wrote.

In a statement Mayor Joseph A. Curtatone said the lawsuit was long on publicity but short on facts.

“The granting of our motion for summary judgment sends a clear message that the charges made against the city in this lawsuit have no basis in scientific evidence,” he said. “The charge that the city had knowingly and negligently exposed its employees to hazardous working conditions was very serious and received a lot of publicity, but it was never justified by the facts.  Despite having been
inspected for contaminants many times over the years, including by plaintiffs' experts, no study has ever found contaminants at the public safety building to exist at hazardous levels. ”This is a major legal victory for the city,” said City Solicitor John Gannon.  “This lawsuit has hung over the city since 2005, creating an atmosphere of concern and antagonism that we are happy to see dispelled.  I'm glad we finally had our day in court and I'm delighted with the outcome.”   

   
Leuchter, the president of the patrolmen's union, said the atmosphere of concern in the building will continue as long as mold is visible on the walls and former city employees keep dying of cancer.

“You're not going to find many people in that building who feel they are being told the truth. We have never been given the straight dope. Every time another person dies of cancer we get more nervous. A court case isn't going to change that,” he said. 

Although Curtatone opposed the idea that 220 Washington St. was a “sick building” he said he would still like to see public safety and emergency personnel in a new building.

“We've never made any secret of our view that it would be preferable from an operational standpoint to have a new public safety building, but that's because it's an old building that's being used for a purpose for which it wasn't designed,” he said.  “We will continue working to find the funds and location for a new building, but we will do so in the context of our overall capital needs.”

Comments

[JPM]

A lawsuit is just an allegation. The city one at summary judgment stage whihc means that the plaintiffs had not produced any evidence that there was contamination at the site. It is not enough for the plaintiffs to come forward with inuendo and speculation, even if some people have died. If there was contamination they needed to have a professional expert report showing something concrete. Having said that I wouldn't work there! There is the law, and there is the real world!

[Once]

They also said that LOVE CANAL was not a danger, Woburn was not a danger, and yet how many have to get so very very sick. Curly can only clean SO MUCH?

[tommy boy]

It, funny that the current administration protects a city hall employee who was arrested three times for drunk driving in a year jepodizing the safety of the public, but they see no need to protect the health and safety of those who protect the public. I wonder what public safety expert Mr. Champion has to say.

[Bill Shelton]

JPM,

You suggest that "that the plaintiffs had not produced any evidence that there was contamination at the site."

From my reading of this article (maybe George can clarify), that was NOT the Court's conclusion. As the city's press release acknowledges, the court found insufficient evidence that "the city had knowingly and negligently exposed its employees to hazardous working conditions." The plaintiffs needed to show that their was a causal link between their illnes and the city's conduct.

In fact, there is ample evidence that the Public Safety Building is a "sick building." The laws of probability confirm that simply the number of building inhabitants who have become ill or died, as a proportion of the building's regular inhabitants, is far beyond the threshold required for "significant correlation."

In the absence of serious intervention by the city, the "atmosphere of concern and antagonism that" John Gannon is "happy to see dispelled," sadly, won't be.

[The Truth]

tommy boy,
I read about Gannon, but who is the employee that was arrested three times in a year for OUI? Damn, that's a bad year.

[Bill Shelton]

JPM,

You suggest that "that the plaintiffs had not produced any evidence that there was contamination at the site."

From my reading of this article (maybe George can clarify), that was NOT the Court's conclusion. As the city's press release acknowledges, the court found insufficient evidence that "the city had knowingly and negligently exposed its employees to hazardous working conditions." The plaintiffs needed to show that their was a causal link between their illnes and the city's conduct.

In fact, there is ample evidence that the Public Safety Building is a "sick building." The laws of probability confirm that simply the number of building inhabitants who have become ill or died, as a proportion of the building's regular inhabitants, is far beyond the threshold required for "significant correlation."

In the absence of serious intervention by the city, the "atmosphere of concern and antagonism that" John Gannon is "happy to see dispelled," sadly, won't be.

[paul]

Hey Bill maybe we can house some of those bank robbers from Charlestown you are so fond of in this "sick" building.

[TOWNIES]

Who cares about a few cops w/ cancer they shouldnt have smoked butts and ate donuts

[Imux]

Well done! These sissies would complain about anything to get a few bucks from the government. Damn leeches! The buildings are just fine, you idiots. It's all in your sick mind.

-Imux

[Bill Shelton]

I frequently make mistakes, and I did so with my earlier post on this story. The Court ruled on the absence of evidence of pathogens in the building. The ruling did NOT turn, as I had stated above, on lack of evidence that “"the city had knowingly and negligently exposed its employees to hazardous working conditions. The ruling had nothing to do with the city’s intent.”

The plaintiffs were not required to show illness. The courts have held that plaintiffs in sick building lawsuits do not have to wait around for illness or injury to have recourse. All they need to show is hazardous conditions.

To be fair to the city, no person who has ever been diagnosed with cancer has ever claimed it was a result of contact with the Public Safety Building. Numerous inspections, including air testing, by the Department of Occupational Safety have found no volatile organic compounds or mold at hazardous levels. The city, did, indeed, find mold in the building, and an exhaust flowing into it. Both conditions have been corrected.

Yet, the cluster of illnesses among the occupant population appears to be above the threshold for a significant correlation. Why, remains a mystery.

I sincerely apologize for the misinformation that I posted previously.

[Imux]

Yet, the cluster of illnesses among the occupant population appears to be above the threshold for a significant correlation. Why, remains a mystery.

Bill, must be all those "fine particles" floating around the city from I-93. LOLOLOLOLOL!!!

[concrerned]

I would like to challenge Bill or anyone else to produce records showing that the the mold in the lower level of the Public Safety Building was ever removed. DEP requires that mold must be removed by licensed people using proper procedures. The only attempt the city ever made was to illegally send in a few DPW people with with no respitory protection to attempt the job. They never completed it and the lower level of the building has been closed for 9 years. By opening the walls the mold spores have been released into the air and pumped through out the building. If this had was a private building the owner would have been cited by the board of health. This problem has existed for years and one administration after another has buried thier head in the sand and left the problem for the next administration. As for no one saying that thier cancer was from the building, I guess you never read the lawsuit. There is plenty of blame to go around, but we have continued to elect gutless mayors who don't care enough to do the right thing and leave it for thier succesor.