Costs/Shared expert testimony/Schaller, MD

[Guest guest]

it seems as if expert testimony on a similar subject should be shared, once

given under oath. If it isn't why isn't it?

How do we decrease the cost of mold litigation?

************

Very good and important question. And the fact that the defenses are willing to

drain 20,000--200,000 in legal fees is not a help.

In terms of body experts, my impression as to why this is not happening is

partly this problem:

First, the entire notion of highly identical patients, with the same body

reactions, the same degree of exposure, the same innumerable comorbid illnesses,

the same exposure pattern, the same type of remediation approaches (first

treatment), the same lawyers (who are as different as all of us, the same

defense strategy (no report should be the same twice), dealing with the unique

approach of individual courts and the priorities of their judges, and the

different types of juries...... All require absolutely tailored approaches on

all these matters. It might be malpractice and rejected in the current system to

just fills in the names and age and address on the same report or testimony, add

a few detials which relate to Patient Jane Doe's results, and then merely add

many science papers to intimidate the other side's experts who will largely

ignore many of them, since both lawyers on either side will not understand most

of them. Re used testimony undermines the uniqueness of every situation or case.

I have never treated two patients the same way twice. And the court room adds

many more variables not less.

I do agree FULLY that the sentiment under this problem is VERY valid. It is one

of many examples of the way justice, new medical truths, insurance care,

disability determinations and legislation is often seemingly broken and

ineffective. This year in Florida the number of physicians running for the

legislature of the state increased about 600%, perhaps because while we

appreciate attorneys when we need them , we do not feel they have all of

earth's wisdom.

The comment above seems to suggest that a body of science or at least some of

the research used to make a position should be able to be plugged in during a

case to save fees. I do think this has some potential, but not in the current

system I serve in.

Why? Simply, the science knowledge of the average attorney is 9th grade. I am

honestly not trying to be insulting. I do not know the level of most judges or

juries. So one cannot just do a data dump and empty out the hundreds of research

papers most of us have, since this is can be perceived as mere intellectual

rape, and it is forcing the court to be a PhD or MD program. The mold science

data has to be very clearly and simply applied to an individual or a group of

individuals, or one is not going to be effective as an expert. After many years

as an expert, I find the process of educating the attorneys on the clear

science, learning the unique strategy of presentation for a particular court

room, while being fully ethical, is a skill no one masters. I am sure always

learning.

And finally, the science of remediation, investigation and medical treatment is

increasing in a log, and what is known this exact month is possibly 20x what was

known 5 years ago, and 3x what was known last year.

I fully agree it is broken. I have some answers, but not for making the lawsuit

process for recovery highly affordable other then legislation which would set

standards in many areas in building integrity and body illness. My hope as this

problem is known more widely and treatment of structures and bodies starts

immediately, is that claims can happen before people are without any resources.

Many of my favorite physicians dream of the day that by some means funds become

available to increase free services. But until then most can only do a report in

the way the lawyer's prefer because it is their legal world that defines Justice

currently. So good experts have to work long hours to be available to the lawyer

and to carefully treat the many devilish CRITICAL details of an individual civil

case clearly and simply, and do uniquely tailored researcher reports and

testimony.

Finally, many mold physicians are using very different tests to diagnose and

fight in court. One problem with many folks is the tests are often a wide net

and many tests are run because toxic mold has vast numbers of possible chemicals

with different effects. Different physicians use tests to diagnose and treat,

and may need others that a jury, attornies or a judge would accept and

understand. The simplistic 3-4 organ failure tubes are just not doing it in

diagnosis and treatment, nor in litigation. Many physicians have different ways

of arguing the body damage, and so the papers or testimony would not be the

same. And the lab result patterns vary quite a bit depending on which unique

biotoxin chemicals were in the soup the person was exposed to. The labs and

other medical tests always are thousands and these have to be results of the

unique patient, so hard to save money in that way.

Keep thinking. Many good ideas and new ideas are brainstormed out of this list.

I learn from you all every day.

Sincerely,

Schaller, MD

www.HopeAcademic.com

Re: [] Mold:

Why, is a good question. Why do attorneys charge an average $250-$450 per

hour to read a e-mail, fax a letter, answer a phone call? Because they can.

Why do PI attorneys take an average of 45% or more to take a case to trial,

because they can. On the other hand, contingency attorneys must make up for

their losses to absorb their costs.

As for the costs of taking a mold case to trial being reduced, this for now

is not going to change. It is not a matter of sharing information. Most

experts present very similar information if not the same. It is how this

information is presented to a jury. It has to do with the skill of the expert

in

not only presenting information but answering the questions from attorneys.

Cases are often won or lost on how skilled an expert may be rather than the

information itself presented. However, what is presented to a jury by a

skilled

expert is not to be lost.

Our hope is that from the work of Sharon and others this can help to begin

to reverse the trend that has occurred in the last few years whereby defense

has refused to settle out more and more mold cases (forcing them to trial

where those cases are often lost.)

In a message dated 9/6/2006 5:00:31 PM Central Standard Time,

quackadillian@... writes:

WHY?

This stuff is not rocket science. And awards, considering the costs

involved to the people injured, seem small when you look at how

medical costs are going up and the fact that many people lose their

health, careers, homes, etc. because of mold illness.

There must be ways to bring the cost of litigating way down. For

example, it seems as if expert testimony on a similar subject should

be shared, once given under oath. If it isn't why isn't it?

This could benefit BOTH plaintiffs and defendants in all thse kinds of

cases.. paring the situation down to its essentials..

Is there anything in our court system that prevents this?

On 9/6/06, _bobbinsbiomed@bobbins_ (mailto:bobbinsbiomed@...)

<_bobbinsbiomed@bobbins_ (mailto:bobbinsbiomed@...) > wrote:

>

> Just an FYI, most PI attorneys are taking on average 45% for mold cases.

> Some even more to take a case to trial. Mold cases because of all the

experts

> involved, are one of the more expensive types of cases to take to trial.

>

>

> In a message dated 9/6/2006 8:22:03 AM Central Standard Time,

> _selenesgroups@selenesgrosel_ (mailto:selenesgroups@...) writes:

>

> There's a book called something like " chemical injury

> and the courts " which discusses class action lawsuits

> at length. yes, they typically settle for pennies on

> the dollar and, while I don't think they're cheap to

> litigate, the costs of litigation spread over the

> large number of litigants make that an unlikely

> explanation for the low per-person awards-- attorney

> greediness and lack of accountability to clients-- has

> a class ever fired its attorney? Dividing up the

> settlement can be complicated- settlement can be

> was sued by its clients for how it divided up their

> money-- how does a class say: " no, we want 3x what

> they're offering, go back and offer ___?{

>

> --- __snk1955aol (DOT) _sn_ (mailto:_snk1955@...) _

(mailto:_snk1955@..._ (mailto:snk1955@...) ) wrote:

>

> > That sounds awful with your Sears windows. But are

> > you certain you would

> > want to become involved in a class action lawsuit?

> > As I understand it, many

> > times class actions settle with pennies on the

> > dollar going to the actual

> > plaintiffs.

> >

> > I think this is because they are so expensive to

> > litigate, so the attorneys

> > have to not only cover their costs, but they also

> > take a big chunk of the

> > settlement for their percentage. If you have one

> > person getting 30% of a

> > million dollars, and 1000 people getting the rest,

> > then the attorney would get

> > $300K, and everyone else would get about $6000 each,

> > minus the costs of

> > litigation.

> >

> > You should really should speak with an environmental

> > attorney with a

> > construction/ construction/<WBR>product defe

> > inclined to think it may be better for

> > you to go it alone for you. But maybe not.

> > Actually, you ought to see if

> > you can get Sears to step up to the plate and do the

> > right thing before you

> > consider litigation at all.

> >

> > Sharon

> >

> >

>

>

>

>

>

>

>