Re: Re: Court Rebuffs a Suit Linking Mold to Illness WRITE TO...

[Guest guest]

do you know how many of us have written in, sharon? i just wrote a letter this

morning.

thanks, vicki

Re: [] Re: Court Rebuffs a Suit Linking Mold to Illness

WRITE TO...

Yep. Yet, this is one of the bogus papers that the judge in New York relied

upon to form her conclusion. PLEASE, if you have never written a letter in

your life regarding this issue, WRITE TO THE NY TIMES ON THIS ONE!!!!!!!!! The

email address for the Editor and the Ombudsman may be seen below. These

need to be in within the next three days!!!!!!

Sharon

What about the case this summer when the judge ruled against those

defense witnessses that wrote for government journals. It was also

Frey: Landmark Significance of the Ruling on April 14,

2006, Sacramento, California, regarding " Risk from inhaled mycotoxins

in indoor

office and residential environments. Int J Toxicol 2004; 23: 3-

10.Robbins CA,

Swenson LJ, Hardin BD. (Veritox, 2004). The courts have found Veritox

2004 is

Dear Friends,

Below is an article in the New York Times today. It is regarding Dr.

Johanning not being able to testify based on a Frye hearing. It is the

marketing of

the concept that the serious illnesses we are experiencing are not caused by

excessive exposure to molds/mycotoxins and other microbial contaminants

within an indoor environment, that hampers us in getting treatment and allows

others to unknowingly be put in an environmentally hazardous situation.

We can all complain to each other about how awful this is, or we can write

to those who are unwittingly promoting this false concept.

In fairness to Mr. Romano, the author of the following horrid NY Times

article, he did attempt to get some more plaintiff friendly input when the

plaintiff attorney would not return his calls.

It does make a difference to voice your concerns. Please take 10 minutes and

write to the New York Times.

The letters written to the AAAAI for their erroneous position statement have

helped to bring the matter to light. Primarily because they chose not to

retract even after being shown their mold position statement was a litigation

defense argument, it has helped tremedously to illustrate the deceit and

politics of the matter.

WRITE A SHORT, POLITE, DIRECT LETTER TO THE EDITOR OF THE NEW YORK TIMES

EXPRESSING YOUR DISMAY OVER THIS ERRONEOUS ARTICLE.

The email address for the NY Times Ombudsman is:

Does The Times have an ombudsman or public editor?

Byron Calame is the public editor, the designated representative of the

newspaper's readers. His role is to address readers' comments about coverage,

to

raise questions of his own and to write about such matters, in commentaries

published as often as he wishes. His column appears in the opinion pages on

Sundays, though not necessarily every week. Mr. Calame's e-mail address is

_public@..._ (mailto:public@...) . Telephone messages may be

left

at (212) 556-7652. The public editor's recent columns, with his Web journal

and a reader forum, are online at _nytimes.com/byroncalame_

(http://forums.nytimes.com/top/opinion/readersopinions/forums/thepubliceditor/pu\

bliceditorswebjour

nal/index.html) .

Letters to the Editor go to:

How may I write to the editors about news coverage or report an error?

Comments and suggestions may be e-mailed to _nytnews@..._

(mailto:nytnews@...) or telephoned toll-free to 1-888-NYT-NEWS

(1-888-698-6397). The comment or correction will reach an appropriate editor

promptly.

Ordinarily a comment about news coverage will receive an individual reply. And

we

do pay respectful attention to all messages, even those that are part of

organized letter-writing campaigns, for which we are not staffed to reply

individually. A correction generally takes two or three days to appear on Page

A2,

after fact checking.

I would suggest that letters be written to the Editor and cc'd to the

Ombudsman.

October 15, 2006

Your Home

Court Rebuffs a Suit Linking Mold to Illness

By _JAY ROMANO_ (http://query.nytimes.com/search/query?ppds=bylL & v1=JAY

ROMANO & fdq=19960101 & td=sysdate & sort=newest & ac=JAY ROMANO & inline=nyt-per)

A DECISION issued last month by a State Supreme Court justice in _Manhattan_

(http://topics.nytimes.com/top/classifieds/realestate/locations/newyork/newyork

city/manhattan/?inline=nyt-geo) should allow building owners, including

co-op and condominium boards, to rest a little easier about potential claims

that

indoor mold has injured an occupant of their buildings.

After a review of more than 1,000 pages of testimony and more than 70

scientific articles and books, Justice Shirley Werner Kornreich concluded that

there was insufficient evidence to support the contention that mold or a damp

indoor environment causes illness.

“This throws a lot of cold water on the notion that mold is the cause of

personal injury,†said Eva Talel, a Manhattan real estate lawyer. “And

while

this isn’t going to be the last word on the subject, the decision is so

comprehensive and well thought out that other judges are not going to be

anxious to

rule differently.â€

The case was brought by Colin and Pamela Fraser on behalf of themselves and

their daughter, andra, against the 301-52 Townhouse Corporation, which

owned their co-op building. The Frasers contended that mold near windows and

doors in their apartment caused respiratory problems, a rash and fatigue. The

Frasers said that after moving into an apartment at 301 East 52nd Street in

August 1996, Mr. Fraser developed a leg rash, lethargy and congestion and

hearing, nasal and throat problems and Mrs. Fraser and their infant daughter

developed respiratory problems.

The couple said their conditions improved when the family moved out of the

apartment in 2002.

Before allowing the case to proceed to trial, Justice Kornreich ordered what

is known as a Frye hearing to determine whether the Frasers’ contention that

mold caused their health problems is “generally accepted†by scientists.

A Frye hearing, which is named after a 1923 federal case, is used to

determine whether scientific evidence supports a litigant’s theory of

liability.

After 10 days and the testimony of four experts, Justice Kornreich concluded

that while one expert testified mold or damp indoor space caused health

problems, “the scientific literature did not support his assertions.†As a

result,

Justice Kornreich dismissed the claim for personal injuries.

Three calls to Eilender, the Frasers’ lawyer, seeking comment and

information about a possible appeal, were not returned.

Brucker, the lawyer who represented the co-op in the case, said this

was the first time a Frye hearing on mold had been held in New York. “This

whole mold issue has been blown out of proportion,†Mr. Brucker said. “We

think

this is going to have a major impact on lawyers who are thinking about

bringing cases alleging injuries caused by mold. And we think that insurance

companies are now going to be more inclined to fight these cases instead of

settle

them.â€

Dennis Greenstein, a Manhattan co-op lawyer, said that while the decision was

good news for property owners concerned that they could be held liable for

injuries said to be caused by mold, they and their property managers should

still take mold problems seriously.

“People still have to do the best they can when dealing with mold and the

leaks that may cause it,†Mr. Greenstein said. He pointed out that failure

to

address mold or leak problems could still leave owners exposed to lawsuits for

property damage.

Dr. ph Q. Jarvis, an expert in public health who is affiliated with the

_University of Nevada_

(http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/u/university_\

of_nevada/index.html?inline=nyt-org) School of

Medicine in Reno, said he was surprised that a comprehensive review of the

medical

literature led the judge to conclude there was no consensus that mold can

cause illness. While it may not be possible to specify the level of exposure

needed to cause a problem, he said, it is well documented that exposure to

indoor mold can cause respiratory allergies in some people.

[FYI, Joe Jarvis is an expert defense witness in mold litigation. Attached

is a copy of the judge's actual ruling.]

Sharon

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 10/17/2006 5:55:29 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,

_Haney52@... writes:

Sharon: I am working on a letter as this email came across.

With much respect,

Doug Haney

Great! You have to keep it short. 150 words max.

[Guest guest]

That's wonderful, Sylgia. Thank you for writing to the NY Times to voice

your displeasure with the erroneous article that is displayed again at the end

of this post.

To reiterate how one may contact the NY Times,

The email address for the NY Times Ombudsman is:

Does The Times have an ombudsman or public editor?

Byron Calame is the public editor, the designated representative of the

newspaper's readers. His role is to address readers' comments about coverage,

to

raise questions of his own and to write about such matters, in commentaries

published as often as he wishes. His column appears in the opinion pages on

Sundays, though not necessarily every week. Mr. Calame's e-mail address is

_public@..._ (mailto:public@...) . Telephone messages may be

left

at (212) 556-7652. The public editor's recent columns, with his Web journal

and a reader forum, are online at _nytimes.com/byroncalame_

(http://forums.nytimes.com/top/opinion/readersopinions/forums/thepubliceditor/pu\

bliceditorswebjou

rnal/index.html) .

Letters to the Editor go to:

How may I write to the editors about news coverage or report an error?

Comments and suggestions may be e-mailed to _nytnews@..._

(mailto:nytnews@...) or telephoned toll-free to 1-888-NYT-NEWS

(1-888-698-6397). The comment or correction will reach an appropriate editor

promptly.

Ordinarily a comment about news coverage will receive an individual reply. And

we

do pay respectful attention to all messages, even those that are part of

organized letter-writing campaigns, for which we are not staffed to reply

individually. A correction generally takes two or three days to appear on Page

A2,

after fact checking.

I would suggest that letters be written to the Editor and cc'd to the

Ombudsman. C'mon guys! It's only 150 words!!!!!

The actual article:

October 15, 2006

Your Home

Court Rebuffs a Suit Linking Mold to Illness

By _JAY ROMANO_ (http://query.nytimes.com/search/query?ppds=bylL & v1=JAY

ROMANO & fdq=19960101 & td=sysdate & sort=newest & ac=JAY ROMANO & inline=nyt-per)

A DECISION issued last month by a State Supreme Court justice in _Manhattan_

(http://topics.nytimes.com/top/classifieds/realestate/locations/newyork/newyork

city/manhattan/?inline=nyt-geo) should allow building owners, including

co-op and condominium boards, to rest a little easier about potential claims

that

indoor mold has injured an occupant of their buildings.

After a review of more than 1,000 pages of testimony and more than 70

scientific articles and books, Justice Shirley Werner Kornreich concluded that

there was insufficient evidence to support the contention that mold or a damp

indoor environment causes illness.

“This throws a lot of cold water on the notion that mold is the cause of

personal injury,†said Eva Talel, a Manhattan real estate lawyer. “And while

this isn’t going to be the last word on the subject, the decision is so

comprehensive and well thought out that other judges are not going to be anxious

to

rule differently.â€

The case was brought by Colin and Pamela Fraser on behalf of themselves and

their daughter, andra, against the 301-52 Townhouse Corporation, which

owned their co-op building. The Frasers contended that mold near windows and

doors in their apartment caused respiratory problems, a rash and fatigue. The

Frasers said that after moving into an apartment at 301 East 52nd Street in

August 1996, Mr. Fraser developed a leg rash, lethargy and congestion and

hearing, nasal and throat problems and Mrs. Fraser and their infant daughter

developed respiratory problems.

The couple said their conditions improved when the family moved out of the

apartment in 2002.

Before allowing the case to proceed to trial, Justice Kornreich ordered what

is known as a Frye hearing to determine whether the Frasers’ contention that

mold caused their health problems is “generally accepted†by scientists.

A Frye hearing, which is named after a 1923 federal case, is used to

determine whether scientific evidence supports a litigant’s theory of

liability.

After 10 days and the testimony of four experts, Justice Kornreich concluded

that while one expert testified mold or damp indoor space caused health

problems, “the scientific literature did not support his assertions.†As a

result,

Justice Kornreich dismissed the claim for personal injuries.

Three calls to Eilender, the Frasers’ lawyer, seeking comment and

information about a possible appeal, were not returned.

Brucker, the lawyer who represented the co-op in the case, said this

was the first time a Frye hearing on mold had been held in New York. “This

whole mold issue has been blown out of proportion,†Mr. Brucker said. “We

think

this is going to have a major impact on lawyers who are thinking about

bringing cases alleging injuries caused by mold. And we think that insurance

companies are now going to be more inclined to fight these cases instead of

settle

them.â€

Dennis Greenstein, a Manhattan co-op lawyer, said that while the decision was

good news for property owners concerned that they could be held liable for

injuries said to be caused by mold, they and their property managers should

still take mold problems seriously.

“People still have to do the best they can when dealing with mold and the

leaks that may cause it,†Mr. Greenstein said. He pointed out that failure to

address mold or leak problems could still leave owners exposed to lawsuits for

property damage.

Dr. ph Q. Jarvis, an expert in public health who is affiliated with the

_University of Nevada_

(http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/u/university_\

of_nevada/index.html?inline=nyt-org) School of

Medicine in Reno, said he was surprised that a comprehensive review of the

medical

literature led the judge to conclude there was no consensus that mold can

cause illness. While it may not be possible to specify the level of exposure

needed to cause a problem, he said, it is well documented that exposure to

indoor mold can cause respiratory allergies in some people.

[Guest guest]

Sometimes I think we have no one to blame but ourselves.

I So agree we must all work together there's enough for every one to go around

there are just to many that so ill they need only positive in their lives

snk1955 Right on..................

Elvira

Re: [] Re: Court Rebuffs a Suit Linking Mold to Illness

WRITE TO...

In a message dated 10/17/2006 3:57:17 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,

toriaquilts@... writes:

do you know how many of us have written in, sharon? i just wrote a letter

this morning.

thanks, vicki

Vicki, no I don't know how many. I am only aware of about three. This is

horrible. The NY Times writes a piece that goes out all across the country

that will be read by potential jurors, judges and physicians. The article

stands to have a VERY negative impact on the future of many on this board.

Yet,

only three people can muster the ability to write a no more than 150 word

letter?

Sometimes I think we have no one to blame but ourselves. How can we

possibly think anyone will hear, if we are not willing to speak to them? This

one

is a BIGGIE!!!

Thanks for doing that, Vicki,

Sharon

[Guest guest]

I just wrote a letter. Not only has this illness taken away my health, my

finances, and my career, but the reporting doctor who turned me into CPS, who

thinks environmental illness is crap, is threatening to take my son away as well

via child protective services. What else can be taken away? The public needs to

hear our stories.I suggested that the NY Times give us equal time now. It's our

turn to share the reality of our plight.

Christi

elvira52 <Elvira52@...> wrote:

Sometimes I think we have no one to blame but ourselves.

I So agree we must all work together there's enough for every one to go around

there are just to many that so ill they need only positive in their lives

snk1955 Right on..................

Elvira

Re: [] Re: Court Rebuffs a Suit Linking Mold to Illness

WRITE TO...

In a message dated 10/17/2006 3:57:17 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,

toriaquilts@... writes:

do you know how many of us have written in, sharon? i just wrote a letter

this morning.

thanks, vicki

Vicki, no I don't know how many. I am only aware of about three. This is

horrible. The NY Times writes a piece that goes out all across the country

that will be read by potential jurors, judges and physicians. The article

stands to have a VERY negative impact on the future of many on this board.

Yet,

only three people can muster the ability to write a no more than 150 word

letter?

Sometimes I think we have no one to blame but ourselves. How can we

possibly think anyone will hear, if we are not willing to speak to them? This

one

is a BIGGIE!!!

Thanks for doing that, Vicki,

Sharon