Re: Court Rebuffs a Suit Linking Mold to Illness WRITE TO THE EDITOR!!!!!!!!

October 15, 2006

Sharon,

What is even more surprising is that the plaintiff's fundamental

claims were right in line with the Inst of Medicine's Damp Indoor

Spaces and Health. None were what many consider to be extraordinary

or controvesial. Which means it wasn't a comprehensive review, more

likely a selective review.

Carl Grimes

Healthy Habitats LLC

-----

> Dear Friends,

>

> It is the marketing of the concept that what we are experiencing is

> not real, that hampers us in getting treatment and allows others to

> unknowingly be put in an environmentally hazardous situation. We can

> write on this board and bitch to each other about how awful this is,

> or we can write to those to are unwittingly promoting this false

> concept.

>

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

> TIMES EXPRESSING YOUR DISMAY OVER THIS ERRONEOUS ARTICLE.

>

> The email address 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/thepubli

> ceditor/publiceditorswebjour nal/index.html) .

>

> 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.

>

> 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/newyor

> k/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. " 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. "

> 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/u

> niversity_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. If you want a copy of the judge's actual ruling,

> send me an email. Sharon

>

October 16, 2006

Carl, I agree 100%.

I read the opinion and they (everyone involved?) completely

misunderstood the papers they claimed to cite. How did they get away

with this?

And they left a lot of (other) research findings out..

October 16, 2006

The most amazing thing is how they constantly ignore all the animal

studies that show that mold toxins are more toxic when inhaled than

when ingested..

Humans were not dropped from the sky.. we ARE animals, mammals, and

all indications are that our biology is basicaly the same as those of

other mammals, with *variations* from other mammals, not radical

changes.. which those animal studies NOT being applicable to people

would require..

How can they pull this off? Its just so medically irresponsible.

Doesn't this sordid logic make you all wonder just where this country

is going and how we can justify saying we are a democracy that cares

about justice instead of just giving the rich and powerful everything

they want, and then trying to bend reality to justify that, whatever

it is, irregardless of the risks to people.

October 16, 2006

What research do we give these reporters. Here is one I wrote to an

author of an article that was posted last week from Building

Materials and Mold. Below. I would like to write her back but was

not sure what to give her.

It sounds like you didn't read the article. I talked to a couple who

had health problems due to mold in their house, but I can't ignore

the fact that the link is unproven by research.

Hildebrandt

Business writer

Argus Leader

200 S. Minnesota Ave.

P.O. Box 5034

Sioux Falls, SD 57117

605-331-2322

> ----------

> From: notify on behalf of ldelp84227

> Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2006 6:24 PM

> Hildebrandt,

> Subject: Building Materials and Mold

>

> It would have been better if you had educated yourself before

writing

> this article. Apparently you didn't. There are thousands and

> thousands suffering with this illness. If you would like to be

educated

> by the many sick across the country would be happy to do so.

> Delp, Delaware

>

> Carl, I agree 100%.

>

> I read the opinion and they (everyone involved?) completely

> misunderstood the papers they claimed to cite. How did they get away

> with this?

>

> And they left a lot of (other) research findings out..

>

October 16, 2006

I just wrote to Mr Calame--wonder if I'll get a response?

V.

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

WRITE TO THE EDITOR!!!!!!!!