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

[Guest guest]

Carl,

It's awful. She relied on the ACOEM and AAAAI Mold Statements heavily

because they were position papers of respected organizations.

Ummmm? How bout those experts defense witnesses, who were all knowledgeable

about the effects of tobacco, but then suddenly morphed into expert defense

witnesses who are all knowledgable about mold, that wrote that junk of ACOEM

and AAAAI?.

Jesus, and ph! The President of the AAAAI has his name within the

Big Tobacco RICO docs for receiving $590K from the tobacco industry. Hello?

Tell me again why AAAAI would not retract their mold statement, even though

they were shown it was pure junk!

One good thing, this article does help to prove the point I have been

screaming about:

Defensors write medical protocol thru the abuse of medical associations, and

then they use what they have written in court as a weapon against the ill.

Not to be one who says " I told you so " , but what occurred in this case is a

classic example of what I have been saying.

Sharon

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

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 10/15/2006 8:31:24 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,

quackadillian@... writes:

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

Because the methods used by tobacco science are being used in the mold

science.

Write to the NY Times. It is an excellent opportunity to make your voice

heard on a national level.

If you write to both the editor and ombudsman, maybe we can get an editorial

written.

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.

[Guest guest]

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

>

>

> Carl,

>

> It's awful. She relied on the ACOEM and AAAAI Mold Statements

heavily

> because they were position papers of respected organizations.

>

> Ummmm? How bout those experts defense witnesses, who were all

knowledgeable

> about the effects of tobacco, but then suddenly morphed into

expert defense

> witnesses who are all knowledgable about mold, that wrote that

junk of ACOEM

> and AAAAI?.

>

> Jesus, and ph! The President of the AAAAI has his name

within the

> Big Tobacco RICO docs for receiving $590K from the tobacco

industry. Hello?

> Tell me again why AAAAI would not retract their mold statement,

even though

> they were shown it was pure junk!

>

> One good thing, this article does help to prove the point I have

been

> screaming about:

>

> Defensors write medical protocol thru the abuse of medical

associations, and

> then they use what they have written in court as a weapon against

the ill.

> Not to be one who says " I told you so " , but what occurred in this

case is a

> classic example of what I have been saying.

>

> Sharon

>

> 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

>

>

>

>

>

>

>