Re: , Appellate Ruling Shoemaker Proof of Causation, Mycotoxicosis

September 29, 2006

For what it is worth....

I understand that the hubbub of this thread is the admissibility of Shoemaker’s testimony. However, what I find appalling is the statement in this brief that....six employees sought benefits after mold was discovered in a wall cavity at their office. If this is true, what BS! Wall cavities are un-occupied interstitial spaces within a structure. Moreover, there are few, if any, structures that don’t have mold spores in their interstitial spaces, and there is plenty of data and research to show that biomass in wall cavities does not significantly affect the occupied space; even if the cavity is black with hyphae and spores. If the mold was present in the occupied space, I would be more sympathetic to the claims of the plaintiffs, because I for one believe inhaled biomass causes harm – some more and some less. But mold in a wall cavity..... What a bunch of bull. There must be more to this case than the brief as written by Courtroom News. The pathway to exposure is just not well developed.

--

Geyer, PE, CIH, CSP

President

KERNTEC Industries, Inc.

Bakersfield, California

www.kerntecindustries.com

Hi Guys,

I got a lot of requests from you all for the docs of this case. I am traveling and don't have my files with me. Be home Tues. Will mail them out then. In the meantime, here is 's publishing of the matter. Or, there is a phone number at the bottom of the article that one can call to get the docs.

Sharon

COURTROOM NEWS

<http://www.harrismartin.com/GenerateArticlePDF.cfm?articleid=7522>

Date: 26 September 2006

Court Allows Shoemaker Testimony without Frye Hearing

ANNAPOLIS, Md. — land’s intermediate appellate court held Sept. 20 that diagnostic and treatment methods used by mold expert Dr. Ritchie Shoemaker were sufficiently accepted that they need not be subject to a Frye hearing for admissibility. Montgomery Mutual Insurance Co. v. Chesson, et al., No. 1270 (Md. Ct. Sp. App.).

Ruling in a workers’ compensation case, the land Court of Special Appeals affirmed a trial court order allowing Dr. Shoemaker’s testimony that several church workers sustained sick-building syndrome from workplace exposure to mold.

phine Chesson and five other employees of the Baltimore Washington Conference of the United Methodist Church in Columbia, Md., sought benefits after mold was discovered in a wall cavity at their offices in November 2002.

The Workers’ Compensation Commission found for the church and its insurer, Montgomery Mutual Insurance Co., on three claims and awarded partial benefits to the three other claimants.

The six workers petitioned for consolidation and review by the County Circuit Court and the petition was granted.

Montgomery Mutual moved to exclude the testimony of Dr. Shoemaker of Pokomoke, Md., who had examined each claimant and diagnosed sick-building syndrome caused by exposure to mold.

Montgomery Mutual argued that Shoemaker’s methods of diagnosing and treating mold exposure are not generally accepted by the scientific community and should be excluded under land’s Frye- analysis (Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013, 1014 [D.C. Cir. 1923]; v. State, 283 Md. 374, 381 [1978]).

The claimants argued that a Frye- hearing was unnecessary as Shoemaker would testify as a treating physician.

County Circuit Judge Moylan agreed, and declined to order an admissibility hearing.

Judge Moylan explained that Dr. Shoemaker testified that he takes patients’ history, conducts examinations and conducts blood and other tests before making a diagnosis. Those procedures are not uncommon, the judge said.

Judge Moylan ruled, according to a transcript, 'we’re talking about a board-certified physician, who has devoted, apparently, in the last five or six years, more than fifty percent of his time to this area of specialty, and I’m satisfied that this is not a Frye- situation,' it’s ‘diagnosis by a medical practitioner, and he, while they have not adopted, or adapted his publications, and things that he has developed; he’s published widely in his field, he’s gone to law school, and consulted, and he’s indicated he’s worked with a number of other doctors in this area; I’m satisfied that he’s qualified to render opinions in this area, and his opinions would be admissible in the things you mentioned that go to their weight, rather than their admissibility.'

At trial, the jury ruled for all six appellees, finding they suffered compensable accidental injuries from mold exposure.

Montgomery Mutual appealed the verdict and Judge Moylan’s decision to allow Dr. Shoemaker to testify to land’s Court of Special Appeals, which affirmed.

'Because of the nature of the proffered scientific evidence in this case, we reject appellant’s contention that the court erred or abused its discretion by not applying the Frye- test to the testimony of Dr. Shoemaker,' the Court of Special Appeals held.

The appellate court quoted extensively from Shoemaker’s deposition testimony about his methods of diagnosis, particularly his treatment of patients suffering from pfisteria in the 1990s, and his method of treating patients believed to have been exposed to biotoxins.

Dr. Shoemaker testified that the tests he conducts for hormone and other abnormalities arose 'from basic science published,' the Court of Special Appeals said, quoting Shoemaker.

'In reviewing and comparing the methodologies, it is evident that Dr. Shoemaker employs different tests and strategies to treat the medical conditions of his patients, in general and, appellees, in particular,' the Court of Special Appeals said.

'We agree with the court, however, that there are certain tests that Dr. Shoemaker performs that are not so unorthodox that would warrant subjecting them to a Frye- analysis; e.g., patients fill out forms concerning medical history, the doctor runs several blood tests and performs physical examinations,' the court said.

The Court of Special Appeals concluded that while Dr. Shoemaker’s methods may differ in part from many of his colleagues, 't is clear from Dr. Shoemaker’s testimony that these practices have garnered acceptance among peers in this field, which would serve as support for the court’s acceptance of him as an expert and bolster the conclusion that he could render opinions as to the cause of the illnesses sustained by appellees.'

'Significantly, as we noted in Myers,' the Court of Special Appeals held, citing Myers v. Celotex Corp. (88 Md. App. 442, 460 [1991]), cert. denied, Fibreboard Corp. v. Myers, 325 Md. 249 [1992]), 'the finder of fact would have been free to discredit Dr. Shoemaker’s testimony in light of the testimony of other experts regarding their different methods and opposing views. The fact that there were opposing viewpoints based upon other generally accepted methodologies, however, does not lead to the conclusion that Dr. Shoemaker’s testimony should have been excluded.'

Gerald F. Gay of Arnold, Sevel & Gay in Baltimore is counsel for the Chesson plaintiffs-appellees.

Montgomery Mutual Insurance Co. is represented by Cursom.

Document is Available

Call or

Search www.harrismartin.com

Opinion Ref# MOL-0610-01

Check out the new AOL <http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/1615326657x4311227241x4298082137/aol?redir=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Eaol%2Ecom%2Fnewaol> . Most comprehensive set of free safety and security tools, free access to millions of high-quality videos from across the web, free AOL Mail and more.

September 29, 2006

Buildings as swiss cheese:

While in many buildings there may be little or no communication of air between

the wall cavities and the occupied spaces,

Based on my experiences however, there may be considerable air movement from the

wall cavities into the occupied space. Until a building specific determination

has been made, I feel that it is premature to make a blanket statement that it

will be true in all situations that biomass in wall cavities will not

significantly affect the occupied space.

Just a note of caution, as I have seen buildings where mold in the wall cavities

was adversely impacting the occupied spaces.

Sincerely,

W. Bearg, PE, CIH

Building Scientist

Concord, MA 01742

-------------- Original message ----------------------

> For what it is worth....

>

> I understand that the hubbub of this thread is the admissibility of

> Shoemaker¹s testimony. However, what I find appalling is the statement in

> this brief that....six employees sought benefits after mold was discovered

> in a wall cavity at their office. If this is true, what BS! Wall cavities

> are un-occupied interstitial spaces within a structure. Moreover, there are

> few, if any, structures that don¹t have mold spores in their interstitial

> spaces, and there is plenty of data and research to show that biomass in

> wall cavities does not significantly affect the occupied space; even if the

> cavity is black with hyphae and spores. If the mold was present in the

> occupied space, I would be more sympathetic to the claims of the plaintiffs,

> because I for one believe inhaled biomass causes harm some more and some

> less. But mold in a wall cavity..... What a bunch of bull. There must be

> more to this case than the brief as written by Courtroom News. The pathway

> to exposure is just not well developed.

>

> --

> Geyer, PE, CIH, CSP

> President

> KERNTEC Industries, Inc.

> Bakersfield, California

> www.kerntecindustries.com

>

> >

> > Hi Guys,

> >

> > I got a lot of requests from you all for the docs of this case. I am

> > traveling and don't have my files with me. Be home Tues. Will mail them

out

> > then. In the meantime, here is 's publishing of the matter.

Or,

> > there is a phone number at the bottom of the article that one

> > can call to get the docs.

> >

> > Sharon

> >

> > COURTROOM NEWS

> > <http://www.harrismartin.com/GenerateArticlePDF.cfm?articleid=7522>

> >

> > Date: 26 September 2006

> > Court Allows Shoemaker Testimony without Frye Hearing

> > ANNAPOLIS, Md. ‹ land¹s intermediate appellate court held Sept. 20 that

> > diagnostic and treatment methods used by mold expert Dr. Ritchie Shoemaker

> > were sufficiently accepted that they need not be subject to a Frye hearing

for

> > admissibility. Montgomery Mutual Insurance Co. v. Chesson, et al., No. 1270

> > (Md. Ct. Sp. App.).

> >

> > Ruling in a workers¹ compensation case, the land Court of Special

Appeals

> > affirmed a trial court order allowing Dr. Shoemaker¹s testimony that several

> > church workers sustained sick-building syndrome from workplace exposure to

> > mold.

> >

> > phine Chesson and five other employees of the Baltimore Washington

> > Conference of the United Methodist Church in Columbia, Md., sought benefits

> > after mold was discovered in a wall cavity at their offices in November

2002.

> >

> > The Workers¹ Compensation Commission found for the church and its insurer,

> > Montgomery Mutual Insurance Co., on three claims and awarded partial

benefits

> > to the three other claimants.

> >

> > The six workers petitioned for consolidation and review by the County

> > Circuit Court and the petition was granted.

> >

> > Montgomery Mutual moved to exclude the testimony of Dr. Shoemaker of

Pokomoke,

> > Md., who had examined each claimant and diagnosed sick-building syndrome

> > caused by exposure to mold.

> >

> > Montgomery Mutual argued that Shoemaker¹s methods of diagnosing and treating

> > mold exposure are not generally accepted by the scientific community and

> > should be excluded under land¹s Frye- analysis (Frye v. United

States,

> > 293 F. 1013, 1014 [D.C. Cir. 1923]; v. State, 283 Md. 374, 381 [1978]).

> >

> > The claimants argued that a Frye- hearing was unnecessary as Shoemaker

> > would testify as a treating physician.

> >

> > County Circuit Judge Moylan agreed, and declined to order an

> > admissibility hearing.

> >

> > Judge Moylan explained that Dr. Shoemaker testified that he takes patients¹

> > history, conducts examinations and conducts blood and other tests before

> > making a diagnosis. Those procedures are not uncommon, the judge said.

> >

> > Judge Moylan ruled, according to a transcript, 'we¹re talking about a

> > board-certified physician, who has devoted, apparently, in the last five or

> > six years, more than fifty percent of his time to this area of specialty,

and

> > I¹m satisfied that this is not a Frye- situation,' it¹s Œdiagnosis by a

> > medical practitioner, and he, while they have not adopted, or adapted his

> > publications, and things that he has developed; he¹s published widely in his

> > field, he¹s gone to law school, and consulted, and he¹s indicated he¹s

worked

> > with a number of other doctors in this area; I¹m satisfied that he¹s

qualified

> > to render opinions in this area, and his opinions would be admissible in the

> > things you mentioned that go to their weight, rather than their

> > admissibility.'

> >

> > At trial, the jury ruled for all six appellees, finding they suffered

> > compensable accidental injuries from mold exposure.

> >

> > Montgomery Mutual appealed the verdict and Judge Moylan¹s decision to allow

> > Dr. Shoemaker to testify to land¹s Court of Special Appeals, which

> > affirmed.

> >

> > 'Because of the nature of the proffered scientific evidence in this case, we

> > reject appellant¹s contention that the court erred or abused its discretion

by

> > not applying the Frye- test to the testimony of Dr. Shoemaker,' the

Court

> > of Special Appeals held.

> >

> > The appellate court quoted extensively from Shoemaker¹s deposition testimony

> > about his methods of diagnosis, particularly his treatment of patients

> > suffering from pfisteria in the 1990s, and his method of treating patients

> > believed to have been exposed to biotoxins.

> >

> > Dr. Shoemaker testified that the tests he conducts for hormone and other

> > abnormalities arose 'from basic science published,' the Court of Special

> > Appeals said, quoting Shoemaker.

> >

> > 'In reviewing and comparing the methodologies, it is evident that Dr.

> > Shoemaker employs different tests and strategies to treat the medical

> > conditions of his patients, in general and, appellees, in particular,' the

> > Court of Special Appeals said.

> >

> > 'We agree with the court, however, that there are certain tests that Dr.

> > Shoemaker performs that are not so unorthodox that would warrant subjecting

> > them to a Frye- analysis; e.g., patients fill out forms concerning

medical

> > history, the doctor runs several blood tests and performs physical

> > examinations,' the court said.

> >

> > The Court of Special Appeals concluded that while Dr. Shoemaker¹s methods

may

> > differ in part from many of his colleagues, 't is clear from Dr.

> > Shoemaker¹s testimony that these practices have garnered acceptance among

> > peers in this field, which would serve as support for the court¹s acceptance

> > of him as an expert and bolster the conclusion that he could render opinions

> > as to the cause of the illnesses sustained by appellees.'

> >

> > 'Significantly, as we noted in Myers,' the Court of Special Appeals held,

> > citing Myers v. Celotex Corp. (88 Md. App. 442, 460 [1991]), cert. denied,

> > Fibreboard Corp. v. Myers, 325 Md. 249 [1992]), 'the finder of fact would

have

> > been free to discredit Dr. Shoemaker¹s testimony in light of the testimony

of

> > other experts regarding their different methods and opposing views. The fact

> > that there were opposing viewpoints based upon other generally accepted

> > methodologies, however, does not lead to the conclusion that Dr. Shoemaker¹s

> > testimony should have been excluded.'

> >

> > Gerald F. Gay of Arnold, Sevel & Gay in Baltimore is counsel for the Chesson

> > plaintiffs-appellees.

> >

> > Montgomery Mutual Insurance Co. is represented by Cursom.

> >

> > Document is Available

> > Call or

> > Search www.harrismartin.com

> > Opinion Ref# MOL-0610-01

> >

> > Check out the new AOL

> >

<http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/1615326657x4311227241x4298082137/aol?redir=http

> > %3A%2F%2Fwww%2Eaol%2Ecom%2Fnewaol> . Most comprehensive set of free safety

and

> > security tools, free access to millions of high-quality videos from across

the

> > web, free AOL Mail and more.

> >

>

September 29, 2006

:

you stated:

" ...and there is plenty of data and research to show that biomass in

wall cavities does not significantly affect the occupied space; even

if the cavity is black with hyphae and spores... "

a few specific cites to the " data and research " from the peer-reviewed

literature would be appreciated.

you certainly have no shortage of opinion and no hesitation to express

same. in this case, however, I believe you're simply wrong.

I hear similar arguments all the time: " hey, we don't live in the

walls " or " spores in wall cavities can't/don't migrate into the

occupied space " . to that I say " horsehockey " .

interstitial spaces certainly do communicate with the occupied space.

not all such spaces, of course, and not under all conditions. but

communicate they do.

acting as settling chambers, wall cavities collect fungal spores (and

other particulate matter) from both outdoors and indoors throughout

the life of the building. this certainty is what makes the use of

wall cavity sampling, in my experience, so tenuous and so challenging

to interpret (except perhaps on a comparative basis).

this form of mass transfer would not occur if

infiltration/exfiltration didn't carry those particles through the

structure (e.g., the wall assembly).

I always enjoy your posts, and generally agree with -- indeed applaud

-- your passion and your perspective. but, IMHO " for what it is

worth " in this case ain't much.

Wane

<><><><><><><><><><><>

Wane A. Baker, P.E., CIH

Division Manager, Indoor Air Quality

MICHAELS ENGINEERING

" Real Professionals. Real Solutions. "

Phone , ext. 484

Cell

Fax

mailto:wab@...

On the web at: http://www.michaelsengineering.com

" To love what you do and feel that it matters - how could anything be

more fun? "

- Graham

>

> For what it is worth....

>

> I understand that the hubbub of this thread is the admissibility of

> Shoemaker¹s testimony. However, what I find appalling is the

statement in

> this brief that....six employees sought benefits after mold was

discovered

> in a wall cavity at their office. If this is true, what BS! Wall

cavities

> are un-occupied interstitial spaces within a structure. Moreover,

there are

> few, if any, structures that don¹t have mold spores in their

interstitial

> spaces, and there is plenty of data and research to show that biomass in

> wall cavities does not significantly affect the occupied space; even

if the

> cavity is black with hyphae and spores. If the mold was present in the

> occupied space, I would be more sympathetic to the claims of the

plaintiffs,

> because I for one believe inhaled biomass causes harm some more

and some

> less. But mold in a wall cavity..... What a bunch of bull. There

must be

> more to this case than the brief as written by Courtroom News. The

pathway

> to exposure is just not well developed.

>

> --

> Geyer, PE, CIH, CSP

September 29, 2006

-

I concur. I have seen projects go both ways... It is also important for

everyone to remember that what you may observe, smell, sample, etc. one day

- may be completely different the next day, or week, or month for that

matter.

It will all depend on a plethora of items such as weather, capillary action,

HVAC operation, occupant activity, etc.

I can also speak from experience with my own home that had major hidden

growth within cavities that did indeed affect the indoor air quality of the

home, and yes there were very apparent health symptoms that went along with

it...

Try to keep your heads out of boxes people!

-Stacey Champion

Re: , Appellate Ruling Shoemaker Proof of

Causation, Mycotoxicosis

Buildings as swiss cheese:

While in many buildings there may be little or no communication of air

between the wall cavities and the occupied spaces,

Based on my experiences however, there may be considerable air movement from

the wall cavities into the occupied space. Until a building specific

determination has been made, I feel that it is premature to make a blanket

statement that it will be true in all situations that biomass in wall

cavities will not significantly affect the occupied space.

Just a note of caution, as I have seen buildings where mold in the wall

cavities was adversely impacting the occupied spaces.

Sincerely,

W. Bearg, PE, CIH

Building Scientist

Concord, MA 01742

-------------- Original message ----------------------

> For what it is worth....

>

> I understand that the hubbub of this thread is the admissibility of

> Shoemaker¹s testimony. However, what I find appalling is the statement in

> this brief that....six employees sought benefits after mold was discovered

> in a wall cavity at their office. If this is true, what BS! Wall

cavities

> are un-occupied interstitial spaces within a structure. Moreover, there

are

> few, if any, structures that don¹t have mold spores in their interstitial

> spaces, and there is plenty of data and research to show that biomass in

> wall cavities does not significantly affect the occupied space; even if

the

> cavity is black with hyphae and spores. If the mold was present in the

> occupied space, I would be more sympathetic to the claims of the

plaintiffs,

> because I for one believe inhaled biomass causes harm some more and some

> less. But mold in a wall cavity..... What a bunch of bull. There must

be

> more to this case than the brief as written by Courtroom News. The

pathway

> to exposure is just not well developed.

>

> --

> Geyer, PE, CIH, CSP

> President

> KERNTEC Industries, Inc.

> Bakersfield, California

> www.kerntecindustries.com

>

> >

> > Hi Guys,

> >

> > I got a lot of requests from you all for the docs of this case. I am

> > traveling and don't have my files with me. Be home Tues. Will mail

them out

> > then. In the meantime, here is 's publishing of the

matter. Or,

> > there is a phone number at the bottom of the article that

one

> > can call to get the docs.

> >

> > Sharon

> >

> > COURTROOM NEWS

> > <http://www.harrismartin.com/GenerateArticlePDF.cfm?articleid=7522>

> >

> > Date: 26 September 2006

> > Court Allows Shoemaker Testimony without Frye Hearing

> > ANNAPOLIS, Md. ‹ land¹s intermediate appellate court held Sept. 20

that

> > diagnostic and treatment methods used by mold expert Dr. Ritchie

Shoemaker

> > were sufficiently accepted that they need not be subject to a Frye

hearing for

> > admissibility. Montgomery Mutual Insurance Co. v. Chesson, et al., No.

1270

> > (Md. Ct. Sp. App.).

> >

> > Ruling in a workers¹ compensation case, the land Court of Special

Appeals

> > affirmed a trial court order allowing Dr. Shoemaker¹s testimony that

several

> > church workers sustained sick-building syndrome from workplace exposure

to

> > mold.

> >

> > phine Chesson and five other employees of the Baltimore Washington

> > Conference of the United Methodist Church in Columbia, Md., sought

benefits

> > after mold was discovered in a wall cavity at their offices in November

2002.

> >

> > The Workers¹ Compensation Commission found for the church and its

insurer,

> > Montgomery Mutual Insurance Co., on three claims and awarded partial

benefits

> > to the three other claimants.

> >

> > The six workers petitioned for consolidation and review by the

County

> > Circuit Court and the petition was granted.

> >

> > Montgomery Mutual moved to exclude the testimony of Dr. Shoemaker of

Pokomoke,

> > Md., who had examined each claimant and diagnosed sick-building syndrome

> > caused by exposure to mold.

> >

> > Montgomery Mutual argued that Shoemaker¹s methods of diagnosing and

treating

> > mold exposure are not generally accepted by the scientific community and

> > should be excluded under land¹s Frye- analysis (Frye v. United

States,

> > 293 F. 1013, 1014 [D.C. Cir. 1923]; v. State, 283 Md. 374, 381

[1978]).

> >

> > The claimants argued that a Frye- hearing was unnecessary as

Shoemaker

> > would testify as a treating physician.

> >

> > County Circuit Judge Moylan agreed, and declined to order

an

> > admissibility hearing.

> >

> > Judge Moylan explained that Dr. Shoemaker testified that he takes

patients¹

> > history, conducts examinations and conducts blood and other tests before

> > making a diagnosis. Those procedures are not uncommon, the judge said.

> >

> > Judge Moylan ruled, according to a transcript, 'we¹re talking about a

> > board-certified physician, who has devoted, apparently, in the last five

or

> > six years, more than fifty percent of his time to this area of

specialty, and

> > I¹m satisfied that this is not a Frye- situation,' it¹s Œdiagnosis

by a

> > medical practitioner, and he, while they have not adopted, or adapted

his

> > publications, and things that he has developed; he¹s published widely in

his

> > field, he¹s gone to law school, and consulted, and he¹s indicated he¹s

worked

> > with a number of other doctors in this area; I¹m satisfied that he¹s

qualified

> > to render opinions in this area, and his opinions would be admissible in

the

> > things you mentioned that go to their weight, rather than their

> > admissibility.'

> >

> > At trial, the jury ruled for all six appellees, finding they suffered

> > compensable accidental injuries from mold exposure.

> >

> > Montgomery Mutual appealed the verdict and Judge Moylan¹s decision to

allow

> > Dr. Shoemaker to testify to land¹s Court of Special Appeals, which

> > affirmed.

> >

> > 'Because of the nature of the proffered scientific evidence in this

case, we

> > reject appellant¹s contention that the court erred or abused its

discretion by

> > not applying the Frye- test to the testimony of Dr. Shoemaker,' the

Court

> > of Special Appeals held.

> >

> > The appellate court quoted extensively from Shoemaker¹s deposition

testimony

> > about his methods of diagnosis, particularly his treatment of patients

> > suffering from pfisteria in the 1990s, and his method of treating

patients

> > believed to have been exposed to biotoxins.

> >

> > Dr. Shoemaker testified that the tests he conducts for hormone and other

> > abnormalities arose 'from basic science published,' the Court of Special

> > Appeals said, quoting Shoemaker.

> >

> > 'In reviewing and comparing the methodologies, it is evident that Dr.

> > Shoemaker employs different tests and strategies to treat the medical

> > conditions of his patients, in general and, appellees, in particular,'

the

> > Court of Special Appeals said.

> >

> > 'We agree with the court, however, that there are certain tests that Dr.

> > Shoemaker performs that are not so unorthodox that would warrant

subjecting

> > them to a Frye- analysis; e.g., patients fill out forms concerning

medical

> > history, the doctor runs several blood tests and performs physical

> > examinations,' the court said.

> >

> > The Court of Special Appeals concluded that while Dr. Shoemaker¹s

methods may

> > differ in part from many of his colleagues, 't is clear from Dr.

> > Shoemaker¹s testimony that these practices have garnered acceptance

among

> > peers in this field, which would serve as support for the court¹s

acceptance

> > of him as an expert and bolster the conclusion that he could render

opinions

> > as to the cause of the illnesses sustained by appellees.'

> >

> > 'Significantly, as we noted in Myers,' the Court of Special Appeals

held,

> > citing Myers v. Celotex Corp. (88 Md. App. 442, 460 [1991]), cert.

denied,

> > Fibreboard Corp. v. Myers, 325 Md. 249 [1992]), 'the finder of fact

would have

> > been free to discredit Dr. Shoemaker¹s testimony in light of the

testimony of

> > other experts regarding their different methods and opposing views. The

fact

> > that there were opposing viewpoints based upon other generally accepted

> > methodologies, however, does not lead to the conclusion that Dr.

Shoemaker¹s

> > testimony should have been excluded.'

> >

> > Gerald F. Gay of Arnold, Sevel & Gay in Baltimore is counsel for the

Chesson

> > plaintiffs-appellees.

> >

> > Montgomery Mutual Insurance Co. is represented by Cursom.

> >

> > Document is Available

> > Call or

> > Search www.harrismartin.com

> > Opinion Ref# MOL-0610-01

> >

> > Check out the new AOL

> >

<http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/1615326657x4311227241x4298082137/aol?redir=ht

tp

> > %3A%2F%2Fwww%2Eaol%2Ecom%2Fnewaol> . Most comprehensive set of free

safety and

> > security tools, free access to millions of high-quality videos from

across the

> > web, free AOL Mail and more.

> >

>

FAIR USE NOTICE:

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been

specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material

available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental,

political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice

issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such

copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law.

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is

distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in

receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.

For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml.

If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your

own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright

owner.

September 29, 2006

Mr. Bearg:

I did not make a blanket statement and stated " ...that it will be true in

all situations. " Get it straight or be quite!

Moreover, in my 30+ years of construction, I only recall a handfull of

structures that could be represented as " swiss cheese, " assuming you even

know that swiss cheese has lots of BIG ROUND HOLES. Moreover, these

structure were all slated for demo. The building that is represented in the

case write-up which the tread was based is an office of a church. Just how

many churches have you experienced that leak like swiss cheese? Moreover,

please let me know specifically what your experiences are, and how you

determined that there was " considerable air movement from wall cavities into

the occupied space? " I believe it is the exception rather than the rule.

No modern structure that I am aware of even comes close to your claim!

Tis time to substantiate your statements.

--

Geyer, PE, CIH, CSP

President

KERNTEC Industries, Inc.

Bakersfield, California

www.kerntecindustries.com

> Buildings as swiss cheese:

>

> While in many buildings there may be little or no communication of air between

> the wall cavities and the occupied spaces,

>

> Based on my experiences however, there may be considerable air movement from

> the wall cavities into the occupied space. Until a building specific

> determination has been made, I feel that it is premature to make a blanket

> statement that it will be true in all situations that biomass in wall cavities

> will not significantly affect the occupied space.

>

> Just a note of caution, as I have seen buildings where mold in the wall

> cavities was adversely impacting the occupied spaces.

>

> Sincerely,

>

> W. Bearg, PE, CIH

>

> Building Scientist

> Concord, MA 01742

>

September 29, 2006

:

Your head, and mine, is occasionally in a box....and that box is called your

house.

--

Geyer, PE, CIH, CSP

President

KERNTEC Industries, Inc.

Bakersfield, California

www.kerntecindustries.com

> -

>

> I concur. I have seen projects go both ways... It is also important for

> everyone to remember that what you may observe, smell, sample, etc. one day

> - may be completely different the next day, or week, or month for that

> matter.

>

> It will all depend on a plethora of items such as weather, capillary action,

> HVAC operation, occupant activity, etc.

>

> I can also speak from experience with my own home that had major hidden

> growth within cavities that did indeed affect the indoor air quality of the

> home, and yes there were very apparent health symptoms that went along with

> it...

>

> Try to keep your heads out of boxes people!

>

> -Stacey Champion

>

September 29, 2006

Re: Biotoxin illness from mold colonies in wall cavities.

STACHYBOTRYS WEB SITE: Posts of ph P. Klein, Sr. M.D

(These are my own opinions from my personal experience, review of

medical literature, conversations with experts and conversations

with fellow sufferers. The following is not intended to be

professional or medical advice; it is advice gained from the

experience of a victim of toxic mold exposure.)

www.stachy.5u.com

More on Mycotoxins

Are there any other mold victims whose experience parallels yours?

" Subject: [sickbuildings] Joe Kleins Website

Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2002 15:59:20 -0000

To: sickbuildings

" It's absolutely awesome to hear someone else describe the ability

of hair to maintain and transport the mold. I found that wool

garments are no different.

I noticed that some contaminated places give me a huge " hit " but

that I could walk away and recover without decontamination. Other

places might hit me less, but I would carry the " reaction " with me.

This led me to believe that the neurotoxic reaction was to

aerosolized mycotoxins and not necessarily inhalation of spores.

I tested this by placing a contaminated article in HEPA filters and

taking it to my " clean " place. I put it under six layers of blankets

and slept on it.

I got the usual reaction and removed the article but

went back to sleep on the same blankets. The reaction was gone.

This convinced me that that spores had not penetrated the filter or

blankets and that the toxic gas was truly my primary irritant.

This was confirmed by Dr Marinkovich who told me that a housing

project in Sweden had recently been identified with sick inhabitants

but no spores could be found. Only when the walls were opened up

were the colonies found, but they were so tightly sealed in the

walls that only the toxic gas could escape.

Many places that give me mold hits are strictly VOC hits and not

spores. When I leave these areas I do not have to bother with

decontamination.

-

===================================================

September 29, 2006

Carl:

Agreed. I have no opinion contrary to any of your statements.

But let me ask....How many structures do you work on that don’t have problems? How many clients do you have that don’t have problems or health claims? None I presume. You and many of the other mold practitioners only work on problem, symptomatic structures with clients alleging harm/injury. Don’t let this sub-set of all buildings cloud your perspective of construction and/or construction assemblies.

I have remodeled and/or demolished a lot of existing structures that had wall/floor cavities which were black with mold, yet no one knew it and it was not affecting the occupants therein. What does this mean....sometimes the biomass in wall cavities does not affect the occupied space or the occupants. It could be that the occupants therein were not hypersensitive, or that the pathway was not well developed, or.... There are many factors. In my opinion, almost all structures with hollow cavity wall systems have some level of biomass in their wall cavities (especially in the southeast), and only a sub-set of these become problematic. However, this sub-set does not support the denigration of construction means, methods, and materials I so often hear from persons who have never built anything in their life. It is unwarranted and without foundation.

I never stated that hollow-cavity wall assemblies are constructed so tight that they hold a vacuum. Nor do I support the contention that they leak like swiss cheese. These are but the extremes and we all can find examples to support either side of this spectrum. The norm is somewhere in between. You add-in operation, use, maintenance, and location of the structure, and performance weaknesses begin to become apparent. For example, it is quite apparent that OSB sheeting under a stapled asphalt roof membrane is not appropriate in locations with hurricanes. However, the same assembly performs real well here in the southwest and it is used quite often here because of the lower cost of assembly, thereby making the cost of construction less and the cost of ownership less. We all need to remember that affordable housing is important, VERY important! While everyone may want a well-built, custom home designed by a competent designer that specifies only the best in materials, and assembled by a quality builder that has the skill and takes the time to do it right the first time (like me), few can afford it. So lets be reasonable and practical. Some affordable structures are not going to perform – that is a given. Moldy structures have been around and well-documented since Leviticus was written. Therefore, nothing new or revolutionary.

What started this thread was the news brief posted herein that stated that six persons litigated for benefits because of mold present in a wall cavity in their office. I took exception to the foundation of their claim, based on the brief, and suspected that there was more to the claim than presented in the brief because of the lack of a well-developed pathway. I created a firestorm with my comment. Tis not the first time I have been labeled: controversial. In fact, it happened just two weeks ago at a vapor intrusion conference in a room full of good scientists who were bastardizing construction terminology and making overly-broad conclusions regarding the permeability of foundations based on the study of a small sub-set of detached SFDs with basements.

I feel this dialog is good. It caused me to think and consider the alternative....and get my head out of the box, if only for a brief period.

Regards,

--

Geyer, PE, CIH, CSP

President

KERNTEC Industries, Inc.

Bakersfield, California

www.kerntecindustries.com

,

I, too, usually agree with you, but not in this case.

I have yet to see a building that was so air tight that you could

pull and hold a vacuum (unless designed specifically for it).

I have yet to see a building where air pathways were filtered with

HEPA media or equivalent.

The biomass of mold is not the only component of mold that occupants

may be exposed to. Fine particulate and molecular components abound.

Mold is not the only micro-organism that amplifies in damp spaces.

Bacteria may be more prevalent and of more concern.

I have many many clients that when biomass was removed from habitable

spaces continued to react until the biomass was also removed from the

interstitial spaces.

Maybe it wasn't strictly or only the mold, but " something " was there;

the removal of which made the difference between habitable and not

habitable.

Carl Grimes

Healthy Habitats LLC

> -------------- Original message ----------------------

> From: Geyer <mgeyer@... <mailto:mgeyer%40atg1.com> >

> > For what it is worth....

> >

> > I understand that the hubbub of this thread is the admissibility of

> > Shoemaker’s testimony. However, what I find appalling is the

> > statement in this brief that....six employees sought benefits after

> > mold was discovered in a wall cavity at their office. If this is

> > true, what BS! Wall cavities are un-occupied interstitial spaces

> > within a structure. Moreover, there are few, if any, structures

> > that don’t have mold spores in their interstitial spaces, and there

> > is plenty of data and research to show that biomass in wall cavities

> > does not significantly affect the occupied space; even if the cavity

> > is black with hyphae and spores. If the mold was present in the

> > occupied space, I would be more sympathetic to the claims of the

> > plaintiffs, because I for one believe inhaled biomass causes harm –

> > some more and some less. But mold in a wall cavity..... What a

> > bunch of bull. There must be more to this case than the brief as

> > written by Courtroom News. The pathway to exposure is just not well

> > developed.

> >

> > --

> > Geyer, PE, CIH, CSP

> > President

> > KERNTEC Industries, Inc.

> > Bakersfield, California

> > www.kerntecindustries.com

> >

> > On 9/29/06 4:16 AM, " snk1955@... <mailto:snk1955%40aol.com> " <snk1955@... <mailto:snk1955%40aol.com> > wrote:

> >

> > >

> > > Hi Guys,

> > >

> > > I got a lot of requests from you all for the docs of this case. I

> > > am traveling and don't have my files with me. Be home Tues. Will

> > > mail them out then. In the meantime, here is 's

> > > publishing of the matter. Or, there is a phone number at the

> > > bottom of the article that one can call to get the

> > > docs.

> > >

> > > Sharon

> > >

> > > COURTROOM NEWS

> > > <http://www.harrismartin.com/GenerateArticlePDF.cfm?articleid=752

> > > 2>

> > >

> > > Date: 26 September 2006

> > > Court Allows Shoemaker Testimony without Frye Hearing

> > > ANNAPOLIS, Md. < land’s intermediate appellate court held

> > > Sept. 20 that diagnostic and treatment methods used by mold expert

> > > Dr. Ritchie Shoemaker were sufficiently accepted that they need

> > > not be subject to a Frye hearing for admissibility. Montgomery

> > > Mutual Insurance Co. v. Chesson, et al., No. 1270 (Md. Ct. Sp.

> > > App.).

> > >

> > > Ruling in a workers’ compensation case, the land Court of

> > > Special Appeals affirmed a trial court order allowing Dr.

> > > Shoemaker’s testimony that several church workers sustained

> > > sick-building syndrome from workplace exposure to mold.

> > >

> > > phine Chesson and five other employees of the Baltimore

> > > Washington Conference of the United Methodist Church in Columbia,

> > > Md., sought benefits after mold was discovered in a wall cavity at

> > > their offices in November 2002.

> > >

> > > The Workers’ Compensation Commission found for the church and its

> > > insurer, Montgomery Mutual Insurance Co., on three claims and

> > > awarded partial benefits to the three other claimants.

> > >

> > > The six workers petitioned for consolidation and review by the

> > > County Circuit Court and the petition was granted.

> > >

> > > Montgomery Mutual moved to exclude the testimony of Dr. Shoemaker

> > > of Pokomoke, Md., who had examined each claimant and diagnosed

> > > sick-building syndrome caused by exposure to mold.

> > >

> > > Montgomery Mutual argued that Shoemaker’s methods of diagnosing

> > > and treating mold exposure are not generally accepted by the

> > > scientific community and should be excluded under land’s

> > > Frye- analysis (Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013, 1014 [D.C.

> > > Cir. 1923]; v. State, 283 Md. 374, 381 [1978]).

> > >

> > > The claimants argued that a Frye- hearing was unnecessary as

> > > Shoemaker would testify as a treating physician.

> > >

> > > County Circuit Judge Moylan agreed, and declined to

> > > order an admissibility hearing.

> > >

> > > Judge Moylan explained that Dr. Shoemaker testified that he takes

> > > patients’ history, conducts examinations and conducts blood and

> > > other tests before making a diagnosis. Those procedures are not

> > > uncommon, the judge said.

> > >

> > > Judge Moylan ruled, according to a transcript, 'we’re talking

> > > about a board-certified physician, who has devoted, apparently, in

> > > the last five or six years, more than fifty percent of his time to

> > > this area of specialty, and I’m satisfied that this is not a

> > > Frye- situation,' it’s OEdiagnosis by a medical practitioner,

> > > and he, while they have not adopted, or adapted his publications,

> > > and things that he has developed; he’s published widely in his

> > > field, he’s gone to law school, and consulted, and he’s indicated

> > > he’s worked with a number of other doctors in this area; I’m

> > > satisfied that he’s qualified to render opinions in this area, and

> > > his opinions would be admissible in the things you mentioned that

> > > go to their weight, rather than their admissibility.'

> > >

> > > At trial, the jury ruled for all six appellees, finding they

> > > suffered compensable accidental injuries from mold exposure.

> > >

> > > Montgomery Mutual appealed the verdict and Judge Moylan’s decision

> > > to allow Dr. Shoemaker to testify to land’s Court of Special

> > > Appeals, which affirmed.

> > >

> > > 'Because of the nature of the proffered scientific evidence in

> > > this case, we reject appellant’s contention that the court erred

> > > or abused its discretion by not applying the Frye- test to the

> > > testimony of Dr. Shoemaker,' the Court of Special Appeals held.

> > >

> > > The appellate court quoted extensively from Shoemaker’s deposition

> > > testimony about his methods of diagnosis, particularly his

> > > treatment of patients suffering from pfisteria in the 1990s, and

> > > his method of treating patients believed to have been exposed to

> > > biotoxins.

> > >

> > > Dr. Shoemaker testified that the tests he conducts for hormone and

> > > other abnormalities arose 'from basic science published,' the

> > > Court of Special Appeals said, quoting Shoemaker.

> > >

> > > 'In reviewing and comparing the methodologies, it is evident that

> > > Dr. Shoemaker employs different tests and strategies to treat the

> > > medical conditions of his patients, in general and, appellees, in

> > > particular,' the Court of Special Appeals said.

> > >

> > > 'We agree with the court, however, that there are certain tests

> > > that Dr. Shoemaker performs that are not so unorthodox that would

> > > warrant subjecting them to a Frye- analysis; e.g., patients

> > > fill out forms concerning medical history, the doctor runs several

> > > blood tests and performs physical examinations,' the court said.

> > >

> > > The Court of Special Appeals concluded that while Dr. Shoemaker’s

> > > methods may differ in part from many of his colleagues, 't is

> > > clear from Dr. Shoemaker’s testimony that these practices have

> > > garnered acceptance among peers in this field, which would serve

> > > as support for the court’s acceptance of him as an expert and

> > > bolster the conclusion that he could render opinions as to the

> > > cause of the illnesses sustained by appellees.'

> > >

> > > 'Significantly, as we noted in Myers,' the Court of Special

> > > Appeals held, citing Myers v. Celotex Corp. (88 Md. App. 442, 460

> > > [1991]), cert. denied, Fibreboard Corp. v. Myers, 325 Md. 249

> > > [1992]), 'the finder of fact would have been free to discredit Dr.

> > > Shoemaker’s testimony in light of the testimony of other experts

> > > regarding their different methods and opposing views. The fact

> > > that there were opposing viewpoints based upon other generally

> > > accepted methodologies, however, does not lead to the conclusion

> > > that Dr. Shoemaker’s testimony should have been excluded.'

> > >

> > > Gerald F. Gay of Arnold, Sevel & Gay in Baltimore is counsel for

> > > the Chesson plaintiffs-appellees.

> > >

> > > Montgomery Mutual Insurance Co. is represented by Cursom.

> > >

> > > Document is Available

> > > Call or

> > > Search www.harrismartin.com

> > > Opinion Ref# MOL-0610-01

> > >

> > > Check out the new AOL

> > > <http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/1615326657x4311227241x4298082137/ao

> > > l?redir=http %3A%2F%2Fwww%2Eaol%2Ecom%2Fnewaol> . Most

> > > comprehensive set of free safety and security tools, free access

> > > to millions of high-quality videos from across the web, free AOL

> > > Mail and more.

> > >

> >

>

> FAIR USE NOTICE:

>

> This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not

> always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are

> making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding

> of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy,

> scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this

> constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided

> for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title

> 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed

> without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in

> receiving the included information for research and educational

> purposes. For more information go to:

> http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use

> copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go

> beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright

> owner.

September 29, 2006

I speak from 34 years of design/build, mostly residential, in central

Florida where some days, but not all we do experience high wind loads.

Unfortunately, in our area one need only carry a smoke stick to see

what happens around electrical outlets, and window sills. ~Cheryl

September 30, 2006

, Yes, I agree with you that there should be a exposure assessment on the case for them to establish the causation. I can't comment much on building science since I am not a expert on that. However, I have some thoughts to share with everyone. (1) Have you seen a purple dinosaur? It is much easier to prove that a purple dinosaur exist than the opposite. All you have to do is find "one" (in a little "box" came with a remote control?). However, it is much difficult to prove that they don't exist. The best a scientist can say is that "it was not found during our research/investigation". If the study is extensive, then the possibility of their existence is low (i.g. not significant?). (2) How significant is a "school shooting"? How many percentage of high

school students die in a school shooting? Do each one of them die 0.000001% (just a guess %), or some of them die 100%? Is it significant to the general public? Is it significant to the parents who lost their children? Should all school be closed? Should something be done (remediation) to prevent it if you know there is a problem and a possibility that can lead to it? How much MONEY are we going to spend on the prevention program? (3) How much money do we have to remove mold in wall cavity? For leaky or not-so-leaky building? Can we seal that wall cavity in a leaky building if budget is a issue? For sensitive occupants or not-yet-to-be-sensitized occupants? For employee who is likely to sue or not like to sue? For the home of just a mediocre kid or the next Einstein, Mother Theresa, or Dr. King who won't become one if

they become asthmatic from mold exposure during childhood (and how are we gonna tell the difference)? I guess it all come down to how we can best (risk assessment?) spend our money. Wei Tang QLAB Geyer wrote: Wayne:I cannot provide you a bibliography. I

don't keep them and don't have thetime to develop them, given the amount of literature I review on a monthlybasis. I did a quick, 2-second scan of my Golden Nuggets files on thecomputer, and I cannot find even a non-peer review article on this specificsubject. I develop bibliographies when paid to do it. Pony-up and I willendeavor to do just that. Sorry, I can't fulfill your request. Moreover,most of what I read comes from non-peer-reviewed literature.This said, one of the last case-studies I listened to that is relevant tothis thread was from Dr. Philip Morley regarding a school that had aconstruction defect in the exterior weather barrier that allowed wind-drivenrain to permeated the hollow-cavity wall system of much of the structure onthe wind-ward side of the building. The wall cavities were black with mold(based on his photographs) and after taking over 300 air samples inside theschool, he did not find ANY

evidence to suggest that the IAQ was affected bywhat was inside the wall cavities. On the other hand, I listened to a PE atan AIHA conference several years back (I believe it was in San Diego, CA)where this person was "showing" how mold in wall cavities communicates tothe occupied space and "affects" occupants. (There is a reason I use thosewords in quotes.) This person went to a residential, detached SFD that hada construction defect in the exterior weather barrier and had substantialmold in wall cavities. After installing a fan door on the home and inducinga negative pressure differential across the building envelope that simulateda 70-mph steady-state wind pressure, this person collected several airsamples 3-in from electrical wall outlets and "showed" significantcommunication and migration of spores from the wall cavities and into theoccupied space. After the presentation, I asked two simple questions....Howoften

does your home experience a 70-mph steady-state wind pressure?, and,How often are you breathing air at the elevation of your electrical outlets?His answer...Never and None. I sat down.Let me also add that I have built several thousand residential units andseveral hundred commercial/institutional buildings since 1975. None ofthese buildings represented swiss cheese wall assemblies, and they certainlydid not leak like some folks on this list allege buildings to leak. I havealso demolished maybe a thousand structures in my time. When I am involvedin a demolition, I always go through building assemblies to observe thearchitecture, assemblage, materials and systems and see what works, whatdoesn't, and the performance of the assemblies. (You should try this. Ilearn a lot from it.) I also paid my way through college replacing (maybe ahundred) rotten bathroom floors in off-campus student housing - it is whatgot me

interested in biologicals on construction materials way back in theearly 1980's when no one cared about mold. My air sampling often involvedstacked samplers and I used the University's plant pathology lab toID the molds present. Only when there were obvious holes in walls did Ifind a corresponding bioaerosol in the occupied space. I should also pointout that most of these structures had plaster wall systems - not sheetrock,and they were often painted with an oil-based enamel paint system.Therefore, the type of construction assembly is a significant factoraffecting communication. Bottom line....I know that most folks who opinemold and the performance of building assemblies, don't have squat when iscomes to practical building experience! Moreover their opinions are oftenbased on narrow, limited cases or experiences. I often ask those thatdisagree with my opinions...Just what is your construction experience? Howmany

structures have you built? I not saying that I am always correct, andI appreciate being shown where I am wrong. So show me....All this said, I am not saying that there is no communication from a wallcavity to the occupied space. Of course there is. But is it significant?Is it sufficient to cause harm? Is the pathway well-developed? Is itsignificant over time, or periodic of short duration and only under limitedcircumstances and/or events (e.g., the 70-mph wind)? Is it limited tolocalized areas of the structure (e.g., bathrooms and/or kitchens that areoften negatively pressurized), the wind-ward side of the building, or is itsystemic across the building envelope? There are so many factors that needto be considered when evaluating building ventilation rates andinfiltration/exfiltration of wall assemblies and the building envelope.Yes...there are building that leak like swiss cheese, and there are thosethat

don't leak at all, and there are a bunch in the middle. To generalizeis to be mistaken.As a bounce-back, please show me peer-reviewed literature that clearlydemonstrates significant communication per this thread. I know there areseveral out there, and, in my opinion, they ALL have faults and they werenot practical or realistic or were very, very limited in scope andapplication. And because I don't keep bibliographies, I cannot cite theseeither. Tis a fault of mine.Bottom line....Yes there is communication. However, based on my experience,it is more often than not, all structures measured equally, insignificant.BTW...I am a bit behind the times. What is IHMO?-- Geyer, PE, CIH, CSPPresidentKERNTEC Industries, Inc.Bakersfield, Californiawww.kerntecindustries.comOn 9/29/06 10:49 AM, "Wane A. Baker, P.E., CIH"<wabmichaelsengineering> wrote:> :> > you stated:> > "...and there is plenty of data and research to show that biomass in> wall cavities does not significantly affect the occupied space; even> if the cavity is black with hyphae and spores..."> > a few specific cites to the "data and research" from the peer-reviewed> literature would be appreciated.> > you certainly have no shortage of opinion and no hesitation to express> same. in this case, however, I believe you're simply wrong.> > I hear similar arguments all the time: "hey, we don't live in the> walls" or "spores in wall cavities can't/don't migrate into the> occupied space". to that I say "horsehockey".> > interstitial spaces certainly do communicate with the occupied space.> not all such spaces, of

course, and not under all conditions. but> communicate they do.> > acting as settling chambers, wall cavities collect fungal spores (and> other particulate matter) from both outdoors and indoors throughout> the life of the building. this certainty is what makes the use of> wall cavity sampling, in my experience, so tenuous and so challenging> to interpret (except perhaps on a comparative basis).> > this form of mass transfer would not occur if> infiltration/exfiltration didn't carry those particles through the> structure (e.g., the wall assembly).> > I always enjoy your posts, and generally agree with -- indeed applaud> -- your passion and your perspective. but, IMHO "for what it is> worth" in this case ain't much.> > Wane> > <><><><><><><><><><><>> Wane

A. Baker, P.E., CIH> Division Manager, Indoor Air Quality> MICHAELS ENGINEERING> "Real Professionals. Real Solutions."> > Phone , ext. 484> Cell > Fax > > mailto:wabmichaelsengineering> On the web at: http://www.michaelsengineering.com> > "To love what you do and feel that it matters - how could anything be> more fun?" > - Graham Wei Tang, Ph.D.Lab Director QLAB5 DriveCherry Hill, NJ 08003www.QLABusa.com

September 30, 2006

Stacey:

See my response below.....in BLUE

–

If you ever have a chance to attend one of Joe Lstiburek’s presentations (Yes I have), or Tooley, or Prof. Straube; I would love you to bring this to their attention, as so much of what they cover has everything to do (Oh no it does not, and to say so makes me believe you don’t really understand construction assemblies.) with what you’re saying doesn’t exist (I never said it does not exist. Re-read what I wrote.). Lstiburek will be presenting at the upcoming IAQA Conference – you should try and make it. (It is on my calendar, but I am not yet confirmed due to a potential conflict with the dates of the conference.)

S.C.

From: iequality [mailto:iequality ] On Behalf Of Geyer

Sent: Friday, September 29, 2006 2:17 PM

To: iequality

Subject: Re: , Appellate Ruling Shoemaker Proof of Causation, Mycotoxicosis