A Loud Call to Our Elected Officials for Help

[Guest guest]

How much do you think people can take? How many people have to have their lives disrupted, health injured, homes destroyed, family life upset, savings exhausted, and jobs lost before some meaningful recognition of the health problems due to exposure to toxic levels of mold is addressed?

This is only going to happen if our elected officials take real leadership roles in helping people on this issue. Some of our leadership are trying to address this, but so many are not. We are grateful to those who are trying to help and should be working vigorously to unseat those who are talking out of both sides of their mouths on this issue.

How can so many people across the entire United States, including our children, have health problems due to exposure but the medical industry, the insurance industry and our country's leadership fail us by not accepting that exposure to toxic levels of mold is a real and serious health threat? Their failure to address this issue in a meaningful way not only allows so many of us to be further exposed, but also cause so many of us not to receive adequate and appropriate health treatment because the medical industry, by and large, does not accept that our multitude of health problems find its source in exposure to fungi, bacteria, and yeast and their by products.

Why are a laundry list of mycotoxins on many states' Hazardous Substance lists, and even our federal lists, but for some reason, exposure to these mycotoxins in our homes, schools, and places of work is not a problem? Would someone please explain that to me? Why is our country trying so hard to make certain that we are not exposed to biological warfare but the biological hazards that so many of us are exposed to in our homes, our school and our places of work is not a problem? Am I the only person not getting this?

The three Houston Chronicle articles below sicken me. I hope you read them and take any action you can to get your elected officials off their duffs and working on what is a real and serious problem. If mold isn't a problem, then why did this Texas legislator have it removed from his house? Why did he move his family out of the house while the work was being done? And talk about special interests: What was Farmers Insurance hoping to accomplish by making sure the elected official was "taken care of?" What does Farmers Insurance know about the dangers of exposure to toxic levels of mold but fail to publicly acknowledge? If mold isn't a problem, then why do we have Tools for Schools, that addresses, in part, mold exposure and children's health in the classroom? If mold isn't a problem, then why are so so many people across this country reporting similar medical problems but the medical industry the insurance industry and our government refuse, by and large, to acknowledge the problem in a meaningful way? If I hear "anecdotal" from a doctor

one more time, I am going to scream! They must think we are all stupid.

Be serious: the vast vast majority of us have neither the time nor the inclination to make up these medical problems; for that matter, many of us have been sick for years with no really good explanation from our doctors as to why we have been sick with so many medical problems. Like so many, I was completely shocked to finally be able to tie the exposure to my medical problems. It is too much for any rational person to believe, let alone understand. But to attempt to understand, we must, because no one else is going to do it for us. This has been a nightmare for many with hardly a friend in sight.

I have also included an article about health problems at an IBM facility in North Carolina whose building is contaminated by mold due to a massive water leak that wasn't cleaned up appropriately. (How many of us have heard that story?) The reports of the health problems by the employees in this building mirrors so many of the health problems reported by so many of us across the country. I guess these are just anecdotal reportings. Would someone please get on the ball and investigate these "anecdotal" medical problems? How many people have to suffer before a united effort is made to help people to get well and to not get sick in the first place?

What a disgrace! Only 26 of our United States Congressmen have signed on to support Congressman Conyers' HR 1268: The US Toxic Mold Safety and Protection Act! This is not a good sign. EVERYONE READING THIS: CALL OR EMAIL YOUR MEMBER OF CONGRESS AND TELL THEM YOU EXPECT THEM TO PROTECT THE HEALTH OF HIS/HER CONSTITUENTS BY SUPPORTING THIS LEGISLATION. There can be no excuse for our elected officials not to work on protecting our health and addressing this issue, that is, unless they are protecting someone else's interests. Don't let them off the hook.

Again, thank you to the elected officials who are trying to help. We are grateful to you. On behalf of so many, ENOUGH IS ENOUGH. Do something about this!

Mulvey son

HoustonChronicle.com -- http://www.HoustonChronicle.com | Section: Editorial

Aug. 8, 2003, 11:51PM

SPECIAL TREATMENT

Handling of lawmaker's mold insurance claim questioned

State Rep. Joe Nixon, the legislator behind proposed caps on medical malpractice damages embraced by insurance companies and the recipient of more than $300,000 in mold damage insurance payouts on a home that tax records show has a market value of $369,500, is "incensed" anyone would think his influence is for sale. Nixon may find many Texans have trouble not thinking that.

Insurance matters, including insurer-driven reforms aimed at lowering their liability for burgeoning mold damage claims, were among the major issues in play during the regular legislative session that ended June 2. Nixon played a key role on insurance-related tort reform, tirelessly promoting legislation calling for a controversial limit to noneconomic damages in medical malpractice cases.

What almost no one knew during the session was that Nixon was working through a residential mold claim with his insurer, Farmers Insurance Group. When one former company official, Isabelle Arnold, then the firm's national mold manager, sought to deny the Houston lawmaker's claim to replace a driveway and provide new landscaping, other executives allegedly intervened to ingratiate Farmers with Nixon.

In a May 4 e-mail, the session still in full swing, a Farmers employee wrote that company officials "called me about this claim and wanted Mr. Nixon to be a friend of Farmers in the legislative session. Each one strongly suggested that an additional payment would be very helpful to the cause."

Regarding the e-mail, Nixon said he was ``incensed that someone would write a memo implying they could acquire my influence." Nixon, at the least, should have taken the ethical high road by disclosing his personal dealings with Farmers during the time he was working to further policies helpful to the insurance industry.

The accusation by Arnold that Farmers regularly gave preferential treatment to "buddies" and influential lawmakers, if true, will come as a disappointment to those who believed insurers' claims at the Capitol of wanting merely a fair playing field on which to do business in Texas.

Insurance companies willing to curry legislative favor through overly generous coverage or payments for uncovered losses reduce the profits of their shareholders and make up revenues by charging higher premiums or giving stingier payouts for less-well-connected policyholders. At one point during the crisis last year, Farmers even threatened to pull out of the Texas homeowners market, contending it couldn't afford to continue doing business here. That would have left thousands of its customers in the lurch.

A County grand jury is investigating the case. Any wrongdoing ferreted out warrants a vigorous prosecution.

Even worse is the potential perversion of democracy when moneyed interests lavish special favors on lawmakers. It is wrong for powerful companies to provide lawmakers perks they wouldn't give all their customers.

HoustonChronicle.com -- http://www.HoustonChronicle.com | Section: Editorial

This article is: http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/story.hts/editorial/2039304

HoustonChronicle.com -- http://www.HoustonChronicle.com | Section: Viewpoints, Outlook

Aug. 8, 2003, 10:23PM

Nixon collected as Texans were left out in the mold

By JOHN R. COBARRUVIAS

DURING the summer of 2001, hundreds of homeowners across Texas testified on the subject of mold contamination of their homes. Many recalled months of strange rashes, nosebleeds and upper respiratory illnesses, and told of spending thousands of dollars for exploratory medical tests ranging from cancer to lupus. Some lost their memory. Others lost their homes. And others, such as the insurance lobbyists, lawyers and tort reformers, claimed "mold is gold" and said mold claims were "frivolous," based upon hysteria not scientific facts.

And then there were those who stood watching as homeowners in tears pleaded for help from consumer groups and the state Legislature, while they were quietly collecting their own share of the "gold." Such is the case of State Rep. Joe Nixon, R-Houston.

In 2001, while hearings and legislation was being crafted to address mold claims, Nixon received more than $300,000 for his own mold claim. Like many mold victims, his life was disrupted while his family spent a year in a crowded apartment during mold remediation at their home. But unlike many victims, he kept silent about the dangers of toxic mold, the cost of remediation, the stress upon his family and the urgent need to address mold contamination.

Nixon had an opportunity to address the Texas Department of Insurance during one of many of historic mold hearings held across the state and in Austin. His position, as a Texas representative, would have validated the claims by other homeowners affected by mold contamination. His own experience of having his family life disrupted, his financial situation threatened and his emotions stretched would have put a halt to the opponents' claims of "hysteria," "frivolous" and "mold is gold."

But he didn't. Instead, he stood silently by while others were foreclosing on their homes and struggling to keep their children in good health, as well as struggling with their insurance companies.

Later in the 2003 legislation session, Nixon sponsored the tort reform bill on behalf of the insurance industry and tort reform groups. These were the same organizations that were claiming toxic mold had driven up the cost of insurance, forcing companies out of business. Members of these organizations testified at the mold hearings, and some were appointed to the Department of Insurance Mold Task Force. All the while, Nixon was collecting $300,000 on his own "legitimate" mold claim and crafting an insurance welfare bill, House Bill 4.

This hypocrisy is not limited to Nixon.

In 2001, the Attorney General's Office in Lubbock was evacuated and remediated because of mold contamination at the owner's expense. And in 1995, the Texas Governor's Mansion was remediated at a cost of $50,000 to taxpayers. So, while Nixon's family, 's family and the employees of Attorney General Cornyn were safe from the hazards of toxic mold, hundreds of Texas families, looking for help from their leaders, were left, out in the mold.

The current focus of Rep. Nixon's mold claim is on whether he received preferential treatment from Farmers Insurance Group, but the focus should also be on the moral aspect. How could an elected leader stand idle, while his people are in financial ruin, poor health and pleading for help? How could Nixon ignore the hearings and families who have been ravaged financially, physically and mentally by mold contamination while he collects on his own claim and crafts legislation on behalf of those who provided his mold-related payments?

This lack of compassion, in itself, should be criminal.

HoustonChronicle.com -- http://www.HoustonChronicle.com | Section: Viewpoints, Outlook

This article is: http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/story.hts/editorial/outlook/2038755

HoustonChronicle.com -- http://www.HoustonChronicle.com | Section: Clay Robison

Aug. 8, 2003, 11:56PM

Just a friendly little Texas mold claim?

By CLAY ROBISON

Copyright 2003 Houston Chronicle

STATE Rep. Joe Nixon says he is "incensed" about all the fuss over what he considers his "private" business dealings with Farmers Insurance Group, and, having recently received an earful from the lawmaker, I am convinced -- of the anger, if not the privacy.

While his emotions over $300,000 in mold-related payments are running so high, Nixon also should take a moment or two to be embarrassed at being caught in something of a double standard.

With this year's GOP takeover of the Texas House, the Houston Republican emerged from Austin's minor leagues to become a champion of the corporate big guys' ongoing crusade to crush -- in a perfectly legal fashion, of course -- any lingering resistance from the little people.

Handed the chair of the House Civil Practices Committee, Nixon eagerly sponsored an overhaul of civil justice laws clamping new restrictions on access to the courthouse for consumers with grievances against businesses and their insurance companies.

He also co-authored Proposition 12, a constitutional amendment that not only would ratify new limits on some medical malpractice damages -- the official excuse for passing it -- but also allow future Legislatures to impose even more limits on other civil, damage awards as well.

What's more, Nixon and other supporters scheduled the election on Proposition 12 and all the other amendments for Sept. 13, a Saturday during football season, when turnout is likely to be miserably low, thus all but assuring voter approval.

Warming up for his new leadership role in the tort war last February, Nixon offered his opinion of how the homeowners' insurance crisis had been "primarily driven by a barrage of increasingly expensive mold claims."

He spoke then in an interview with his own law firm's in-house publication. & Akers, in which Nixon is a partner, specializes in representing defendants in medical malpractice and other lawsuits seeking damages.

"Between the mid-'90s and 2001 the average mold claim cost increased from $4,000 to $22,000; and by 2001, 70 percent of all mold claims filed nationally were filed in Texas," complained the $300,000 claimant.

Nixon, in the interview, acknowledged that some mold claims -- including, I assume, his own -- were legitimate. But he blamed much of the increase on a "cottage industry" of unregulated mold remediators and "experts," which the Legislature later attempted to address.

Now, County prosecutors are attempting to get to the bottom of an allegation made by a former executive of Farmers, who recently was fired, that at least $13,000 of the $300,000-plus paid Nixon on mold claims on his Houston home wasn't covered under his policy.

Isabelle Arnold, the company's former national mold manager, claimed that high-level Farmers officials forced the payment, made during the recent legislative session, to make sure Nixon was a "friend of Farmers."

Nixon has adamantly denied any preferential treatment, and Farmers insists all the payments were legitimate, including the $13,000, which paid for new landscaping and replaced a driveway damaged by workers during the remediation and remodeling process on the lawmaker's home.

Nobody has been charged with any crime, and there may not have been one. That is what County District Attorney Ronnie Earle's investigation is all about.

Nixon, in essence, contends that he is just one of the "little people" who got what he was owed from a big, bad insurance company.

Maybe, but forgive his constituents -- and other Farmers customers -- if they are a bit suspicious. Legislators can get phone calls answered that most "little people" can't.

"Little people" often have to give up or take their beefs against insurance companies and corporate America to the courthouse, if they can afford the hassle, have a complaint worthy of a lawyer's time and aren't preempted by still another "tort reform" restriction.

Nixon should try wearing their shoes for a while.

Robison is chief of the Chronicle's Austin Bureau. (clay.robison@...)

HoustonChronicle.com -- http://www.HoustonChronicle.com | Section: Clay Robison

This article is: http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/story.hts/editorial/2038687

Friday, July 11, 2003 12:00AM EDT

Mold lawsuits target IBM

Raleigh News and Observer

By KARIN RIVES, Staff Writer

A few days after 30,000 gallons of water flooded her IBM office building in April 2000, Ord began to feel sick.

Once an avid tennis player, she began suffering from debilitating fatigue and memory loss.

Now on long-term disability leave from her job as a senior financial analyst at IBM, Ord is one of several workers suing the computer giant, alleging that it failed to protect employees from toxic mold at the company's Research Triangle Park campus.

It's one of the first cases involving workplace mold to hit a North Carolina employer, but among a growing number of such suits brought against companies nationwide in recent years. With mold problems increasingly in the news and more lawyers willing to accept such cases, insurers have seen triple-digit increases in mold-related claims against owners of commercial buildings since 2000, according the Insurance Information Institute.

"There isn't a lot of science to back up these allegations, but trial lawyers work very hard to spin mold into gold," said Bob Hartwig, the Insurance Information Institute's chief economist. "A few years ago, these cases didn't exist at all, and there's no more mold today than ... three years ago. But trial lawyers have identified mold as a potentially lucrative source of income."

The RTP workers named in the suits say they want to take their cases to court to help other IBM employees who might still be exposed to hazards.

"I had a hard time believing there would be a mold problem at work," said , a 22-year IBM veteran who was a program manager when she began to suffer from severe muscle spasms and vertigo in 2000.

"My employer told me there wasn't mold in the building, and I believed them," she said. "It's been very disappointing."

IBM spokesman Lucy said the company can't comment on pending litigation. "However, our first priority is, and always has been, the health and safety of our employees," Lucy said.

, 43, and Ord, 40, filed a lawsuit in Durham County Superior Court in December. It was recently moved to U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina.

Their suit came on the heels of two other lawsuits filed in October last year in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina by two former IBM workers, Pendergraph and Penny Cozadd. Both sued IBM under the Americans with Disabilities Act, alleging that the company failed to accommodate them at work after they were exposed to mold.

Horn, the Durham lawyer representing and Ord, said he was recently retained by Pendergraph and Cozadd to file another lawsuit on their behalf. It will allege that the company willfully neglected to protect the women from a hazardous work environment, Horn said.

There is also a push to get other IBM workers to come forward.

The Alliance@IBM this week sent out a survey asking employees to divulge any health effects they suspect could be related to mold. The group, sponsored by the Communications Workers of America, was created several years ago as part of an effort to try to organize IBM workers at RTP and elsewhere.

"If they had been more truthful with us, maybe we wouldn't have these health problems," said Cozadd, a 42-year-old engineering specialist who had worked 17 years at IBM when she suddenly came down with severe allergic reactions that sent her to the emergency room.

She and Pendergraph, who shared an office in IBM's building 205, contend that they became ill after a leak caused water damage near their workspace in 2001. Both women were terminated from IBM in August, a few months after they filed discrimination complaints with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

"What happened to these workers was wrong," Horn said. "It has devastated their lives. And mold is such a simple thing to fix if you just spend a few dollars on repairs and maintenance."

Ord and allege in their lawsuit that IBM knew there was dangerous mold in the facility where they worked . Both were among employees who continued to work in the building after a portion of it flooded one weekend in April 2000.

"One of the fatal mistakes I believe was made, was that they took way too long to clean up the water-damaged material," said Ord, who worked 13 years at IBM before she went on long-term sick leave in November 2000. "I had to walk on these wet carpets to get to the bathroom or to meetings. I didn't think anything of it."

An analysis of samples of carpet and wallboard conducted by Research Triangle Institute, completed in July 2000, showed there was fungi -- including toxic molds -- in the building, their lawsuit says.

Health effects associated with toxic mold have not been thoroughly researched. But it's known that inhaling certain mold spores can cause problems ranging from skin rashes, nausea and respiratory problems to cancer, the Environmental Protection Agency says.

Sick building worries have led to a rash of mold-related lawsuits across the country in recent years.

In New Jersey, 16 state workers sued the owners and property managers of a downtown Trenton office building earlier this year, contending that they suffered asthma and other respiratory infections because of mold exposure. Dozens more cases have made the court dockets in other states.

In general, indoor air quality issues have received more attention in recent years, with mold topping the list, said Junker, a spokeswoman for the American Industrial Hygiene Association. Since the 1970s, buildings have been constructed more tightly to conserve energy -- in many cases at the expense of proper ventilation.

"That can create conditions that make it easier for mold to grow," Junker said.