Re[2]: How Can a Judge Rule This Way before a Trial? What Options are Available?

[Guest guest]

Serena, I had so much proof (before and after MRIs, x-rays, tests),

but Johanning did nothing for me. Now I'm wondering who he was really

working for. Grand St. Medical, here in Kingston, totally abandoned me

and their pulmonary specialist supposedly left the firm and went to

work for United HealthCare, where I was sickened. It's disgusting to

know that *they* are aware of our lack of energy and that most of us

are financially ruined after exposure, so they literally get away with

murder!

Barth

TOXIC MOLD SURVEY: www.presenting.net/sbs/sbssurvey.html

---

SE> I don't see a problem with that approach. It makes sense. What I don't get,

is why Johanning could not have reviewed the clinician's records and have his

opinion be entirely admissible as a

SE> consulting physician. It's done every day of the week, and admissible in

every (other) court in country. The judge might have chosen to bar and testimony

on research Johanning didn't perform

SE> himself or within his area of specialty, but to bar him altogether seems

ludicrous and prejudicial - especially if the trial HADN'T EVEN BEGUN and

Johanning's claimed credentials weren't in

SE> question.

SE> Something is wrong with this - either the motivating facts or the reporting

of them are offbase somewhere.

SE> " Carl E. Grimes " <grimes@...> wrote:

SE> Yes and no, Serena. Again, I'm not an attorney, but my understanding

SE> is that a treating physician can make certain claims that a non-

SE> treating expert can't - and visa versa. Each has an area of expertise

SE> that they should stay within and each has a different set of

SE> qualifications for testifying.

SE> Testifying as a treating physician allows clinical findings of that

SE> individual but not necessarily scientific findings on causation.

SE> Testifying as a non-treating physician allows scientific causation

SE> but doesn't necessarily address that specific patient. If Johanning

SE> had been treating the patient and was also an expert on causation

SE> then he might have been allowed to testify to both.

SE> To further complicate, neither addresses the issue of whether or not

SE> the patient was actually exposed as claimed. That, ideally, is where

SE> the environmental expert can close the loop by testifying whether or

SE> not the claimed exposure source was actually present and the patient

SE> was exposed to it. Or if something else caused the problem - one of

SE> the other points the judge made.

SE> Carl Grimes

SE> Healthy Habitats LLC

SE> Serena

SE> (Drywall Casserole with Gummint Cheese. It's what's for dinner!)

SE> ---------------------------------

SE> FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click.

SE>