Re: How Can a Judge Rule This Way before a Trial? What Optio...

[Guest guest]

Who knows the logic for this. Maybe it had to do with the testing of the

building in relation to Dr. Johanning's findings. Each of these mold cases are

complex litigation with many elements of case specific - what is allowed and

what is not.

Sharon

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 11/10/2005 11:08:37 AM Pacific Standard Time,

pushcrash@... writes:

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 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

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 question.

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

of them are offbase somewhere.

Much of what goes on in the courtroom over mold illnesses are just flat out

case specific. It could simply be a matter of the defense attorney

presenting a better argument of why not to allow Johanning than the plaintiff

attorney

was able to present of why to allow Johanning.

There are all kinds of obscure case law out there that get cited in various

court cases in an effort to influence the judge's rulings. Attorneys spend

countless hours understanding current case law and countering the other

attorney's with their own citings.

I don't know for certain, but I would be inclined to believe that the

defense may have presented better case law on the subject. If one feels a

judge's

ruling is in error, I know that in California, one can provide a Writ that is

reviewed by a higher court.

Sharon