How Can a Judge Rule This Way before a Trial? What Options are Available?

[Guest guest]

Headline Legal News from lexisONE

Georgia Federal Judge Rejects Plaintiffs' Expert Testimony In Mold

Case

Jazairi v. Royal Oaks Apartment Associates L.P., et al.

Mealey Publications

Aug. 17, 2005

SAVANNAH, Ga. -- Although a Georgia federal judge on June 23 ruled

that plaintiff expert testimony failed to prove that mold contained

within an apartment actually caused the alleged injuries, the judge

allowed claims regarding porous personal property allegedly damaged

by mold to stand (Jazairi v. Royal Oaks Apartment Associates

L.P., et al., No. 404cv091, S.D. Ga.).

In this premises liability and mold exposure suit, Jazairi

sued Royal Oaks Apartments Associations L.P. and L.

Management Inc. (collectively, Royal Oaks) for damages arising from

her exposure to mold in an apartment. Personal injuries alleged

include memory loss, fatigue, malaise and interstitial thickening

bilaterally in her lungs.

Before the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Georgia,

Royal Oaks moved to exclude the causation testimony of Dr. Eckardt

Johanning. Royal Oaks also moved for summary judgment. Jazairi

opposed the motions and moved to exclude certain defense experts.

Judge B. Avant Edenfield addressed Royal Oaks' argument that

Johanning is not a treating physician, but an expert employed only

to create causation testimony for Jazairi's case.

" He [Johanning] is unable to establish through scientifically

acceptable methodology that Jazairi was injured by the molds

contained within her Royal Oaks apartment because he fails to

properly rule in the specific molds contained in her apartment and

rule out several potential causes, " the judge said.

The judge continued that there is no scientific evidence suggesting

that Royal Oaks is responsible for Jazairi's injuries resulting from

exposure to mold.

Copyright 2005, LexisNexis, Division of Elsevier Inc. All

Rights Reserved.