MD COSA rules doctor's testimony was admissible in mold case

[Guest guest]

MD COSA rules doctor's testimony was admissible in mold case

Daily Record, The (Baltimore), Sep 21, 2006 by Ostrovsky

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4183/is_20060921/ai_n1675

1525

The testimony of a doctor who uses controversial methods to diagnose

and treat injuries from exposures to toxins was properly admitted in

a County case alleging sick-building syndrome, the Court of

Special Appeals has held.

The decision affirms a jury's finding in favor of six employees of

the Baltimore Washington Conference of the United Methodist Church,

who alleged that mold at their Columbia office building made them

sick.

Their witness, Dr. Ritchie C. Shoemaker of Pokomoke City, employs

visual contrast tests and drugs intended to lower cholesterol to

diagnose and treat people who suffer from injuries caused by

exposure to toxins.

The jury's findings were appealed by the Montgomery Mutual Insurance

Co., the church's workers' compensation insurer. Montgomery Mutual

claimed the County Circuit Court judge erred by admitting

Shoemaker's testimony without subjecting it to the Frye-

doctrine.

" [T]here 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, " wrote Judge Arrie W. for the court.

Advertisement

The Frye- doctrine refers to the 1923 holding of the D.C.

Circuit Court of Appeals in Frye v. United States, which was adopted

by the land Court of Appeals in a 1978 case, v. State.

In , the state's top court held that " as long as the scientific

community remains significantly divided, results of controversial

techniques will not be admitted. "

The previously unreported Court of Special Appeals opinion was

reported yesterday at the request of lawyer Gerald F. Gay, who

represented phine Chesson and five other conference employees.

" I think it's an important case because, as far as I can determine,

this is the first case in land that deals with the issue of

toxic mold and its causal relationship to injury, " Gay said.

J. Courson, the insurance company's attorney, did not return a

call for comment yesterday.

From families to Pfiesteria

The appellate court's holding " demonstrates that the courts here in

land recognize that [sick-building syndrome] exists and that it

is within a province of a jury to find that it exists, " Gay said.

Two forms of mold in the Columbia building were discovered by

maintenance workers who were investigating the source of a foul odor

in November 2002.

The six plaintiffs in the current case filed claims with the

Workers' Compensation Commission against their employer and

Montgomery Mutual.

The commission awarded partial compensation to three of the

employees and disallowed the claims of the other three, according to

the Court of Special Appeals opinion.

All six employees filed a petition for judicial review in

County Circuit Court.

The six were examined by Shoemaker, who diagnosed them with sick-

building syndrome. They wanted to have the doctor testify on their

behalf.

Montgomery Mutual filed a motion to exclude his testimony, arguing

that his diagnosis and treatment methods for mold-related illnesses

have not been accepted by the scientific community.

The motion was denied by the trial judge, who found that Shoemaker

was not subject to the Frye- test.

A jury then found that the six employees sustained accidental injury

as a result of their exposure to the mold.

According to the appellate opinion, Shoemaker is board certified in

the field of family medicine and has been licensed in land since

1980.

The opinion includes portions of Shoemaker's deposition, where he

explained that he has been interested in " biologically-produced

neurotoxins since 1997. "

At that time, the doctor said he started treating fishermen who

became sick after coming in contact with fish from the Pocomoke

River that had unusual lesions caused by marine organism Pfiesteria.

In July 1997, Shoemaker discovered that he successfully treated one

patient by giving her the drug Cholestyramine, which is usually used

to lower cholesterol.

Later, the doctor said, he started using a visual contrast test

developed by another doctor to help diagnose patients suffering from

illnesses caused by exposure to toxins.

In the appellate opinion, stressed that Shoemaker used more

conventional methods, such as blood tests, to diagnose his patients.

Moreover, wrote, Shoemaker had published articles and worked

with colleagues on the topic of exposure to toxins and had devoted

75 percent of his practice to treating patients with such

afflictions.

" It 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 the [employees], " wrote.

DAVIS: GARNERED ACCEPTANCE

WHAT THE COURT HELD

[Guest guest]

It's interesting how the arguments that used to work for the insurance

companies, etc. consistantly a year or two in trying to discredit people

like Dr. Shoemaker are failing to now.

For example, a lot of people realize that cholestyramine binds low-molecular

weight toxins to pull them out of the bilary system.. in addition to

lowering cholesterol.

[Guest guest]

I have seen references in PubMed of doctors using CSM for a long

time for liver problems. It just seemed like they used it as last

resort since it was off label use for product. I saw lots of

references to using it in hospital settings for patients with liver

disease as last ditch effort to save liver, so I don't think it is

new. Maybe new for using it in diagnosis of mycotoxin illness

before any liver disease symptoms have shown up yet, preventing the

tragedy of end stage liver disease...not waiting until it's so far

advanced.

--- In , LiveSimply <quackadillian@...>

wrote:

>

> It's interesting how the arguments that used to work for the

insurance

> companies, etc. consistantly a year or two in trying to discredit

people

> like Dr. Shoemaker are failing to now.

>

> For example, a lot of people realize that cholestyramine binds low-

molecular

> weight toxins to pull them out of the bilary system.. in addition

to

> lowering cholesterol.

>

[Guest guest]

We have a friend who is an oncology nurse. She told us that CSM is

used for chemo patients to take the toxins out of their bodies after

treatments, and this is in a hospital setting!

-

> >

> > It's interesting how the arguments that used to work for the

> insurance

> > companies, etc. consistantly a year or two in trying to

discredit

> people

> > like Dr. Shoemaker are failing to now.

> >

> > For example, a lot of people realize that cholestyramine binds

low-

> molecular

> > weight toxins to pull them out of the bilary system.. in

addition

> to

> > lowering cholesterol.

> >

>