Court of Opinion Amid Suits Over Mold,Experts Wear Two Hats

[Guest guest]

Because of the amount of new people that have joined the group I

thought it was time to repost this article.

KC

Wall Street Journal

This was on the front page and center column

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB116831654647871083.html

Court of Opinion Amid Suits Over Mold,Experts Wear Two Hats Authors

of Science PaperOften Cited by Defense Also Help in Litigation

By DAVID ARMSTRONG

January 9, 2007; Page A1

Soon after moving into a New York City apartment, Colin and Pamela

Fraser say, they began to suffer headaches, rashes, respiratory

infections and fatigue. They attributed it to mold.

But their lawsuit against the cooperative that owns the building hit

a roadblock when the court wouldn't let their medical expert testify

that mold caused their problems. This is " unsupported by the

scientific literature, " the state trial judge said.

She relied in part on a position paper from the American College of

Occupational and Environmental Medicine, or ACOEM. Citing a

substance some molds produce called mycotoxins, the paper

said " scientific evidence does not support the proposition that

human health has been adversely affected by inhaled mycotoxins in

the home, school, or office environment. "

The paper has become a key defense tool wielded by builders,

landlords and insurers in litigation. It has also been used to

assuage fears of parents following discovery of mold in schools. One

point that rarely emerges in these cases: The paper was written by

people who regularly are paid experts for the defense side in mold

litigation.

The ACOEM doesn't disclose this, nor did its paper. The professional

society's president, Tee Guidotti, says no disclosure is needed

because the paper represents the consensus of its membership and is

a statement from the society, not the individual authors.

The dual roles show how conflicts of interest can color debate on

emerging health issues and influence litigation related to it. Mold

has been a contentious matter since a Texas jury in 2001 awarded

$32.1 million to a family whose home was mold-infested. That award,

later reduced, and a couple of mold suits filed by famous people

like Ed McMahon and Brockovich helped trigger a surge in mold

litigation. Insurers and builders worried it would become a

liability disaster for them on the scale of asbestos.

The number of suits hasn't been as big as anticipated. One reason

appears to be the insurers' success in getting many states to

exclude mold coverage from homeowner's-insurance policies. But also

helping turn the tide, lawyers and doctors say, is the ACOEM report.

Building groups and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce have cited it to

rebut the notion that mold in the home can be toxic.

Craner, a Nevada doctor who has testified for scores of people

who claimed ill effects from mold, says the paper " has been used in

every single mold case. The lawyer asks, 'Isn't it true the American

College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine concluded that

there is no scientific evidence that mold causes any serious health

effects?' "

The result, Dr. Craner maintains, is that " a lot people with

legitimate environmental health problems are losing their homes and

their jobs because of legal decisions based on this so-

called 'evidence-based' statement. "

Dr. Craner says a majority of his work is on the plaintiff side and

he is paid when he testifies, but he says he currently is an expert

for the defense in a case where he concluded the plaintiffs' health

issues weren't related to mold.

Two other medical societies have also published statements on mold

written, in part, by legal-defense experts. The societies didn't

disclose this when they released the papers, although one later

published a correction saying two authors served as expert witnesses

in mold litigation.

READ MORE

• Read the full text of Dr. Borak's September 2002 email to the

leaders of the American College of Occupational and Environmental

Medicine about his struggles in drafting their position paper on

mold.

• Read the official position statements of the American College of

Occupational and Environmental Medicine and of the American Academy

of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology, as posted on their Web sites.

Mold reproduces through tiny spores. These can float into homes

through windows and vent systems or be carried in on clothes or

shoes. Indoors, mold grows when moisture is present.

There's debate about how much this matters. Plaintiffs attribute

ills ranging from asthma to cognitive problems to inhalation of

mold. The Institute of Medicine, a largely federally funded

nonprofit, reviewed the research in 2004 and said " studies have

demonstrated adverse effects -- including immunotoxic, neurologic,

respiratory and dermal responses -- after exposure to specific

toxins, bacteria, molds or their products. " But it added that the

dose required to cause adverse health effects hasn't been

determined. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, for

its part, says on its Web site that mold can cause wheezing and eye

or skin irritation, but a link to more serious conditions " has not

been proven. "

'Highly Unlikely'

The ACOEM paper goes further. It says not only is there no evidence

indoor mold causes serious health effects, but even if mold produced

toxic substances, it's " highly unlikely at best " that anyone could

inhale enough to cause a problem. The paper reaches this conclusion

by extrapolating from animal studies in which rodents' throats were

injected with molds.

The paper's authors say their conclusions are validated by the

Institute of Medicine's paper. But the author of the Institute

paper's mold toxicity chapter, Harriett Ammann, disagrees, and

criticizes the ACOEM paper's methodology: " They took hypothetical

exposure and hypothetical toxicity and jumped to the conclusion

there is nothing there. "

Dr. Ammann, a recently retired toxicologist for Washington state's

health department, recently helped the plaintiff side in a mold

case. She says this was the only time she has done so for pay. In

the Fraser lawsuit in New York, after the judge barred testimony

that mold caused health problems, Dr. Ammann, on her own and without

pay, provided an affidavit filed with the appellate court saying the

judge misinterpreted the research.

The ACOEM, a society of more than 5,000 specialists who investigate

indoor health hazards and treat patients with related illnesses,

first moved to develop a position paper on mold in early 2002. Dean

Grove, then the medical society's president, asked the head of its

council on scientific affairs, Yale medical professor

Borak, to set the process in motion.

He turned to a retired deputy director of the National Institute for

Occupational Safety and Health -- part of the CDC -- to spearhead

the project. Dr. Borak says he wanted someone with " no established

background record of litigation related to mold. "

For the Defense

The person he chose, Hardin, says he hadn't worked on any mold

lawsuit at that point, though he was a consultant on other matters

for GlobalTox Inc., a firm that regularly worked for the defense in

mold cases. And Dr. Hardin says he consulted for the defense in a

mold case while he was helping write the ACOEM paper.

In a Feb. 27, 2002, email, Dr. Borak told Dr. Hardin: " That position

paper would be prepared by you and your GlobalTox colleagues. " Dr.

Borak says he believes he didn't know at the time that GlobalTox did

mold defense work.

A GlobalTox colleague who aided Dr. Hardin was Bruce Kelman, now

president of the firm, which recently changed its name to Veritox

Inc. Drs. Kelman and Hardin, now principals at the firm and entitled

to a share of its profits, were two of the ACOEM paper's three

authors. They are paid $375 to $500 an hour for work on mold cases,

court records say.

EXPERT WITNESSES

• The Situation: Mold defendants rely on medical-society position

papers that reject a link to serious ills, but papers were written

by scientists who often work for defense side in mold cases.

• The Debate: Whether courts get accurate or skewed view of possible

health effects of indoor mold.

• What's at Stake: Outcome of widespread litigation over mold.

The paper's third author was Saxon, then chief of clinical

immunology and allergy at the medical school of the University of

California, Los Angeles. He, too, has served as a defense expert in

numerous mold suits. Dr. Saxon says he is paid $510 an hour for his

help. If called to testify in court, his rate rises to $720 an hour,

according to a deposition he gave.

Until he retired from UCLA in September, money he earned as a legal-

defense expert was paid to the university, and he says UCLA then

gave him a little less than half of it. Dr. Saxon estimates he

generates $250,000 to $500,000 a year from expert defense work,

which includes non-mold cases.

The ACOEM knew about mold defense work by the authors of its paper.

Dr. Hardin informed the society in a Sept. 23, 2002, document under

his letterhead. Labeled " confidential " and " share only with the

ACOEM board of directors, " it told of his work as a defense expert

on one mold case.

The letter said the other two authors, Drs. Saxon and Kelman, " have

been retained by both the defense and plaintiff bar in litigation

relating to indoor mold. " Both say they work mostly for the defense

in mold cases.

Internal ACOEM documents indicate that as the paper was being

written in August 2002, there was concern within the society that

the paper was too friendly to defense interests. Its authors were

asked to modify the first draft's tone " because of the concern about

possible misinterpretation of 'buzz words' and phrases such

as 'belief system,' 'adherents may claim,' 'supposed

hypersensitivity,' and 'alleged disorder,' " according to a June 2002

email to Dr. Hardin from the society's communications director. (The

email was obtained by a plaintiff's attorney in a mold case,

Kahn.)

Dr. Borak, the head of the society's council on scientific affairs,

suggested sending a draft for review to one particular mold

authority, Hodgson, director of the occupational safety and

health program at the U.S. Veterans Health Administration. Dr.

Hardin objected. He said it would be " inappropriate to add ad hoc

reviewers who are highly visible advocates for a point of view the

draft position paper analyzes and finds lacking. " The draft

ultimately wasn't sent.

'A Defense Argument'

In September 2002, Dr. Borak emailed colleagues that " I am having

quite a challenge in finding an acceptable path for the proposed

position paper on mold. " He said several reviewers " find the current

version, much revised, to still be a defense argument. "

The society released a paper two months later, and its authors, as

well as ACOEM officials, say it accurately reflects the science on

indoor mold exposure. The authors' " views, if prejudicial, were

removed, " Dr. Borak says. " It went through a dramatic change of top-

heavy peer reviews. " He says objections come mainly from " activist

litigants " who find it " annoying. "

Drs. Hardin and Kelman say the paper has been controversial because

it challenged " a belief system " that mold can be toxic indoors. " A

belief system is built up and there is anger when the science

doesn't support that belief system, " Dr. Kelman says.

The Manhattan Institute, a conservative think tank, paid Veritox

$40,000 to prepare a lay version of the paper. That version

said " the notion that 'toxic mold' is an insidious, secret 'killer,'

as so many media reports and trial lawyers would claim, is 'junk

science' unsupported by actual scientific study. " Its authors were

the three writers of the longer paper plus a fourth, who also is a

principal at Veritox.

Lawyers defending mold suits also cite a position paper from the

American Academy of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology. This paper says

it concurs with the ACOEM that it is highly unlikely enough

mycotoxins could be inhaled to lead to toxic health effects.

Among the academy paper's five authors is Dr. Saxon. Another, Abba

Terr, a San Francisco immunologist, has worked as a defense expert

in mold cases. The academy published the paper in its Journal of

Allergy and Clinical Immunology last February, not citing the mold-

defense work of either man. The publication later ran a correction

disclosing their litigation work.

The academy's president says officials were aware Dr. Saxon was an

expert witness. " We should have published their [disclosure]

statements with the paper, " says the official, Platts-Mills.

He says the lapse resulted from a variety of factors, including

confusion about whose responsibility the disclosure was.

Unhappy Author

A third author of the academy's paper, Jay Portnoy, chief of

allergy, asthma and immunology at the Children's Mercy Hospital in

Kansas City, Mo., says he " felt that there was an agenda " -- the

effort " seemed very biased toward denying the possibility of there

being harmful effects from mold on human health. " He says he

considered removing his name from the paper, but it was published

before he could decide.

Dr. Portnoy says a section he contributed was rewritten by Dr. Saxon

to be " a lot more negative. " He says the paper wrongly says mold

isn't proven to cause allergic rhinitis, with symptoms like

wheezing, sore throat and sneezing. Dr. Saxon denies the authors had

a bias but says they applied a high standard for proving mold causes

a particular effect. He says he didn't skew the content of Dr.

Portnoy's section but rewrote it because it was " too diffuse. " Dr.

Terr in San Francisco didn't return a call seeking comment.

In New York, the Frasers are appealing the refusal of the trial

judge, state Supreme Court Justice Shirley Werner Kornreich, to let

their expert testify that indoor mold caused their health

complaints. The Frasers had moved into the East Side Manhattan

apartment in 1996. Their 2002 suit said they repeatedly complained

to the co-op's board of dampness and leaks as their health

deteriorated.

Their appeal attacks the credibility of mold position papers drafted

by scientists who work for defendants. " What you have here is

defense experts authoring papers under an official guise, " says

their attorney, Eilender. Justice Kornreich declined to

comment.

Write to Armstrong at david.armstrong@...

Center for Science in the Public Interest

Integrity in Science Watch

January 16, 2007

The Integrity in Science Database of Scientists and

Organizations With Ties to Industry can be found at:

www.integrityinscience.org

ACOEM Mold Review Relied on Authors Paid to Testify in Mold

Suits

The American College of Occupational and Environmental

Medicine failed to disclose that its position paper on

mold, which downplays the risks to human health from the

minute fungi, was written by scientists who regularly

testify as expert witnesses for defendants in mold

lawsuits. According to an article in the Wall Street

Journal (subscription required), two of the paper's three

authors - Hardin and Bruce Kelman - are principals at

a law firm paid $375 to $500 an hour as defense counsel in

mold lawsuits.

[Note: The above needs a correction. Hardin and Bruce

Kelman are principals of an environmental financial risk

management company, Veritox. Law firms pay them $375 to

$500 per hour as defense experts in mold lawsuits.]

The third author, Saxon of the University of

California at Los Angeles School of Medicine, is paid $510

to $720 an hour for consulting and testifying in mold

litigation.

Two other medical societies have issued position papers on

mold written, in part, by legal defense experts. Last year,

Integrity in Science Watch uncovered that the American

Academy of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology's scientific

review " The Medical Effects of Mold Exposure " failed to

disclose that two physician-authors, including Saxon, were

insurance company defense experts. The expos & #38956;ed the

association's journal to strengthen its disclosure

requirements.

[Guest guest]

It seems like the right time to post this article again.

Wall Street Journal

This was on the front page and center column

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB116831654647871083.html

Court of Opinion Amid Suits Over Mold,Experts Wear Two Hats Authors

of Science PaperOften Cited by Defense Also Help in Litigation

By DAVID ARMSTRONG

January 9, 2007; Page A1

Soon after moving into a New York City apartment, Colin and Pamela

Fraser say, they began to suffer headaches, rashes, respiratory

infections and fatigue. They attributed it to mold.

But their lawsuit against the cooperative that owns the building hit

a roadblock when the court wouldn't let their medical expert testify

that mold caused their problems. This is " unsupported by the

scientific literature, " the state trial judge said.

She relied in part on a position paper from the American College of

Occupational and Environmental Medicine, or ACOEM. Citing a

substance some molds produce called mycotoxins, the paper

said " scientific evidence does not support the proposition that

human health has been adversely affected by inhaled mycotoxins in

the home, school, or office environment. "

The paper has become a key defense tool wielded by builders,

landlords and insurers in litigation. It has also been used to

assuage fears of parents following discovery of mold in schools. One

point that rarely emerges in these cases: The paper was written by

people who regularly are paid experts for the defense side in mold

litigation.

The ACOEM doesn't disclose this, nor did its paper. The professional

society's president, Tee Guidotti, says no disclosure is needed

because the paper represents the consensus of its membership and is

a statement from the society, not the individual authors.

The dual roles show how conflicts of interest can color debate on

emerging health issues and influence litigation related to it. Mold

has been a contentious matter since a Texas jury in 2001 awarded

$32.1 million to a family whose home was mold-infested. That award,

later reduced, and a couple of mold suits filed by famous people

like Ed McMahon and Brockovich helped trigger a surge in mold

litigation. Insurers and builders worried it would become a

liability disaster for them on the scale of asbestos.

The number of suits hasn't been as big as anticipated. One reason

appears to be the insurers' success in getting many states to

exclude mold coverage from homeowner's-insurance policies. But also

helping turn the tide, lawyers and doctors say, is the ACOEM report.

Building groups and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce have cited it to

rebut the notion that mold in the home can be toxic.

Craner, a Nevada doctor who has testified for scores of people

who claimed ill effects from mold, says the paper " has been used in

every single mold case. The lawyer asks, 'Isn't it true the American

College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine concluded that

there is no scientific evidence that mold causes any serious health

effects?' "

The result, Dr. Craner maintains, is that " a lot people with

legitimate environmental health problems are losing their homes and

their jobs because of legal decisions based on this so-

called 'evidence-based' statement. "

Dr. Craner says a majority of his work is on the plaintiff side and

he is paid when he testifies, but he says he currently is an expert

for the defense in a case where he concluded the plaintiffs' health

issues weren't related to mold.

Two other medical societies have also published statements on mold

written, in part, by legal-defense experts. The societies didn't

disclose this when they released the papers, although one later

published a correction saying two authors served as expert witnesses

in mold litigation.

READ MORE

• Read the full text of Dr. Borak's September 2002 email to the

leaders of the American College of Occupational and Environmental

Medicine about his struggles in drafting their position paper on

mold.

• Read the official position statements of the American College of

Occupational and Environmental Medicine and of the American Academy

of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology, as posted on their Web sites.

Mold reproduces through tiny spores. These can float into homes

through windows and vent systems or be carried in on clothes or

shoes. Indoors, mold grows when moisture is present.

There's debate about how much this matters. Plaintiffs attribute

ills ranging from asthma to cognitive problems to inhalation of

mold. The Institute of Medicine, a largely federally funded

nonprofit, reviewed the research in 2004 and said " studies have

demonstrated adverse effects -- including immunotoxic, neurologic,

respiratory and dermal responses -- after exposure to specific

toxins, bacteria, molds or their products. " But it added that the

dose required to cause adverse health effects hasn't been

determined. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, for

its part, says on its Web site that mold can cause wheezing and eye

or skin irritation, but a link to more serious conditions " has not

been proven. "

'Highly Unlikely'

The ACOEM paper goes further. It says not only is there no evidence

indoor mold causes serious health effects, but even if mold produced

toxic substances, it's " highly unlikely at best " that anyone could

inhale enough to cause a problem. The paper reaches this conclusion

by extrapolating from animal studies in which rodents' throats were

injected with molds.

The paper's authors say their conclusions are validated by the

Institute of Medicine's paper. But the author of the Institute

paper's mold toxicity chapter, Harriett Ammann, disagrees, and

criticizes the ACOEM paper's methodology: " They took hypothetical

exposure and hypothetical toxicity and jumped to the conclusion

there is nothing there. "

Dr. Ammann, a recently retired toxicologist for Washington state's

health department, recently helped the plaintiff side in a mold

case. She says this was the only time she has done so for pay. In

the Fraser lawsuit in New York, after the judge barred testimony

that mold caused health problems, Dr. Ammann, on her own and without

pay, provided an affidavit filed with the appellate court saying the

judge misinterpreted the research.

The ACOEM, a society of more than 5,000 specialists who investigate

indoor health hazards and treat patients with related illnesses,

first moved to develop a position paper on mold in early 2002. Dean

Grove, then the medical society's president, asked the head of its

council on scientific affairs, Yale medical professor

Borak, to set the process in motion.

He turned to a retired deputy director of the National Institute for

Occupational Safety and Health -- part of the CDC -- to spearhead

the project. Dr. Borak says he wanted someone with " no established

background record of litigation related to mold. "

For the Defense

The person he chose, Hardin, says he hadn't worked on any mold

lawsuit at that point, though he was a consultant on other matters

for GlobalTox Inc., a firm that regularly worked for the defense in

mold cases. And Dr. Hardin says he consulted for the defense in a

mold case while he was helping write the ACOEM paper.

In a Feb. 27, 2002, email, Dr. Borak told Dr. Hardin: " That position

paper would be prepared by you and your GlobalTox colleagues. " Dr.

Borak says he believes he didn't know at the time that GlobalTox did

mold defense work.

A GlobalTox colleague who aided Dr. Hardin was Bruce Kelman, now

president of the firm, which recently changed its name to Veritox

Inc. Drs. Kelman and Hardin, now principals at the firm and entitled

to a share of its profits, were two of the ACOEM paper's three

authors. They are paid $375 to $500 an hour for work on mold cases,

court records say.

EXPERT WITNESSES

• The Situation: Mold defendants rely on medical-society position

papers that reject a link to serious ills, but papers were written

by scientists who often work for defense side in mold cases.

• The Debate: Whether courts get accurate or skewed view of possible

health effects of indoor mold.

• What's at Stake: Outcome of widespread litigation over mold.

The paper's third author was Saxon, then chief of clinical

immunology and allergy at the medical school of the University of

California, Los Angeles. He, too, has served as a defense expert in

numerous mold suits. Dr. Saxon says he is paid $510 an hour for his

help. If called to testify in court, his rate rises to $720 an hour,

according to a deposition he gave.

Until he retired from UCLA in September, money he earned as a legal-

defense expert was paid to the university, and he says UCLA then

gave him a little less than half of it. Dr. Saxon estimates he

generates $250,000 to $500,000 a year from expert defense work,

which includes non-mold cases.

The ACOEM knew about mold defense work by the authors of its paper.

Dr. Hardin informed the society in a Sept. 23, 2002, document under

his letterhead. Labeled " confidential " and " share only with the

ACOEM board of directors, " it told of his work as a defense expert

on one mold case.

The letter said the other two authors, Drs. Saxon and Kelman, " have

been retained by both the defense and plaintiff bar in litigation

relating to indoor mold. " Both say they work mostly for the defense

in mold cases.

Internal ACOEM documents indicate that as the paper was being

written in August 2002, there was concern within the society that

the paper was too friendly to defense interests. Its authors were

asked to modify the first draft's tone " because of the concern about

possible misinterpretation of 'buzz words' and phrases such

as 'belief system,' 'adherents may claim,' 'supposed

hypersensitivity,' and 'alleged disorder,' " according to a June 2002

email to Dr. Hardin from the society's communications director. (The

email was obtained by a plaintiff's attorney in a mold case,

Kahn.)

Dr. Borak, the head of the society's council on scientific affairs,

suggested sending a draft for review to one particular mold

authority, Hodgson, director of the occupational safety and

health program at the U.S. Veterans Health Administration. Dr.

Hardin objected. He said it would be " inappropriate to add ad hoc

reviewers who are highly visible advocates for a point of view the

draft position paper analyzes and finds lacking. " The draft

ultimately wasn't sent.

'A Defense Argument'

In September 2002, Dr. Borak emailed colleagues that " I am having

quite a challenge in finding an acceptable path for the proposed

position paper on mold. " He said several reviewers " find the current

version, much revised, to still be a defense argument. "

The society released a paper two months later, and its authors, as

well as ACOEM officials, say it accurately reflects the science on

indoor mold exposure. The authors' " views, if prejudicial, were

removed, " Dr. Borak says. " It went through a dramatic change of top-

heavy peer reviews. " He says objections come mainly from " activist

litigants " who find it " annoying. "

Drs. Hardin and Kelman say the paper has been controversial because

it challenged " a belief system " that mold can be toxic indoors. " A

belief system is built up and there is anger when the science

doesn't support that belief system, " Dr. Kelman says.

The Manhattan Institute, a conservative think tank, paid Veritox

$40,000 to prepare a lay version of the paper. That version

said " the notion that 'toxic mold' is an insidious, secret 'killer,'

as so many media reports and trial lawyers would claim, is 'junk

science' unsupported by actual scientific study. " Its authors were

the three writers of the longer paper plus a fourth, who also is a

principal at Veritox.

Lawyers defending mold suits also cite a position paper from the

American Academy of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology. This paper says

it concurs with the ACOEM that it is highly unlikely enough

mycotoxins could be inhaled to lead to toxic health effects.

Among the academy paper's five authors is Dr. Saxon. Another, Abba

Terr, a San Francisco immunologist, has worked as a defense expert

in mold cases. The academy published the paper in its Journal of

Allergy and Clinical Immunology last February, not citing the mold-

defense work of either man. The publication later ran a correction

disclosing their litigation work.

The academy's president says officials were aware Dr. Saxon was an

expert witness. " We should have published their [disclosure]

statements with the paper, " says the official, Platts-Mills.

He says the lapse resulted from a variety of factors, including

confusion about whose responsibility the disclosure was.

Unhappy Author

A third author of the academy's paper, Jay Portnoy, chief of

allergy, asthma and immunology at the Children's Mercy Hospital in

Kansas City, Mo., says he " felt that there was an agenda " -- the

effort " seemed very biased toward denying the possibility of there

being harmful effects from mold on human health. " He says he

considered removing his name from the paper, but it was published

before he could decide.

Dr. Portnoy says a section he contributed was rewritten by Dr. Saxon

to be " a lot more negative. " He says the paper wrongly says mold

isn't proven to cause allergic rhinitis, with symptoms like

wheezing, sore throat and sneezing. Dr. Saxon denies the authors had

a bias but says they applied a high standard for proving mold causes

a particular effect. He says he didn't skew the content of Dr.

Portnoy's section but rewrote it because it was " too diffuse. " Dr.

Terr in San Francisco didn't return a call seeking comment.

In New York, the Frasers are appealing the refusal of the trial

judge, state Supreme Court Justice Shirley Werner Kornreich, to let

their expert testify that indoor mold caused their health

complaints. The Frasers had moved into the East Side Manhattan

apartment in 1996. Their 2002 suit said they repeatedly complained

to the co-op's board of dampness and leaks as their health

deteriorated.

Their appeal attacks the credibility of mold position papers drafted

by scientists who work for defendants. " What you have here is

defense experts authoring papers under an official guise, " says

their attorney, Eilender. Justice Kornreich declined to

comment.

Write to Armstrong at david.armstrong@...

Center for Science in the Public Interest

Integrity in Science Watch

January 16, 2007

The Integrity in Science Database of Scientists and

Organizations With Ties to Industry can be found at:

www.integrityinscience.org

ACOEM Mold Review Relied on Authors Paid to Testify in Mold

Suits

The American College of Occupational and Environmental

Medicine failed to disclose that its position paper on

mold, which downplays the risks to human health from the

minute fungi, was written by scientists who regularly

testify as expert witnesses for defendants in mold

lawsuits. According to an article in the Wall Street

Journal (subscription required), two of the paper's three

authors - Hardin and Bruce Kelman - are principals at

a law firm paid $375 to $500 an hour as defense counsel in

mold lawsuits.

[Note: The above needs a correction. Hardin and Bruce

Kelman are principals of an environmental financial risk

management company, Veritox. Law firms pay them $375 to

$500 per hour as defense experts in mold lawsuits.]

The third author, Saxon of the University of

California at Los Angeles School of Medicine, is paid $510

to $720 an hour for consulting and testifying in mold

litigation.

Two other medical societies have issued position papers on

mold written, in part, by legal defense experts. Last year,

Integrity in Science Watch uncovered that the American

Academy of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology's scientific

review " The Medical Effects of Mold Exposure " failed to

disclose that two physician-authors, including Saxon, were

insurance company defense experts. The expos & #38956;ed the

association's journal to strengthen its disclosure

requirements.

--- End forwarded message ---