Re: This Article made me swear outloud!!

[Guest guest]

It made me swear, too. For several reasons.

First, I suggest everyone read this article. It is an excellent

description of a mold case in court. It is an easy read about what

was considered acceptable evidence (at least in this case), what

wasn't and why.

It focuses on sampling for mold and for mycotoxins. It discusses

presence vs exposure.

What upset me includes:

1. There seemed to be no plaintiff experts to counter the claims

of the defense experts.

2. The case was built on the simple belief that " mold sampling " is

definitive and compelling.

3. The case was based only on mold instead of " dampness " and

everything that results from dampness.

4. Mold sampling and mold presence is not the same as

" exposure " to mold.

5. The claim of mycotoxin damage without demonstrating

presence and exposure of mycotoxins was especially damning

for the plaintiffs.

5. The medical testing, despite being innovative and probably

accurate, made absolutely no difference because the claims were

based on exposure which the judged rejected because the " mold

sampling " was rejected.

6. Instead, the medical evidence could have been used as the

basis to demonstrate harm, which exposure claims from mold

sampling cannot. Then mold sampling data would be used as

additional evidence to support the medical claims. Again, the

problem was there appeared to be no argument against the

defense postion. (NOTE: I am not a lawyer, these responses are

based on common sense logic, which the law sometimes doesn't

respect).

7. The whole article was likely biased - making my interpretation

irrelevant - if it was written by defense attorneys. I'd like to see an

article by the plaintiff's attorneys.

Plaintiff attorneys need to catch up to defense attorneys. They

need to become conversant with current studies and how to

effectively present a developing science instead of just " mold

testing. " The defense arguments is this case could have been

countered.

As you all know, I've been a severe critic of mold testing for

proving much of anything other than " what was sampled is or is

not mold). Here is a perfect example of why sampling is not

definitive, and can even be harmful, in a court room. It must be in

a proper context established by professional inspection,

assessment, history of the building and events, and an accurate

presentation that can be defended against the simple defense

arguments. It isn't easy, which is why many attorneys won't take

mold cases.

Any attorneys or expert witnesses care to comment?

Carl Grimes

Healthy Habitats LLC

-----

> http://www.kringandchung.com/newsletters/MoldIllnessclaim.html

>

>

>

> FAIR USE NOTICE:

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

This is all so expensive and plaintiffs are being asked to pay for a lot of it.

Many of us are sick and on limited incomes or living off savings,

How can they (we) afford it? Its a game for rich people, it sometimes seems.

Working people just try to cut their losses somehow and move on.

Almost none of them can afford a seat at this table.

In my darker moments I can't help but see it

as a big scam designed to strip away what little dignity and sanity

people have left.

These are our liives, they have already stolen so much,

now 'they' (lawyers, the expert witness 'industry', doctors often not

covered by insurance) want more.

On Jan 24, 2008 1:10 AM, Carl E. Grimes <grimes@...> wrote:

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

whats the date on this? sounds like it's old.

--- In , " Carl E. Grimes " <grimes@...>

wrote:

>

> It made me swear, too. For several reasons.

>

> First, I suggest everyone read this article. It is an excellent

> description of a mold case in court. It is an easy read about what

> was considered acceptable evidence (at least in this case), what

> wasn't and why.

>

> It focuses on sampling for mold and for mycotoxins. It discusses

> presence vs exposure.

>

> What upset me includes:

>

> 1. There seemed to be no plaintiff experts to counter the claims

> of the defense experts.

>

> 2. The case was built on the simple belief that " mold sampling " is

> definitive and compelling.

>

> 3. The case was based only on mold instead of " dampness " and

> everything that results from dampness.

>

> 4. Mold sampling and mold presence is not the same as

> " exposure " to mold.

>

> 5. The claim of mycotoxin damage without demonstrating

> presence and exposure of mycotoxins was especially damning

> for the plaintiffs.

>

> 5. The medical testing, despite being innovative and probably

> accurate, made absolutely no difference because the claims were

> based on exposure which the judged rejected because the " mold

> sampling " was rejected.

>

> 6. Instead, the medical evidence could have been used as the

> basis to demonstrate harm, which exposure claims from mold

> sampling cannot. Then mold sampling data would be used as

> additional evidence to support the medical claims. Again, the

> problem was there appeared to be no argument against the

> defense postion. (NOTE: I am not a lawyer, these responses are

> based on common sense logic, which the law sometimes doesn't

> respect).

>

> 7. The whole article was likely biased - making my interpretation

> irrelevant - if it was written by defense attorneys. I'd like to

see an

> article by the plaintiff's attorneys.

>

> Plaintiff attorneys need to catch up to defense attorneys. They

> need to become conversant with current studies and how to

> effectively present a developing science instead of just " mold

> testing. " The defense arguments is this case could have been

> countered.

>

> As you all know, I've been a severe critic of mold testing for

> proving much of anything other than " what was sampled is or is

> not mold). Here is a perfect example of why sampling is not

> definitive, and can even be harmful, in a court room. It must be in

> a proper context established by professional inspection,

> assessment, history of the building and events, and an accurate

> presentation that can be defended against the simple defense

> arguments. It isn't easy, which is why many attorneys won't take

> mold cases.

>

> Any attorneys or expert witnesses care to comment?

>

> Carl Grimes

> Healthy Habitats LLC

>

> -----

> > http://www.kringandchung.com/newsletters/MoldIllnessclaim.html

> >

> >

> >

> > FAIR USE NOTICE:

> >

> >

> >

[Guest guest]

The date of this article is March 29, 2006 and this is exactly what I

am facing now with my case, " lack of evidence " . Unfortunately CA is a

tough state to be in if you are ill from anything or need disability.

Unless you are dying, literally, with a few weeks / months to live

then you are not " disabled " .

> >

> > It made me swear, too. For several reasons.

> >

> > First, I suggest everyone read this article. It is an excellent

> > description of a mold case in court. It is an easy read about

what

> > was considered acceptable evidence (at least in this case), what

> > wasn't and why.

> >

> > It focuses on sampling for mold and for mycotoxins. It discusses

> > presence vs exposure.

> >

> > What upset me includes:

> >

> > 1. There seemed to be no plaintiff experts to counter the claims

> > of the defense experts.

> >

> > 2. The case was built on the simple belief that " mold sampling "

is

> > definitive and compelling.

> >

> > 3. The case was based only on mold instead of " dampness " and

> > everything that results from dampness.

> >

> > 4. Mold sampling and mold presence is not the same as

> > " exposure " to mold.

> >

> > 5. The claim of mycotoxin damage without demonstrating

> > presence and exposure of mycotoxins was especially damning

> > for the plaintiffs.

> >

> > 5. The medical testing, despite being innovative and probably

> > accurate, made absolutely no difference because the claims were

> > based on exposure which the judged rejected because the " mold

> > sampling " was rejected.

> >

> > 6. Instead, the medical evidence could have been used as the

> > basis to demonstrate harm, which exposure claims from mold

> > sampling cannot. Then mold sampling data would be used as

> > additional evidence to support the medical claims. Again, the

> > problem was there appeared to be no argument against the

> > defense postion. (NOTE: I am not a lawyer, these responses are

> > based on common sense logic, which the law sometimes doesn't

> > respect).

> >

> > 7. The whole article was likely biased - making my interpretation

> > irrelevant - if it was written by defense attorneys. I'd like to

> see an

> > article by the plaintiff's attorneys.

> >

> > Plaintiff attorneys need to catch up to defense attorneys. They

> > need to become conversant with current studies and how to

> > effectively present a developing science instead of just " mold

> > testing. " The defense arguments is this case could have been

> > countered.

> >

> > As you all know, I've been a severe critic of mold testing for

> > proving much of anything other than " what was sampled is or is

> > not mold). Here is a perfect example of why sampling is not

> > definitive, and can even be harmful, in a court room. It must be

in

> > a proper context established by professional inspection,

> > assessment, history of the building and events, and an accurate

> > presentation that can be defended against the simple defense

> > arguments. It isn't easy, which is why many attorneys won't take

> > mold cases.

> >

> > Any attorneys or expert witnesses care to comment?

> >

> > Carl Grimes

> > Healthy Habitats LLC

> >

> > -----

> > > http://www.kringandchung.com/newsletters/MoldIllnessclaim.html

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > FAIR USE NOTICE:

> > >

> > >

> > >

[Guest guest]

I hope that people will use the Geffcken case as instructive - I'd like to make

two totally irrelevant comments about the facts of the case as represented in

the write-up. 1) The Plaintiffs were not husband and wife, they were mother and

son. 2) The name of the physician is spelled ORDOG, not Orlog... wonder if they

got any other facts incorrect?

Um, and folks realize that people can have reactions to toxins that don't set

off allergy tests, right? The two things are totally unrelated - it's possible

to have BOTH, but doesn't always happen, and some of the sickest people on our

list have no allergic response reactions in testing.

~Haley

gsgrl2000 <gsgrl2000@...> wrote:

The date of this article is March 29, 2006 and this is exactly what I

am facing now with my case, " lack of evidence " . Unfortunately CA is a

tough state to be in if you are ill from anything or need disability.

Unless you are dying, literally, with a few weeks / months to live

then you are not " disabled " .

> >

> > It made me swear, too. For several reasons.

> >

> > First, I suggest everyone read this article. It is an excellent

> > description of a mold case in court. It is an easy read about

what

> > was considered acceptable evidence (at least in this case), what

> > wasn't and why.

> >

> > It focuses on sampling for mold and for mycotoxins. It discusses

> > presence vs exposure.

> >

> > What upset me includes:

> >

> > 1. There seemed to be no plaintiff experts to counter the claims

> > of the defense experts.

> >

> > 2. The case was built on the simple belief that " mold sampling "

is

> > definitive and compelling.

> >

> > 3. The case was based only on mold instead of " dampness " and

> > everything that results from dampness.

> >

> > 4. Mold sampling and mold presence is not the same as

> > " exposure " to mold.

> >

> > 5. The claim of mycotoxin damage without demonstrating

> > presence and exposure of mycotoxins was especially damning

> > for the plaintiffs.

> >

> > 5. The medical testing, despite being innovative and probably

> > accurate, made absolutely no difference because the claims were

> > based on exposure which the judged rejected because the " mold

> > sampling " was rejected.

> >

> > 6. Instead, the medical evidence could have been used as the

> > basis to demonstrate harm, which exposure claims from mold

> > sampling cannot. Then mold sampling data would be used as

> > additional evidence to support the medical claims. Again, the

> > problem was there appeared to be no argument against the

> > defense postion. (NOTE: I am not a lawyer, these responses are

> > based on common sense logic, which the law sometimes doesn't

> > respect).

> >

> > 7. The whole article was likely biased - making my interpretation

> > irrelevant - if it was written by defense attorneys. I'd like to

> see an

> > article by the plaintiff's attorneys.

> >

> > Plaintiff attorneys need to catch up to defense attorneys. They

> > need to become conversant with current studies and how to

> > effectively present a developing science instead of just " mold

> > testing. " The defense arguments is this case could have been

> > countered.

> >

> > As you all know, I've been a severe critic of mold testing for

> > proving much of anything other than " what was sampled is or is

> > not mold). Here is a perfect example of why sampling is not

> > definitive, and can even be harmful, in a court room. It must be

in

> > a proper context established by professional inspection,

> > assessment, history of the building and events, and an accurate

> > presentation that can be defended against the simple defense

> > arguments. It isn't easy, which is why many attorneys won't take

> > mold cases.

> >

> > Any attorneys or expert witnesses care to comment?

> >

> > Carl Grimes

> > Healthy Habitats LLC

> >

> > -----

> > > http://www.kringandchung.com/newsletters/MoldIllnessclaim.html

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > FAIR USE NOTICE:

> > >

> > >

> > >

[Guest guest]

Thanks for pointing this out.... I was very ill but am not " allergic "

to mold but do have other allergies. I was poisoned by the mold. Big

difference between 'allergic' and 'toxic'!

> The date of this article is March 29, 2006 and this is

exactly what I

> am facing now with my case, " lack of evidence " . Unfortunately CA is

a

> tough state to be in if you are ill from anything or need

disability.

> Unless you are dying, literally, with a few weeks / months to live

> then you are not " disabled " .