Re: Stachybotrys Chartarum IgG antibodies test. Is it accurat...

[Guest guest]

,

If your attorney does not know how to properly apply the data he has in

conjunction with your illnesses and other evidence, then my advice to you

would be....get a new attorney. IgG results cannot be used by themselves to

prove causation. But they most definitely can be used in conjunction with

other data as part of the puzzle. Look for information of type III

hypersensitivity reactions.

This used to drive Dr. Marinkovich nuts when an undereducated mold attorney

use to try and use the IgG testing as the end all be all. NO! WRONG! Or

bought into the defense hype that IgG provided no information. It is part

of the puzzle and if your attorney does not understand this or how to use

it, then you are sunk in your case. IgG can be an indicator of chronic

inflammation from an antigen.

IgG testing can be used to prove hypersensitivity due to an exposure to

mold. That is science as old as the hills, nothing new or novel. But...it

cannot be used to say exactly when you were exposed as IgG antibodies stay

in your system for awhile. You have to tie onset of symptoms, IgG results

and what you were exposed to...all together.

_http://www-immuno.path.cam.ac.uk/~immuno/part1/lec13/lec13_97.html_

(http://www-immuno.path.cam.ac.uk/~immuno/part1/lec13/lec13_97.html)

Sharon K

In a message dated 4/11/2009 10:54:45 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,

grimes@... writes:

>>

,

I'm not an attorney but if your's is referring to appellate

" decisions " (they aren't a law but can be what is called " case

law " ) these are decisions about a case which was appealed. I'd

be surprised if they would rule on facts because appeals are

about procedures which determine facts. He should provide the

citation for the case and the decision so you can see what it says.

[Guest guest]

Sharon,

I agree with you, the medical tests are necessary,but you absolutely have to

have the spore counts and mold types to make any impression on the Jury. The

Micobiologist (in our case Chin Yang PhD.) then testified as to the means in

which the body can be exposed and the small amount necessary to make one

sick. In order for us to win in court we had to have an Environmental

Hygeniest, MD who is specialized in Environmental Illness and a

Microbiologist to tie it all together. We had to prove that we had been

exposed to the mold in the house. Our IgG results and bloodwork never made

it to the jury,honestly they wouldn't understand it-I hardly do. Our MD

based on his years of experience in treating mold exposure patients was able

to testify that our symptoms etc were consistent with his 33+ yrs

experience. We were able to receive a multi million dollar award from the

jury which was later reduced by the " uneducated Judge " .

But I know if we hadn't had the Industrial Hygeniest,MD and Microbiologist

(and we also had an Engineer as it was new construction ,) the jury would

not have come to the conclusion they did.

I agree with Sharon, sounds like you need a new attorney who is more on the

ball and educated in the field of toxic tort practice. Maybe when our

judgement gets entered finally??, your attorney might be able to use the

case as a precedent?? I would be happy to forward any information to you

that might help. Our case was Meng V Drees in Loudoun County ,Va. Dec 08.

Hope this helps, I am not an attorney, but going through a legal battle like

we are/have been for the past 2.5 yrs, if I can help anyone using our

experience as a gauge I am happy to.I am so sorry you are having to

Meng.

On Sun, Apr 12, 2009 at 10:34 AM, <snk1955@...> wrote:

>,

>

> If your attorney does not know how to properly apply the data he has in

> conjunction with your illnesses and other evidence, then my advice to you

> would be....get a new attorney. IgG results cannot be used by themselves to

>

>

[Guest guest]

,

Congratulations on a rare win! Your experience and willingness to

share is invaluable. Can you share with us who the other experts

were?

Did the judge hold a Daubert or Frye hearing?

Was the medical evidence not presented because it wasn't

needed, because the judge disallowed it, or negotiations

eliminated it? Or some other reason.

I'd like to comment on how a couple of your points better inform

us about some misperceptions about mold, mold testing, and

legal cases. If I misrepresent anything, please let us know.

The mold data is important. I agree. But a common perception is

simply getting mold types and spore counts from any type of

" mold test " is all that is needed. Implicit in your story was the

numbers by themselves was not enough. It needed a context for

interpreting the results and it had to come from several different

experts to tie it all together. (The major expense! Not just one

expert, but several).

You needed a credible person to test with the correct types of

samples sent to a reliable lab with the data properly interpreted.

You needed a physician, an engineer, and a microbiologist. Chin

Yang is one of the best, if not the best, microbiologist and he

doesn't just say mold is a problem unless he believes it is. His

opinions include the environmental conditions of where the mold

is growing - which determine what types can grow - not just

numbers. In other words, the types detected in the samples have

to be consistent with the conditions of the house, excluding other

possibilities. That is much more representative and precise than

comparing inside to outside counts.

It appears your team of experts identified a health issue caused

by exposure to mold. You needed evidence that the conditions,

levels and types of mold present were consistent with each other.

That you were exposed to them (mere presence is not the same

as being exposed). The medical effects were consistent with

exposures to them. The source of the water which caused the

mold growth was the fault of somebody (I'm assuming the

builder). All those separate " points of view " then had to be linked

together in a logical manner understood and believable to a jury.

But before that, the judge had to rule that the experts were

credible, to allow them to testify, and that their testimony was

credible. There are many cases where the judge does not allow

the testimony of the experts. More defense attorney's have

learned how to argue against these claims than most plaintiff

attorneys have learned how to present them. How the claim is

structured and how the claims are supported is critical. Simply

saying you were harmed is not sufficient by itself. You have to

" prove " it in a manner acceptable to the judge and to the jury.

You were also fortunate your case took only 2.5 years. That is a

remarkably short time which is evidence to the value of your team

of experts.

Anything else you think important for us to know? What was the

basis for the judge reducing the award? Disagreeing about the

cost of the harm to the house or to you medically?

I apologize if I'm getting too personal.

Carl Grimes

Healthy Habitats LLC

-----

>

> Sharon,

>

> I agree with you, the medical tests are necessary,but you absolutely have to

> have the spore counts and mold types to make any impression on the Jury. The

> Micobiologist (in our case Chin Yang PhD.) then testified as to the means in

> which the body can be exposed and the small amount necessary to make one

> sick. In order for us to win in court we had to have an Environmental

> Hygeniest, MD who is specialized in Environmental Illness and a

> Microbiologist to tie it all together. We had to prove that we had been

> exposed to the mold in the house. Our IgG results and bloodwork never made

> it to the jury,honestly they wouldn't understand it-I hardly do. Our MD

> based on his years of experience in treating mold exposure patients was able

> to testify that our symptoms etc were consistent with his 33+ yrs

> experience. We were able to receive a multi million dollar award from the

> jury which was later reduced by the " uneducated Judge " .

> But I know if we hadn't had the Industrial Hygeniest,MD and Microbiologist

> (and we also had an Engineer as it was new construction ,) the jury would

> not have come to the conclusion they did.

>

> I agree with Sharon, sounds like you need a new attorney who is more on the

> ball and educated in the field of toxic tort practice. Maybe when our

> judgement gets entered finally??, your attorney might be able to use the

> case as a precedent?? I would be happy to forward any information to you

> that might help. Our case was Meng V Drees in Loudoun County ,Va. Dec 08.

>

> Hope this helps, I am not an attorney, but going through a legal battle like

> we are/have been for the past 2.5 yrs, if I can help anyone using our

> experience as a gauge I am happy to.I am so sorry you are having to

>

> Meng.

>

> On Sun, Apr 12, 2009 at 10:34 AM, <snk1955@...> wrote:

>

> >,

> >

> > If your attorney does not know how to properly apply the data he has in

> > conjunction with your illnesses and other evidence, then my advice to you

> > would be....get a new attorney. IgG results cannot be used by themselves to

> >

> >

>

>

[Guest guest]

Carl,

I can only hope that something good will come out of our family having to go

through this nightmare, I would be honored if by our experience, more

people would be able to receive a favorable outcome.

I know we had a lot of hearings, but can you refresh me on the Daubert or

Frye hearing? I think it has something to do with credibility of expert

witnesses? but again all the legalease truly becomes way overwhelming , so

please if you would help me out!

We had originally gone to Dr Shoemaker and he had identified the genes,had

the MRI spectoscropy etc and had all the lab work done. Unfortunately we

couldn't use him in trial due to some other mitigating factors.

Our MD was Dr Lieberman from COEM, he was also our treating physician,

Environmental Hygeniest was Tim Duffy CIH and the Engineering group was

Buric, the engineer who testified was fantastic and his name is Ron .

We also had a remediation company URI testify to the $$ needed to

remediate-a min of $400,000 in our case and of course Dr Chin Yang PhD-our

attorneys are Wise and Lukes from Waters & Wise, Fairfax ,VA.

As you mentioned having credible experts is a crucial step towards a win,

the Judge had all the records from the

Cardiologist,Neurologist,Pulmonologist etc, but as I said we couldn't use Dr

Shoemaker's testing. He was quite vocal in his disapproval of our treating

Physicians methods. CSM didn't work for us Dr Lieberman's detox did-but that

was just our personal experience. Dr Shoemaker is a brilliant and gifted

Physician.

The correct " team " is extremely important and outragiously expensive-if you

asked us would we go through the expense and heartache again-we would

probably say no-even though we won. The Judge cut the award citing " no

evidence of permanent injury " he couldn't see a missing leg or appendage

and I am not in a wheelchair. He likened our situation to a car accident-it

happened and now it is over, although he did admit the mold made me very ill

and caused the asthma in my husabnd and daughter,what he doesn't realize as

all mold victims know we are living a car accident each and every day.

I am sure he was also politically pressured $4.75million makes builders &

insurance companies very nervous-then maybe they would have to be

accountable and build a home that you can actually live in!!! what a

concept??

He also said the Jury " didn't understand the law " , that's right a jury of

our peers is way below the 'Godlike " knowledge of a Judge!

The case cost us $600,000 alone in legal fees,then you have another $100,000

plus in expert witnesses,initial investigations, that doesn't include the

equity in the home or all of our furniture-or the emotional stress it has

put on our family.

Honestly I really hope that what we have endured makes it easier for mold

victims to receive justice-but you have to ask the question-just how much

are you willing to endure to get to that point. Drees is appealing the $1.4

million to the Supreme Court of Va and we will be in appeals for another

year minimum.

Take care and God Bless.

Meng.

On Sun, Apr 12, 2009 at 5:08 PM, Carl E. Grimes <grimes@...> wrote:

>

>

> ,

>

> Congratulations on a rare win! Your experience and willingness to

> share is invaluable. Can you share with us who the other experts

> were?

>

> Did the judge hold a Daubert or Frye hearing?

>

[Guest guest]

Thank you, , for taking the time to respond so thoroughly.

Legal fights are expensive, take a long time, and are hard on

personal relationships. But sometimes brave, persistent people

such as yourself take on the fight. It is a benefit to us all. Thank

you!

The Daubert and Frye hearings are as you guessed, a standard

for admitting scientific evidence at trial by an expert. It is for the

judge to determine if they are presenting evidence scientifically

credible rather than " junk science. " Sometimes evidence

(especially medical) is excluded and sometimes it is included

from the same person by different judges. It depends on the

judge and the various arguments for and against. Unfortunately,

much of the defense arguments are not subject to the same

scrutiny.

For those interested they can Google the words " Daubert " or

" Frye legal test " for detailed information and history.

One case I was involved in subjected me to a Daubert hearing. I

was accepted as an expert on moisture, mold and related issues

but the judge excluded part of my report because the defense

argued it was a medical opinion and I'm not a physician. My

client's attorney was unsuccessful at convincing the judge that my

observations were not medical opinions.

However, during the trial I was asked by the defense to read a

page of my field notes which contained those observations. As I

started reading that section the defense objected on the grounds

they were medical and had been excluded. The judge ruled that I

had a right to answer because they (the defense) asked me

about them. If they didn't want those opinions entered into my

testimony they shoudn't have asked me about them when I was

on the witness stand. It can all get very tricky sometimes and

usually confusing.

Carl Grimes

Healthy Habitats LLC

-----

>

>

>

> Carl,

>

> I can only hope that something good will come out of our family having to go

> through this nightmare, I would be honored if by our experience, more

> people would be able to receive a favorable outcome.

>

> I know we had a lot of hearings, but can you refresh me on the Daubert or

> Frye hearing? I think it has something to do with credibility of expert

> witnesses? but again all the legalease truly becomes way overwhelming , so

> please if you would help me out!

>

> We had originally gone to Dr Shoemaker and he had identified the genes,had

> the MRI spectoscropy etc and had all the lab work done. Unfortunately we

> couldn't use him in trial due to some other mitigating factors.

>

> Our MD was Dr Lieberman from COEM, he was also our treating physician,

> Environmental Hygeniest was Tim Duffy CIH and the Engineering group was

> Buric, the engineer who testified was fantastic and his name is Ron .

> We also had a remediation company URI testify to the $$ needed to

> remediate-a min of $400,000 in our case and of course Dr Chin Yang PhD-our

> attorneys are Wise and Lukes from Waters & Wise, Fairfax ,VA.

>

> As you mentioned having credible experts is a crucial step towards a win,

> the Judge had all the records from the

> Cardiologist,Neurologist,Pulmonologist etc, but as I said we couldn't use Dr

> Shoemaker's testing. He was quite vocal in his disapproval of our treating

> Physicians methods. CSM didn't work for us Dr Lieberman's detox did-but that

> was just our personal experience. Dr Shoemaker is a brilliant and gifted

> Physician.

>

> The correct " team " is extremely important and outragiously expensive-if you

> asked us would we go through the expense and heartache again-we would

> probably say no-even though we won. The Judge cut the award citing " no

> evidence of permanent injury " he couldn't see a missing leg or appendage

> and I am not in a wheelchair. He likened our situation to a car accident-it

> happened and now it is over, although he did admit the mold made me very ill

> and caused the asthma in my husabnd and daughter,what he doesn't realize as

> all mold victims know we are living a car accident each and every day.

> I am sure he was also politically pressured $4.75million makes builders &

> insurance companies very nervous-then maybe they would have to be

> accountable and build a home that you can actually live in!!! what a

> concept??

>

> He also said the Jury " didn't understand the law " , that's right a jury of

> our peers is way below the 'Godlike " knowledge of a Judge!

>

> The case cost us $600,000 alone in legal fees,then you have another $100,000

> plus in expert witnesses,initial investigations, that doesn't include the

> equity in the home or all of our furniture-or the emotional stress it has

> put on our family.

>

> Honestly I really hope that what we have endured makes it easier for mold

> victims to receive justice-but you have to ask the question-just how much

> are you willing to endure to get to that point. Drees is appealing the $1.4

> million to the Supreme Court of Va and we will be in appeals for another

> year minimum.

>

> Take care and God Bless.

>

> Meng.

>

> On Sun, Apr 12, 2009 at 5:08 PM, Carl E. Grimes <grimes@...> wrote:

>

> >

> >

> > ,

> >

> > Congratulations on a rare win! Your experience and willingness to

> > share is invaluable. Can you share with us who the other experts

> > were?

> >

> > Did the judge hold a Daubert or Frye hearing?

> >

>

>

[Guest guest]

God bless you and your family . I know that it rests with the plaintiff to

prove their case, but as if it weren't enough to have to go through the trials

of the illnesses you and your husband and child went through. So very few people

can understand what this is like. Even those who are close to you. I just hope

and pray that this is the last year of this ordeal and that the outcome is the

absolute best it can be for you all.

Have you been able to go ahead and remediate your home, or are you having to

wait for the award?

God bless,

Sam

Carl,

I can only hope that something good will come out of our family having to go

through this nightmare, I would be honored if by our experience, more

people would be able to receive a favorable outcome.

[Guest guest]

Sharon,

   Thanks for your response. Some of the plaintiffs in our case did get to see

Dr. Marinkovich before he passed. We have also seen Dr. Shoemaker. 

   It's our house tests that they're saying no good???   They say that we can

not prove our houses had mold?? Our air samples, swabs, tape samples, a test we

paid $1800 each to get?? Not to mention between the 6 families involved

(although there were many more) we have testing done from 3 different companies

none of them are good anymore??

  As of 6 months ago some change in the science of mold??? I really do not

understand, I was the manager of the apartments and we also have gotten in touch

of 2 maintanence people who were working there even before I started there and

they are both willing to testify.  This has actually blown us all away!! 

    Just a few months ago mwe had a meeting with ur attorneys and they had

brought Doug Haney in to consult on our case, he was there at our meeting.

We thought we were gonna get better. Our next meeting 2 hours before a mediation

meeting they tell us about our test and that the deffendents are offering us

$1500.  And they don't have to fix anything and can continue to move people into

those units knowing they are gettng sick. I had high levels of Stachy in my

bathroom and stachy in my air ventalation??? How can this all be dismissed like

nothing?? This just doesn't seem right and I would love if some one could help

me undestand.  

      Is this happening to anyone else??? Our attorney's sd there are many mold

cases in this situation now???

Desperate and Confused,

________________________________

From: " snk1955@... " <snk1955@...>

Sent: Sunday, April 12, 2009 7:34:40 AM

Subject: Re: [] Stachybotrys Chartarum IgG antibodies test. Is it

accurat...

,

If your attorney does not know how to properly apply the data he has in

conjunction with your illnesses and other evidence, then my advice to you

would be....get a new attorney. IgG results cannot be used by themselves to

prove causation. But they most definitely can be used in conjunction with

other data as part of the puzzle. Look for information of type III

hypersensitivity reactions.

This used to drive Dr. Marinkovich nuts when an undereducated mold attorney

use to try and use the IgG testing as the end all be all. NO! WRONG! Or

bought into the defense hype that IgG provided no information. It is part

of the puzzle and if your attorney does not understand this or how to use

it, then you are sunk in your case. IgG can be an indicator of chronic

inflammation from an antigen.

IgG testing can be used to prove hypersensitivity due to an exposure to

mold. That is science as old as the hills, nothing new or novel. But...it

cannot be used to say exactly when you were exposed as IgG antibodies stay

in your system for awhile. You have to tie onset of symptoms, IgG results

and what you were exposed to...all together.

_http://www-immuno. path.cam. ac.uk/~immuno/ part1/lec13/ lec13_97. html_

(http://www-immuno. path.cam. ac.uk/~immuno/ part1/lec13/ lec13_97. html)

Sharon K

In a message dated 4/11/2009 10:54:45 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,

grimeshabitats (DOT) com writes:

>>

,

I'm not an attorney but if your's is referring to appellate

" decisions " (they aren't a law but can be what is called " case

law " ) these are decisions about a case which was appealed. I'd

be surprised if they would rule on facts because appeals are

about procedures which determine facts. He should provide the

citation for the case and the decision so you can see what it says.

[Guest guest]

Ok, I've written enough, perhaps too much to have your opponents

see this online (you bet they are reading this list, right???)

At 01:34 PM 4/30/2009, you wrote:

> It's our house tests that they're saying no good???

They say that as it's the only way for them to escape liability.

The only way to attack your evidence. It's just a ploy, to worry

you, eat up your time. The proper legal response (I am not a

lawyer and giving no legal advise) I think would be they will

have to present hard evidence to back up their " mere layman

opinions " , that is bring in an expert witness at some expense.

I think the judge will understand this, but you need to explicit

point out that your expert witnesses have not be rebutted by

any of their " expert witness " , just their lawyer's mouth issuing

hot air, that should not be taken into account in the judge's

decision making. That is close to how your lawyer will tell

and write the judge. BTW, I would put in writing to your lawyer,

an order for them to produce and submit to the court the

avoid counter argument... just in case your lawyer has been

brought out by the other side, as commonly happens.

If you give your lawyer written orders, WITH A TIME FRAME,

like in the next 24 hours, and he FAILS to honor it, then

you have him disbarred, and how ever he was " brought out "

becomes a useless bribe if he can not practice his legal

profession.

Point is, protect yourself, with written instructions to your lawyer,

ALWAYS with a 1 day time frame, or even " TODAY " , an 8 or 4 or

even 1 hour time frame, is VERY COMMON in the court system.

> As of 6 months ago some change in the science of mold???

They need to produce an expert witness, otherwise you ask the

judge to exclude these layman opinions. And submit that in

writing to your lawyer, and prepare the same in case your

lawyer " forgets it " , so you can hand the bailiff yourself

the written request to exclude evidence and the bailiff will

hand it to the judge.

>I really do not understand, I was the manager of the apartments and

>we also have gotten in touch of 2 maintanence people who were

>working there even before I started there and they are both willing

>to testify. This has actually blown us all away!!

Legal fights have the opponents going for you on ALL fronts.

They will try to find out who you do business with, and

have those contracts cancelled, etc. Watch out! It's

no holds barred. Eye jabbing, below the belt punches

are all legally allowed, though it could be considered

business espionage, which is not legal, it's hard to

catch them red handed, and so what if you do, you

still need to file a complaint with the legal system...

and prove it... not a good way to go. Just one lawsuit

at a time, or you have too many eggs to juggle.

Make them juggle eggs instead.

Better you fight them back the same way. Get

their contracts cancelled, etc.

> Just a few months ago mwe had a meeting with ur attorneys and

> they had brought Doug Haney in to consult on our case, he was there

> at our meeting. We thought we were gonna get better. Our next

> meeting 2 hours before a mediation meeting they tell us about our

> test and that the deffendents are offering us $1500.

Ask for at least triple and they will settle. But you want more right?

Do not reply online. Or offline, as I do not do legal stuff for free. ;-)

>And they don't have to fix anything

What country? What State? Even in renter friendly California, that

happens a lot.

The law is the law. Health harm they have to pay for, but not for

fixing it up so

it does not happen again.

However!!!! There is now a way to " get them to comply. "

It's nasty, not fun, and takes up your time. You can notify any new

occupants of

the issue, excerpts from the case transcripts are safest to supply, and include

an excerpt from new California law, that allows tenants to break a year lease,

at any time, due to personal health concerns, or increased risk(s) of the unit

compared to nearby units. It's a new law, and iffy.

So, you promise the landlord that will provide to any new tenants this " info "

packet, totally legally to hand out info packets to any stranger, and

for health

reasons the new tenants will break the lease, moving out, costing the landlord

in time of interviewing for yet new tenants. BTW, when the lease is broken

for health reasons, the deposit must be returned in full, both the security and

cleaning fee, minus only damage repair fees (too many holes in wall or like).

But only in California, and it's not been tested much.

Point is, the landlord will get mad at you, threaten to sue you (over nothing,

the judge will laugh him out of court and have him pay your legal fees),

and be very offensive towards you, name calling (it's illegal so record it),

and such.

But I have read where the landlord caved in, made the repairs as part of the

court agreement. But only once I read about this in California. In Wyoming

nothing like this would ever happen, as there are no rent laws there. None.

>How can this all be dismissed like nothing??

This just doesn't seem right and I would love if some one could help

me undestand.

I agree. I'm upset over it as well. But the law is on there side.

There are groups trying to change the law, in each state.

Get in contact them with them to learn more.

>Is this happening to anyone else??? Our attorney's sd there are many

>mold cases in this situation now???

I've heard this, too. In most states it is legal for the landlord to

provide dangerous living conditions,

and even kill the tenant, with no fine or jail time, just as long the

building kills the tenant, and

there is no intentional neglient. Proving un-intentionally neglect

is very hard.

Which is the last lever you have to get into your court agreement the

landlord does repairs.

That is, if anyone else gets harm in their building (assuming you

win), and they are harmed

the same way, then that is " INtentional neglect " , and the landlord's

insurance will be cancelled,

and the landlord will have to pay for an attorney and pay damages,

and as it's " intentional "

there can be criminal charges, at least filed, if not taken to court,

so the landlord now has

a criminal record on file with the police.

You can promise the above will happen... or your lawyer can promise

(it's safer for

him to do the talking here), and the landlords in California are caving.

Now, last point, then I must go, even if you " win " everything you ask for, the

actual repairs, as supervised by the landlord, might not be what you expected.

And again the landlord wins. You can include clauses for inspections after

opening the wall, to see all moldy building materials are removed or cleaned

to a high degree, but that will cost someone money, to pay the inspector, and

it the landlord is paying a third party... a little bribe money under

the table,

and they pass...

No, trying to protect the next tenants, is very hard. The info

packet is likely

the best way, and in a few years, some tenants will have a good lawsuit

based upon your hard work over those years... a lot of your time... better

spent I think having the laws in your state changed, and then unifying

rent laws across all states, for equal protection in the republic.

BTW, you can find all the above on various legal web sites, and in

mailing lists.

It's not new. Google for it.

2 cents. Good luck.

[Guest guest]

Oh, submit to the judge the two papers posted to list about how

Los Angeles is handling this new mold environmental health issue

to ensure tenants remain safe. Maybe the judge is progressive

and will see the light???

Or at least he will then favor your side way more highly when he

sees LA City is weighing in your side of the issue.

Written instructions to your lawyer to present the LA papers to

the judge will protect you more than just " verbally asking " your

lawyer. He can " forget " verbal instructions, but ignoring

written instructions can get him disbarred (rare), but it does

mean you might get a new lawsuit if you lose, based upon

your lawyer's misconduct, in some states, but that eats

up your time and money... sigh. The legal system is not

geared towards tenants, but towards people with money,

that is landlords... sigh.

Good luck.

[Guest guest]

Carl,

Again excellent writing and demonstration of a full grasp of the problem.

But now, lets assume is not interested in litigation. Let's assume

has documentation that he has been exposed to Stachy, has IgG

antibodies to Stachy and has symptoms indicative of exposure to Stachy. Should

have to meet the standard of burden of proof you describe before he is

able to have mold exposure considered as a possible cause of his symptoms

and before he is able to receive treatment for these symptoms?...Because we

all KNOW this is what is happening. The courtroom is driving the medical

science rather than the other way around. And as a result, people who have

no interest in litigation and only want to get better are unable to receive

medical treatment or even a physician warning of what may be causing their

symptoms before these illnesses become severe or debilitating. More

untreated illness from lack of physician warning = more litigation. More

litigation driving the medical science = more untreated illness from lack of

physician warning. No matter what road one takes to get there, it all goes back

to physician education to solve this problem.

Sharon.

In a message dated 4/30/2009 8:51:19 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,

grimes@... writes:

,

This is a good question because it illustrates some key points.

(I'm not an attorney but I can describe what often happens). The

problem is your proof of exposure using the antibody results is

necessary but it is not enough.

[Guest guest]

Sharon,

I fully agree. I described a legal burden of proof when pushed to

the extreme of virtual impossibility. But that is NOT the same as

what is required for a person to take care of themselves or their

family. And, as you eloquently state, is not the same for what

physicians and other health care providers should be using to

determine their duty to " first, do no harm. " Neither is it

consistent with the preferred Precautionary Principle.

Carl Grimes

Healthy Habitats LLC

-----

On Fri May 01 03:06:57 CDT 2009, snk1955@... wrote:

> Carl,

>

> Again excellent writing and demonstration of a full grasp of the

> problem.

> But now, lets assume is not interested in litigation.

> Let's assume

> has documentation that he has been exposed to Stachy, has

> IgG

> antibodies to Stachy and has symptoms indicative of exposure to

> Stachy. Should

> have to meet the standard of burden of proof you describe

> before he is

> able to have mold exposure considered as a possible cause of his

> symptoms

> and before he is able to receive treatment for these

> symptoms?...Because we

> all KNOW this is what is happening. The courtroom is driving

> the medical

> science rather than the other way around. And as a result,

> people who have

> no interest in litigation and only want to get better are unable

> to receive

> medical treatment or even a physician warning of what may be

> causing their

> symptoms before these illnesses become severe or debilitating.

> More

> untreated illness from lack of physician warning = more

> litigation. More

> litigation driving the medical science = more untreated illness

> from lack of

> physician warning. No matter what road one takes to get there,

> it all goes back

> to physician education to solve this problem.

>

> Sharon.

>

>

> In a message dated 4/30/2009 8:51:19 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,

> grimes@... writes:

>

> ,

>

> This is a good question because it illustrates some key points.

> (I'm not an attorney but I can describe what often happens). The

> problem is your proof of exposure using the antibody results is

> necessary but it is not enough.

>

[Guest guest]

i bet if doctors started getting sued for ledical malpractice things would

change quickly. at this day and age theres really no excuse for doctors to play

ignorant anymore.

In , snk1955@... wrote:

>

> Carl,

>

> Again excellent writing and demonstration of a full grasp of the problem.

> But now, lets assume is not interested in litigation. Let's assume

> has documentation that he has been exposed to Stachy, has IgG

> antibodies to Stachy and has symptoms indicative of exposure to Stachy.

Should

> have to meet the standard of burden of proof you describe before he is

> able to have mold exposure considered as a possible cause of his symptoms

> and before he is able to receive treatment for these symptoms?...Because we

> all KNOW this is what is happening. The courtroom is driving the medical

> science rather than the other way around. And as a result, people who have

> no interest in litigation and only want to get better are unable to receive

> medical treatment or even a physician warning of what may be causing their

> symptoms before these illnesses become severe or debilitating. More

> untreated illness from lack of physician warning = more litigation. More

> litigation driving the medical science = more untreated illness from lack of

> physician warning. No matter what road one takes to get there, it all goes

back

> to physician education to solve this problem.

>

> Sharon.

>

>

> In a message dated 4/30/2009 8:51:19 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,

> grimes@... writes:

>

> ,

>

> This is a good question because it illustrates some key points.

> (I'm not an attorney but I can describe what often happens). The

> problem is your proof of exposure using the antibody results is

> necessary but it is not enough.

>

[Guest guest]

I am new to the site and late in this conversation, so I apologize if this

question has been asked before - who is your attorney and are they mold

specialists??? I have heard nothing about new test practices... we just had our

house re-tested for peace of mind and I went over the previous testing with the

new company and they said nothing about any difference. My attorney's are also

" mold " attorney's and have said nothing about any change.... I am curious about

his as well, since we are close to mediation and/or trial.

Thanks,

Vicki

CA

>

> Sharon,

>    Thanks for your response. Some of the plaintiffs in our case did get to see

Dr. Marinkovich before he passed. We have also seen Dr. Shoemaker. 

>    It's our house tests that they're saying no good???   They say that we can

not prove our houses had mold?? Our air samples, swabs, tape samples, a test we

paid $1800 each to get?? Not to mention between the 6 families involved

(although there were many more) we have testing done from 3 different companies

none of them are good anymore??

>   As of 6 months ago some change in the science of mold??? I really do not

understand, I was the manager of the apartments and we also have gotten in touch

of 2 maintanence people who were working there even before I started there and

they are both willing to testify.  This has actually blown us all away!! 

>     Just a few months ago mwe had a meeting with ur attorneys and they had

brought Doug Haney in to consult on our case, he was there at our meeting.

We thought we were gonna get better. Our next meeting 2 hours before a mediation

meeting they tell us about our test and that the deffendents are offering us

$1500.  And they don't have to fix anything and can continue to move people into

those units knowing they are gettng sick. I had high levels of Stachy in my

bathroom and stachy in my air ventalation??? How can this all be dismissed like

nothing?? This just doesn't seem right and I would love if some one could help

me undestand.  

>       Is this happening to anyone else??? Our attorney's sd there are many

mold cases in this situation now???

>

> Desperate and Confused,

>

>

>

>

> ________________________________

> From: " snk1955@... " <snk1955@...>

>

> Sent: Sunday, April 12, 2009 7:34:40 AM

> Subject: Re: [] Stachybotrys Chartarum IgG antibodies test. Is it

accurat...

>

>

>

>

>

> ,

>

> If your attorney does not know how to properly apply the data he has in

> conjunction with your illnesses and other evidence, then my advice to you

> would be....get a new attorney. IgG results cannot be used by themselves to

> prove causation. But they most definitely can be used in conjunction with

> other data as part of the puzzle. Look for information of type III

> hypersensitivity reactions.

>

> This used to drive Dr. Marinkovich nuts when an undereducated mold attorney

> use to try and use the IgG testing as the end all be all. NO! WRONG! Or

> bought into the defense hype that IgG provided no information. It is part

> of the puzzle and if your attorney does not understand this or how to use

> it, then you are sunk in your case. IgG can be an indicator of chronic

> inflammation from an antigen.

>

> IgG testing can be used to prove hypersensitivity due to an exposure to

> mold. That is science as old as the hills, nothing new or novel. But...it

> cannot be used to say exactly when you were exposed as IgG antibodies stay

> in your system for awhile. You have to tie onset of symptoms, IgG results

> and what you were exposed to...all together.

> _http://www-immuno. path.cam. ac.uk/~immuno/ part1/lec13/ lec13_97. html_

> (http://www-immuno. path.cam. ac.uk/~immuno/ part1/lec13/ lec13_97. html)

> Sharon K

>

> In a message dated 4/11/2009 10:54:45 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,

> grimeshabitats (DOT) com writes:

>

> >>

> ,

>

> I'm not an attorney but if your's is referring to appellate

> " decisions " (they aren't a law but can be what is called " case

> law " ) these are decisions about a case which was appealed. I'd

> be surprised if they would rule on facts because appeals are

> about procedures which determine facts. He should provide the

> citation for the case and the decision so you can see what it says.

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Is there an insurance company involved in your lawsuit?

________________________________

From: Vicki <vicki1021@...>

Sent: Saturday, May 2, 2009 12:43:31 AM

Subject: [] Re: Stachybotrys Chartarum IgG antibodies test. Is it

accurat...

I am new to the site and late in this conversation, so I apologize if this

question has been asked before - who is your attorney and are they mold

specialists? ?? I have heard nothing about new test practices... we just had

our house re-tested for peace of mind and I went over the previous testing with

the new company and they said nothing about any difference. My attorney's are

also " mold " attorney's and have said nothing about any change.... I am curious

about his as well, since we are close to mediation and/or trial.

Thanks,

Vicki

CA

>

> Sharon,

> Thanks for your response. Some of the plaintiffs in our case did get to see

Dr. Marinkovich before he passed. We have also seen Dr. Shoemaker.

> It's our house tests that they're saying no good??? They say that we can

not prove our houses had mold?? Our air samples, swabs, tape samples, a test we

paid $1800 each to get?? Not to mention between the 6 families involved

(although there were many more) we have testing done from 3 different companies

none of them are good anymore??

> As of 6 months ago some change in the science of mold??? I really do not

understand, I was the manager of the apartments and we also have gotten in touch

of 2 maintanence people who were working there even before I started there and

they are both willing to testify. This has actually blown us all away!!

> Just a few months ago mwe had a meeting with ur attorneys and they had

brought Doug Haney in to consult on our case, he was there at our meeting. We

thought we were gonna get better. Our next meeting 2 hours before a mediation

meeting they tell us about our test and that the deffendents are offering us

$1500. And they don't have to fix anything and can continue to move people into

those units knowing they are gettng sick. I had high levels of Stachy in my

bathroom and stachy in my air ventalation? ?? How can this all be dismissed like

nothing?? This just doesn't seem right and I would love if some one could help

me undestand.

> Is this happening to anyone else??? Our attorney's sd there are many

mold cases in this situation now???

>

> Desperate and Confused,

>

>

>

>

> ____________ _________ _________ __

> From: " snk1955@... " <snk1955@... >

>

> Sent: Sunday, April 12, 2009 7:34:40 AM

> Subject: Re: [] Stachybotrys Chartarum IgG antibodies test. Is it

accurat...

>

>

>

>

>

> ,

>

> If your attorney does not know how to properly apply the data he has in

> conjunction with your illnesses and other evidence, then my advice to you

> would be....get a new attorney. IgG results cannot be used by themselves to

> prove causation. But they most definitely can be used in conjunction with

> other data as part of the puzzle. Look for information of type III

> hypersensitivity reactions.

>

> This used to drive Dr. Marinkovich nuts when an undereducated mold attorney

> use to try and use the IgG testing as the end all be all. NO! WRONG! Or

> bought into the defense hype that IgG provided no information. It is part

> of the puzzle and if your attorney does not understand this or how to use

> it, then you are sunk in your case. IgG can be an indicator of chronic

> inflammation from an antigen.

>

> IgG testing can be used to prove hypersensitivity due to an exposure to

> mold. That is science as old as the hills, nothing new or novel. But...it

> cannot be used to say exactly when you were exposed as IgG antibodies stay

> in your system for awhile. You have to tie onset of symptoms, IgG results

> and what you were exposed to...all together.

> _http://www-immuno. path.cam. ac.uk/~immuno/ part1/lec13/ lec13_97. html_

> (http://www-immuno. path.cam. ac.uk/~immuno/ part1/lec13/ lec13_97. html)

> Sharon K

>

> In a message dated 4/11/2009 10:54:45 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,

> grimeshabitats (DOT) com writes:

>

> >>

> ,

>

> I'm not an attorney but if your's is referring to appellate

> " decisions " (they aren't a law but can be what is called " case

> law " ) these are decisions about a case which was appealed. I'd

> be surprised if they would rule on facts because appeals are

> about procedures which determine facts. He should provide the

> citation for the case and the decision so you can see what it says.

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>