Re: AAEM News: Minner v Am Mortgage [SBS, MCS, Daubert, Ziem]

[Guest guest]

Sorry guys, but I am confused. What caused the Minner case to be posted?

Isn't that from 2000?

Sharon

In a message dated 5/29/2010 7:39:58 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,

ntefusa@... writes:

If you read through the entire pleading you will notice that the court

disallowed MC and did allow toxic encephalopathy to be admitted.

Why are people cutting off their noses to spite their faces in the MCS v

TE diagnosis?

If you want to lose in litigation keep insisting upon MCS and see where

you get....,,

[] AAEM News: Minner v Am Mortgage [sBS, " MCS " ,

Daubert, Ziem]

From: Lawbook Worm <_lawbookworm@..._

(mailto:lawbookworm@...) >

Minner v Am Mortgage [sBS, " MCS " , Daubert, Ziem]

>Dr. Ziem diagnosed all three patients with

Multiple Chemical Sensitivity ( " MCS " ), Sick

Building Syndrome ( " SBS " ), Chronic Fatigue

Syndrome ( " CFS " ), Fibromyalgia ( " FM " ), Reactive

Airways Dysfunction Syndrome ( " RADS " ), and Toxic Encephalopathy ( " TE " ).

In fact, it is not apparant on the face of the

decision that Ziem actually used the term " MCS " .

>It appears that the best approach to take in

this instance is to evaluate the Plaintiffs'

experts first to determine [**49] whether their

[Guest guest]

If you read through the entire pleading you will notice that the court

disallowed MC and did allow toxic encephalopathy to be admitted.

Why are people cutting off their noses to spite their faces in the MCS v TE

diagnosis?

If you want to lose in litigation keep insisting upon MCS and see where you

get....,,

[] AAEM News: Minner v Am Mortgage [sBS, " MCS " , Daubert,

Ziem]

From: Lawbook Worm <lawbookworm@...>

Minner v Am Mortgage [sBS, " MCS " , Daubert, Ziem]

>Dr. Ziem diagnosed all three patients with

Multiple Chemical Sensitivity ( " MCS " ), Sick

Building Syndrome ( " SBS " ), Chronic Fatigue

Syndrome ( " CFS " ), Fibromyalgia ( " FM " ), Reactive

Airways Dysfunction Syndrome ( " RADS " ), and Toxic Encephalopathy ( " TE " ).

In fact, it is not apparant on the face of the

decision that Ziem actually used the term " MCS " .

>It appears that the best approach to take in

this instance is to evaluate the Plaintiffs'

experts first to determine [**49] whether their

[Guest guest]

One good thing is that people can read the difference in evidentiary standards

between Frye and Daubert. Next, they can see the " relaxed standard " to allow a

" less " generally accepted standard, but which has some basis of fact, under

Daubert, but the judge being the " gatekeeper " of " what comes in " as expert

testimony. It means it is not " generally accepted " in the practice of medicine.

Part of the rule evolved from the silicone breast implants.

Remember expert testimony does not have to be a " learned " person in the academic

sense. If you have a case where there is a theft, even an " ex-con " could be

qualified as an " expert " to assist the court understand " how " it is done. Who

is better to show how to " pick a lock " than a " professional " expert lock-picker.

It gave an excellent history of how the " experts " were chosen for a layperson,

to slog through the old English and evidence history, and the difference between

a " treating " physician and one who is brought in by an " expert " (accepted by the

court) and who can read the medical documents and " opine " as to " causation. "

I agree that going in with MCS could be tricky and the medical standard for

" other " of the sicknesses might be not " accepted " - I think they went in trying

to use this doc as a " treating " doc, and not as a " consult " even though the doc

had sterling credentials, the court found there were chunks missing. There are

other more reliable and accepted medical diagnoses, upon which a plaintiff can

prevail. This doc met the " foundation " requirement of " background, education,

training and experience " prong, but apparently not the principles of science,

peer review, publication, potential for error or testing (it must be subject to

testing) requirements.

It was good it was published in my opinion because it is a good review, or

learning point to see what the standards the court is imposing. What I did see

as very fair of the judge to discuss, and at length, was the " temporal

relationship " of the time window, of when the people got sick, and the prior

apparent health of the plaintiffs in the building. My other point is the

smoking aspect. It does not help you prevail if you are a smoker filing a

claim. Ever. It probably should not defeat a claim, but does not show the court

that you are very " health conscious " with good personal habits, even if a

building truly makes you sick. You really weaken your case.

>

> Sorry guys, but I am confused. What caused the Minner case to be posted?

> Isn't that from 2000?

>

> Sharon

>

>

> In a message dated 5/29/2010 7:39:58 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,

> ntefusa@... writes:

>

>

> If you read through the entire pleading you will notice that the court

> disallowed MC and did allow toxic encephalopathy to be admitted.

>

> Why are people cutting off their noses to spite their faces in the MCS v

> TE diagnosis?

>

> If you want to lose in litigation keep insisting upon MCS and see where

> you get....,,

>

> [] AAEM News: Minner v Am Mortgage [sBS, " MCS " ,

> Daubert, Ziem]

>

> From: Lawbook Worm <_lawbookworm@..._

> (mailto:lawbookworm@...) >

>

> Minner v Am Mortgage [sBS, " MCS " , Daubert, Ziem]

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Re: why is this case being posted now?

Member who posted it has only been in group a couple of years so he wouldn't

have been prevy to an prev discussion on it.

Newer members may be interested in content of older cases and things that have

already been discussed. I asked KC before putting it through.

>

> Sorry guys, but I am confused. What caused the Minner case to be posted?

Isn't that from 2000?

>

> Sharon

[] AAEM News: Minner v Am Mortgage [sBS, " MCS " ,

> Daubert, Ziem]

>

> From: Lawbook Worm <_lawbookworm@..._

> (mailto:lawbookworm@...) >

>

> Minner v Am Mortgage [sBS, " MCS " , Daubert, Ziem]

>

[Guest guest]

This case was posted by someone other than myself. The court talks at the end

of the section, I think section [**68] or so and the non explanation of

causation without factoring in other possibilities, such as smoking.

There is an illness called tobacco workers lung, which is related to processing

tobacco. And, if you smoke a cigarette, which has moisture on the leaves, you

may be inhaling possible toxins as well. The link between lung cancer has been

well known for over fifty years and the cover up has been historic.

The courts have a principle known as " stare decisis, " which means

standing by what has already been decided. It is always important to know which

" line of cases " may be cited by either the plaintiff or defendant side. One

obvious merit is that even a 2000 case which involves Daubert or the Federal

Rules of Evidence, should be paid ample attention because it is the evidentiary

standard.

And KC was correct, to have it posted. Newer members might not know the

background. It points to flawed medicals in my opinion, especially if a doctor

is listed as a treating physician who really does not " regularly " and that is

key " regularly " treating a patient. No matter the wonderful credentials. I

don't happen to consider a 2000 case an old one.

> >

> > Sorry guys, but I am confused. What caused the Minner case to be posted?

Isn't that from 2000?

> >

> > Sharon

>

> [] AAEM News: Minner v Am Mortgage [sBS, " MCS " ,

> > Daubert, Ziem]

> >

> > From: Lawbook Worm <_lawbookworm@_

> > (mailto:lawbookworm@) >

> >

> > Minner v Am Mortgage [sBS, " MCS " , Daubert, Ziem]

> >

>

[Guest guest]

The original poster is:

Lawrence A. Plumlee, MD

President, Chemical Sensitivity Disorders Association

Bethesda, land

> > >

> > > Sorry guys, but I am confused. What caused the Minner case to be posted?

Isn't that from 2000?

> > >

> > > Sharon

> >

> > [] AAEM News: Minner v Am Mortgage [sBS, " MCS " ,

> > > Daubert, Ziem]

> > >

> > > From: Lawbook Worm <_lawbookworm@_

> > > (mailto:lawbookworm@) >

> > >

> > > Minner v Am Mortgage [sBS, " MCS " , Daubert, Ziem]

> > >

> >

>

[Guest guest]

I know about the tobacco cover up. to bad nothing is so black and white. there

are people that get lung canser that smoke and people that dont get lung cancer

that smoke. there are people that get lung cancer that have never smoked.

it has not been proven that it was only the cig's, by itself that caused lung

cancer, who says those people that smoke and got lung cancer were not also

breathing other toxins in their environment.

theres no doubt that many toxins could damage the lungs and cancer could start.

from what I understand, it's how are bodies react to the toxins that causes

cancer, not the toxin itself, if that were true, everyone that smoked would get

cancer. just like if every mold exposure caused cancer, we all would have

cancer.

makes sence that the higher the dose, the more likely our bodies would not be

able to fight the toxins and the more chance of cancer to start. basicly, I be

more inclined to just say that any toxins cause cancer with to more exposure

than the body can deal with.

I lived through two WDB exposures, I understand that there well be a point for

each of us where the body well go from keeping up with a toxic exposure and not

keeping up with it. it well be different for everyone, no matter what the toxin.

and truefully,I highly doubt that anyone is every toxin free, before a WDB

exposure cause cig's are not the only toxin's that may be in a indoor

environment. the air in 98 percent of homes is toxic, that aint all from cig's.

some toxins may react with each other,others may cancell out each other, we dont

have all that knowledge.

my understanding of cancer is that it's basicly a build up of cells that were

attacking something in our body and for some reason were not than removed from

our body. I can see were there could be many things that could cause lung

cancer. the lineings in the lungs would

have to get pretty damaged,but it may be possable that just haveing things get

stuck in the lineings,here and there, could start cancer in that spot. now maybe

I'm at a higher risk of getting lung cancer from smokeing now after my WDB

exposure has damaged my lungs, but,maybe I'm not at a higher risk for lung

cancer now, because I don't live with purfumes,ect. in my home, actually I never

was into the overboard scenting of my home with nasty candles,plug ins ect. so

maybe I was still better off than some who didn't smoke but needed their home to

reek of purfume.

but the point is, that really, until there has been a good enough model made to

simulate exactly what happens in our lungs from many different kinds of

exposure, I dont think you can say it was this one thing or that.

possably even some of those dreaded parisites that get in some people could

cause cancer to start.

I just watched a story on monsters inside us where it showed the cells attacking

the it in the body.

I'm not saying cig's are not harmful, I'm saying theres oh so much more out

there thats impossable to avoid and theres no list anywhere

thats put's these things in a 1 to 10 scale of whats most harmful,

how much,how often. I dont now and have never had a dry cough from smokeing

cig's. the only time I have a coughing fit is when I get a chemical exposure

that causes my airways to close up and I know for a fact that that happening is

dependant on both dose and type of toxin inhaled.

while one could say " you smoke,thats bad for you " another could say " you live in a

highly polluted city,thats worse for you " .

a cigar is more toxic than a cig. and I'd have to say it's a rather hudge

difference.

drugs are drugs, it's all about the dose and the type. any drug that you abuse

well harm you. the dose and toxicity of the toxins in that drug and how often

you abuse it, does matter. and theres plenty of drugs/toxins that your getting

weather you want to freely or not.

it just blows me away, that forever cig's were claimed to not be harmful, than

now, when theres oh so much more to be worried about, they are just the worst

killer there is. wrong!

talk about going from one extreme to another! I kindof fell that it's all in the

blame game, what ever works for the need of industry is what we well be told,

and after everything I've been through, I pretty much believe in one thing,

myself, and how I react to different things and thats my guide, and gee, I think

it's probably a pretty good guide.

ps, there are some studies out there of toxic mold exposures where there was no

difference between effects of smokers and non-smokers.

caucasion? thats stupied, exposure in a WDB is going to damage your lungs

weither you smoke or not.

is there anyone in this group who did not suffer effects to their lungs from

their WDB exposure? that did suffer other effects to the rest of their bodies?

> > >

> > > Sorry guys, but I am confused. What caused the Minner case to be posted?

Isn't that from 2000?

> > >

> > > Sharon

> >

> > [] AAEM News: Minner v Am Mortgage [sBS, " MCS " ,

> > > Daubert, Ziem]

> > >

> > > From: Lawbook Worm <_lawbookworm@_

> > > (mailto:lawbookworm@) >

> > >

> > > Minner v Am Mortgage [sBS, " MCS " , Daubert, Ziem]

> > >

> >

>