fbpx

Mold EDUCATION

:: LEGAL RESOURCES

 

LAW RESOURCES FOR A LEGAL CASE REGARDING MOLD

While we hope you never need to take someone to court, we also understand that sometimes it’s the only option to hold someone accountable. It’s unfortunate that the lack of education regarding mold impacts so many industries and causes so many families harm.  Whether you are a family who just built a home with a contractor that had defects leading to mold exposure or you live in a building owned by a landlord who has failed to maintain the building properly, we understand where you are coming from and want to help.  The first step in any such tragedy is first bringing it to the party’s attention that there is a problem and sharing with them some of the resources we have on our website to help them better understand what you’re going through. Try setting up a call with one of our experts with yourself and your builder, insurance company, or landlord that is not seeing eye to eye with you. A lot of times there’s a confusion or a lack of knowledge that makes them think that you are not being reasonable, when in fact you are just trying to live normally without adverse health reactions.  Other times, they just simply don’t have the resources to work with individuals that can truly solve their problem.  If that doesn’t work and you need to take legal action, here is some free information available to you.

First, it’s important to understand the history of mold and the studies and cases that have already paved the way.  Click here to see the history of mold that we had compiled. Next, it’s important to understand that in the past 20 years, there hasn’t been much precedence set (other than some settlements) of cases being won in court for plaintiffs battling mold exposure. This is important data to know and understand because It is difficult to find a toxic tort lawyer to help you considering they don’t have a slam dunk case in front of them.  It will take some work to educate yourself and your attorney in the best approach to combat this so that you can get the relief you need to make the proper repairs to eradicate the exposure from your lives.

I have compiled this data after searching through 20 years of court cases looking for a common theme of why mold plaintiffs lost. The common theme I had discovered was that most mold plaintiff’s hired expert witnesses (their doctors and relevant mold experts) to state that there was mold present in their body and in their environment that correlated.  Interesting enough, what they were saying made a lot of sense however, each and every time their expert testimony was considered inadmissible. It’s because the defendants first line of defense is to point to Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence to convince the judge that the testing being used by the plaintiff does not meet its criteria.  From there, it’s up to the judge’s interpretation to decide and in each case, the judge had ruled against the plaintiff and ruled the testing as inadmissible evidence.  Once that is done, the entire expert testimony is now considered inadmissible because it was based on those tests.  The next strategy is to discredit the expert and I will post an excerpt of a court case from April of 2020 to demonstrate how they do this:

“Defendants moved pursuant to Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013 (D.C. Cir. 1923), Parker v. Mobil Oil Corp., 7 NY3d 434 (2006), and Cornell v. 360 West 51st Street Realty, LLC, 22 NY3d 762 (2014) to preclude Dr. *****’s testimony on the grounds that:

(1) It is not generally accepted by the relevant scientific / medical community that inhalation in a residential environment of the types of molds and mycotoxins to which Plaintiff was allegedly exposed can cause the illnesses alleged by Plaintiff in humans.(2) The method by which Dr. ***** attributed Plaintiff’s medical conditions to the alleged mold exposure is not generally accepted as reliable by the relevant scientific / medical community.(3) Assuming arguendo that Dr.  ***** employed generally accepted principles and methods, her opinion should nevertheless be excluded based on the “analytical gap between the data and the opinion proffered.”

When I read this, I can’t help but be disappointed because even the CDC states that some persons can be sensitive to mold and their byproducts.  What we know today is that everyone is different and will experience different adverse health reactions but that is not grounds to disqualify the matter altogether. Furthermore the medical community does not generally accept that mold does not cause health reactions, just the medical community that is for hire by these large insurance corporations that defend their contractors and landlords.  They are the ones that don’t want to set precedence because it would open a repeat of the 90s where millions of dollars would be rightfully awarded. We shouldn’t be suppressing the public of their rights to hold people accountable we should be educating our industries and making them build and maintain better living environments. 

Here is the Valparaiso University Law Review done in 2008 titled “Got Mold? Improving Plaintiff’s Toxic Mold Causation Problems with the Introduction of DNA and Mycotoxin Extraction Testing”.

https://scholar.valpo.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1145&context=vulr

After reading that law review, it brings to light the technology we have that we are not utilizing to help provide the proper evidence that can win cases and I will talk about some of the success we have been having with different tests as well as some promising advancements of technology in others. I want to first dive into some clinical studies, peer reviews, and clinical microbial reviews to further show that the medical and scientific community is in fact studying the effects on mold and does not generally accept that there’s nothing correlating to mold and biotoxin exposure and someone’s health.

“Mycotoxins” by J.W. Bennet and M. Klich:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC164220/

“Toxic effects of mycotoxins in humans” by M Peraica, B Radić, A Lucić, M Pavlović

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10534900/

“Indoor Mold, Toxigenic Fungi, and Stachybotrys chartarum: Infectious Disease Perspective” by D.M. Kuhn and M.A. Ghannoum

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC145304/

“Structural brain abnormalities in patients with inflammatory illness acquired following exposure to water-damaged buildings: a volumetric MRI study using NeuroQuant®” by Ritchie C Shoemaker, Dennis House, and James C Ryan

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24946038/

“Biochemical Impedance on Intracellular Functions of Vitamin B12 in Chronic Toxigenic Mold Exposures” by Ebere C. Anyanwu and Ijeoma Kanu

https://www.hindawi.com/journals/tswj/2007/923182/

“Metabolism of Mycotoxins, Intracellular Functions of Vitamin B12, and Neurological Manifestations in Patients with Chronic Toxigenic Mold Exposures. A Review” by Ebere C. Anyanwu, Mohammed Morad, and Andrew W Campbell

https://www.hindawi.com/journals/tswj/2004/957412/

“The effect of Aspergillus fumigatus infection on vitamin D receptor expression in cystic fibrosis” by Catherine A Coughlan, Sanjay H Chotirmall, Julie Renwick, Tidi Hassan, Teck Boon Low, Gudmundur Bergsson, Ahmed Eshwika, Kathleen Bennett, Katie Dunne, Catherine M Greene, Cedric Gunaratnam, Kevin Kavanagh, Patrick M Logan, Philip Murphy, Emer P Reeves, Noel G McElvaney

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22904183/

Exposure to Stachybotrys spp. and the guttation phenomenon by Manfred Gareis, Christoph Gottschalk

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24619360

Glutathione deficiency from Mycotoxin Exposure by Frederick T. Guilford and Janette Hope

http://www.mdpi.com/2072-6651/6/2/608

“Chronic Fatigue Syndrom diagnosis connection to toxic mold exposures” by Joseph H. Brewer, Jack D. Thrasher, David C. Straus, Roberta A. Madison, and Dennis Hooper.

http://www.mdpi.com/2072-6651/5/4/605

“Neurophysiological Effects of Chronic Indoor Environmental Toxic Mold Exposure on Children” by Ebere C. Anyanwu, Andrew W. Campbell, and Aristo Vojdani
http://www.hindawi.com/journals/tswj/2003/723838/abs/

“Mycotoxin Exposure related to some Childrens Diseases” by The World Health Organization

http://www.who.int/ceh/capacity/mycotoxins.pdf

“What the primary care pediatrician should know about syndromes associated with exposures to mycotoxins” by Ruth A Etzel

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16935759

Types of Testing admitted into evidence in 2016:
On April 4, 2016, NeuroQuant® and NeuroGage® were admitted as evidence by Judge Raymond A. Jackson in a Federal court case in Norfolk, VA (Federico, et al. v. Lincoln Military Housing, LLD, et al.) despite the objections of defense counsel. This was the first time these brain volume measurement tools were admitted in Federal court. David E. Ross, M.D., neuropsychiatrist, testified on the neuropsychiatric aspects of mold-related illness which had affected the Federicos, including the NeuroQuant® and NeuroGage® MRI brain volume measurements. The results showed a combined pattern of brain enlargement/atrophy similar to that found in two pioneering studies published by Ritchie Shoemaker, M.D. and colleagues. The jury found in favor of the plaintiffs.

Dr. Shoemaker has hypothesized that the brain enlargement/atrophy is caused by chronic neuroinflammation. This idea is supported by his finding that clinical treatment leads to normalization of brain volume.

In court, positive rulings are important because they set a positive precedent, which means that judges in future cases will be more likely to admit these types of results than if there had been previous negative rulings. Also, setting a positive precedent in Federal court is particularly helpful because state courts tend to follow the lead of the Federal court.

NeuroQuant® and NeuroGage® are commercially available software products which are able to measure and track brain volume abnormalities in patients with mold-related illness and many other brain disorders. They provide important objective data which vindicates our patients’ subjective reports of many neuropsychiatric symptoms which cause suffering and impair function. It is good news for our patients that these software tools are being accepted by our courts.

After speaking to Dr Tania Dempsey (https://www.drtaniadempsey.com/) on November 3rd, 2020 she had mentioned to me that Epigentics testing which analyzes your DNA (which fits into Rule 702, mentioned above) could be a type of test that could have success in court as it can determine if chemicals, mold, mycotoxins, heavy metals, and DNA adducts are present. This could be a huge technological advance in proving the correlation between mold present on DNA analysis that correlates to the mold present in your environment. I invite you to contact Tania Dempsey for more information on this testing if you have a need to prove your condition in a court of law.

We will continue to update this as more information becomes available, if you need to find court cases to find precedence, please see our mold history page as there have been many plaintiff victories in the 90s. 

Proven results through cutting edge process

Licensed in Connecticut, New Jersey, New York, & Pennsylvania

CMRS Certified, Certified Microbial Remediation Supervisor, Certified Member of IAQA, IICRC, ACAC, & A+ Rating BBB

All American Restoration Corporation BBB Business Review

We've Been Featured In:

florida mold remediation

florida mold remediation
Subscribe To Our Newsletter

Subscribe To Our Newsletter

Join our mailing list to receive the latest news and updates from our team.

You have Successfully Subscribed!