Posted by Sharon on 10/22/06

More | Report Post

Hi All,
I tend to stay off of this board as I understand it is for
attorneys, but I felt it was important for you all to see
this one. The real gist of the situation is how marketing
of false concepts is used in mold litigation.

Not that anyone intentionally misspoke in the following
article. But somehow, whenever one wants to present within
the media the stance that serious mold induced illnesses
are not occurring, it seems to get broad national media
attention.

Sharon Kramer

New York Times,

Oct 22, 2206

Correction to a Real Estate article

Re: Mold and NY Frye, Oct 15, 2006

"The Your Home column last Sunday, about the dismissal of a
claim that sought to hold a co-op corporation in Manhattan
liable for injuries to residents caused by mold, referred
incorrectly to a "Frye hearing," which was held to examine
scientific links between mold and health problems. Contrary
to what a lawyer in the case stated, this was not the first
Frye hearing in New York; at least one other such hearing
was held in Manhattan in 2001. (Go to Article)"

They got many letters of complaint to the Editor. Below is
mine:

Subject: Another NY Frye hearing over mold.... Just last
month You got punk'd.
Date: 10/16/2006 9:31:56 A.M. Pacific Standard Time
From: SNK 1955


Mr. Romano,

Sorry to bother you again, but it is looking more and more
like you got punk'd by the defense into writing a story
based on a false premise (that this Frye ruling was
significant news because it was the first over the mold
issue in the state of NY).

In reality, what is significant about this Frye ruling is
that is it novel in it's conclusions from all other NY Frye
rulings over the mold issue.

It is quite understandable why the defense would want to
use the real estate section of the NY Times to market the
concept that, “This throws a lot of cold water on the
notion that mold is the cause of personal injury,” said Eva
Talel, a Manhattan real estate lawyer. “And while this
isn’t going to be the last word on the subject, the
decision is so comprehensive and well thought out that
other judges are not going to be anxious to rule
differently.”

As I understand it, ALL other NY Frye rulings have allowed
in testimony of allergy and irritant effects from mold
exposure within an indoor environment. This judge is the
only one who has not. There is your true story!

Beside the one I already sent to you from 2001, here is
another one from just last month.

Trust me, as a marketing person, I track this kind of
stufff over the mold issue. You would not be the first
writer to get punk'd into writing a false article over the
mold issue.

Although, I sincerely hope that now that you know this, you
will make every effort to set the record straight. The
defense attorney you quoted misspoke regarding Frye and the
state of New York.

"Andrew Brucker, the lawyer who represented the co-op in
the case, said this was the first time a Frye hearing on
mold had been held in New York"

This is not the first Frye hearing regarding mold within
the state of New York by a long shot.
Frye Hr’g Proceeding at 14-15, Davis v. Henry Phipps Plaza
South, Assocs. (N.Y. Sup. Ct. (Oct. 11, 2001)

What can I do to help you?

WR,
Sharon

Your Home
Court Rebuffs a Suit Linking Mold to Illness

By JAY ROMANO
Published: October 15, 2006
Correction Appended

Illustration by Tom Bloom

A DECISION issued last month by a State Supreme Court
justice in Manhattan should allow building owners,
including co-op and condominium boards, to rest a little
easier about potential claims that indoor mold has injured
an occupant of their buildings.

After a review of more than 1,000 pages of testimony and
more than 70 scientific articles and books, Justice Shirley
Werner Kornreich concluded that there was insufficient
evidence to support the contention that mold or a damp
indoor environment causes illness.

“This throws a lot of cold water on the notion that mold is
the cause of personal injury,” said Eva Talel, a Manhattan
real estate lawyer. “And while this isn’t going to be the
last word on the subject, the decision is so comprehensive
and well thought out that other judges are not going to be
anxious to rule differently.”

The case was brought by Colin and Pamela Fraser on behalf
of themselves and their daughter, Alexandra, against the
301-52 Townhouse Corporation, which owned their co-op
building. The Frasers contended that mold near windows and
doors in their apartment caused respiratory problems, a
rash and fatigue. The Frasers said that after moving into
an apartment at 301 East 52nd Street in August 1996, Mr.
Fraser developed a leg rash, lethargy and congestion and
hearing, nasal and throat problems and Mrs. Fraser and
their infant daughter developed respiratory problems.

The couple said their conditions improved when the family
moved out of the apartment in 2002.

Before allowing the case to proceed to trial, Justice
Kornreich ordered what is known as a Frye hearing to
determine whether the Frasers’ contention that mold caused
their health problems is “generally accepted” by
scientists.

A Frye hearing, which is named after a 1923 federal case,
is used to determine whether scientific evidence supports a
litigant’s theory of liability. After 10 days and the
testimony of four experts, Justice Kornreich concluded that
while one expert testified mold or damp indoor space caused
health problems, “the scientific literature did not support
his assertions.” As a result, Justice Kornreich dismissed
the claim for personal injuries.

Three calls to Elizabeth Eilender, the Frasers’ lawyer,
seeking comment and information about a possible appeal,
were not returned.

Andrew Brucker, the lawyer who represented the co-op in the
case, said that the “whole mold issue has been blown out of
proportion.

“We think this is going to have a major impact on lawyers
who are thinking about bringing cases alleging injuries
caused by mold,” he said. “And we think that insurance
companies are now going to be more inclined to fight these
cases instead of settle them.”

Dennis Greenstein, a Manhattan co-op lawyer, said that
while the decision was good news for property owners
concerned that they could be held liable for injuries said
to be caused by mold, they and their property managers
should still take mold problems seriously.

“People still have to do the best they can when dealing
with mold and the leaks that may cause it,” Mr. Greenstein
said. He pointed out that failure to address mold or leak
problems could still leave owners exposed to lawsuits for
property damage.

Dr. Joseph Q. Jarvis, an expert in public health who is
affiliated with the University of Nevada School of Medicine
in Reno, said he was surprised that a comprehensive review
of the medical literature led the judge to conclude there
was no consensus that mold can cause illness. While it may
not be possible to specify the level of exposure needed to
cause a problem, he said, it is well documented that
exposure to indoor mold can cause respiratory allergies in
some people.

Correction: Oct. 22, 2006

The Your Home column last Sunday, about the dismissal of a
claim that sought to hold a co-op corporation in Manhattan
liable for injuries to residents caused by mold, referred
incorrectly to a "Frye hearing," which was held to examine
scientific links between mold and health problems. Contrary
to what a lawyer in the case stated, this was not the first
Frye hearing in New York; at least one other such hearing
was held in Manhattan in 2001.

Re: NY Times Retraction Re;Frye/Mold/Attorney Misstatement, 11/01/06, by Sharon Kramer.

Attorney Chatboard

LATEST POSTS | BY TOPICS | SUBMIT A POST