If you are interested in how public health policy over the mold issue is impacted by what occurs in the courts and visa versa, you really should read this latest NY Appellate ruling, CORNELL v. 360 W. 51st ST. REALTY, LLC The gist is that the Appellate Court determined that there is enough accepted scientific evidence within the medical community to corroborate mold & co that are found in water damaged buildings can cause illness. They also found that toxic mold is known to cause illness.
As we understand it, what is significant about this case as it relates to policy, is that the lower court relied on the Frasher case of 2007 to find that moldy buildings could not cause illness. In Cornell 2012, this finding was overturned by the Appellate Court.
Frasher was the subject case of the Wall Street Journal article of 2007 “Court of Opinion, Amid Suits Over Mold Experts Wear Two Hats,Authors of Science Paper Often Cited by Defense Also Help in Litigation“ The article is about how it became a false concept in public health policy that it was scientifically proven moldy buildings do not harm.
The policy was penned by prolific expert defense witnesses in mold litigation, Bruce Kelman & Bryan Hardin of Veritox, Inc., along with Dr. Andrew Saxon of UCLA. The litigation defense argument was legitimized by the American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine making the three men’s writing a position statement for the occupational medicine trade association. It was then portrayed to be the medical understanding of thousands of physicians with extensive knowledge of illnesses caused by water damaged buildings.
In Frasher, the judge relied solely on the ACOEM and AAAAI Mold Statements. AAAAI is another medical association for which Dr. Saxon co-authored their position statement. It relied heavily on ACOEM’s.
Because the unscientific litigation defense argument was established as public health policy by the medical associations, the judge in Frasher found that to be the current science that was acceptable in the courtroom -which was the whole point of expert defense witnesses authoring medical association position papers on the subject.
Dr. Harriet Ammann had submitted a stellar AFFIDAVIT in Frasher explaining to the court that the ACOEM & AAAAI Mold Statements were not the end all be all in science over the mold issue. Regardless the NY court in Frasher stuck with ACOEM et.al.
In this newest case, Cornell, the Appellate Court specifically addressed the errors of courts relying upon the Frasher case and misperceptions it established to deny liability for causation of illness from water damaged buildings. The Appellate Opinion of Cornell regarding the Frye hearing is well worth the read.
Congratulations go out to Dr. Johanning, Dr. Yang and all others involved who made this happen in New York!
WEST COAST BAD NEWS
In 2005, Sharon Kramer was the first to public ly write of how ACOEM’s Mold Statement and its sister, the US Chamber’s Mold Statement – that are both authored by Mr. Kelman & Mr. Hardin of Veritox, were setting false public health policy for the purpose of misleading the courts.
It was a paper that Mrs Kramer had co-written in 2006 which caught the attention of Mr. David Armstrong of the WSJ. It is titled “ACOEM Exposed, A Case Study in Sham Peer Review and Conflicts of Interest – The Rats That are Saving the Insurance Industry Billions”.
Mr. Armstrong did a fantastic job in the 2007 WSJ article and was able to boil the complexity of the politics of the mold issue down to just four pages. He interviewed over 50 people for the article, including Dr. Ammann, over a six month period of time. Being on the front page of the WSJ, his article helped tremendously to add credibility to those claiming illness from moldy buildings and their physicians.
Before the information was able to be read in the mainstream media, in 2005, Mr. Kelman and his company, VeriTox, sued Mrs. Kramer for libel for the words, “altered his under oath statements” in her 2005 writing of how the false policy came to be. This was to try to stop the information of the inadequecies of his expert witness opinion from coming to public light in the media, like the WSJ, and in US courts.
Unfortunately, the California courts chose to practice politics from the bench in the libel litigation, which is also known as Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation. They crafted their opinions to make it appear that Mrs. Kramer’s writing had falsely accused Mr. Kelman of lying about being paid by a think-tank to author the ACOEM Mold Statement. Mrs.Kramer’s writing accurately states that Mr. Kelman was paid by the think-tank to author the US Chamber Mold Statement. (another fact that Mr. Kelman and his company, VeriTox, Inc., would prefer is not widely known)
Now, the CA courts want Mrs. Kramer silenced of their role in aiding a litigation defense argument to remain in policy far longer than it should have by crafty opinions used to deem a whistle blower of science fraud in policy to be a malicious liar – thereby casting doubt on the validity of all her words.
They cannot back down without acknowledging they framed a whistle blower of false science in policy for libel – which aided Mr. Kelman’s unscientific science to remain in policy and US courts seven years longer than it should.
Mrs. Kramer is scheduled to be incarcerated by the CA courts tomorrow, March 9, 2012, for refusing to be silenced of what the CA courts have unlawfully done to her that kept the Kelman/ACOEM/US Chamber/Insurance Industry game going. They actually have the nerve to want Mrs. Kramer to sign an APOLOGY to Mr. Kelman for being framed for libel by his attorney and the courts over the billion dollar fraud in policy – or go to jail.
Lets’ hope there is as much good news on the West Coast tomorrow as there was on the East Coast earlier this week, and that the courts back down from incarcerating a US Citizen for daring to tell the truth in America adverse to the political whims of leading California judiciary.