The legal system is full of loopholes, especially involving mold legislation. Now, I don’t know why the loopholes exist, but you know what happens with legal loopholes. (Legal loopholes are like a fisherman’s net with weave too big to catch the fish. Responsible parties sometimes get away, and the victims sometimes do not have adequate legal recourse. )

So let us observe how this can happen in the world of mold and mold victims.

SITUATION: San Diego. Employees of a Toyota dealership became sick from mold in the workplace. The dealership and the dealership’s insurers did not acknowledge that mold in the workplace placed employees health at risk.

The hole in the net: Whether or not this mold exposure is covered is apparently a judgment call on the dealer and/or insurer. One wonders if they are presenting medical evidence in the case.

Counteraction: The employees who became sick from mold exposure and were denied health benefits by the dealership and/or the insurer are accusing that the “workers compensation insurer and legal counsel have engaged in
criminal schemes and intimidation of workers to shift the
healthcare costs to DI disability insurance, SSI and other
providers; thereby defrauding the public.”

As an environmental hazards, mold is controversial. It is NOT UNCOMMON for employers, renters, and insurance companies to deny mold claims for an assortment of reasons:

• The particular type of mold did not sicken anyone.
• The connection between the illness and mold exposure can not be proved.
• There is debate even within the scientific and medical community concerning which molds, which situations, pose risk.
• There is difficulty determining how or even if the mold was ingested, inhaled or otherwise exposed to the victim.
• No federal law sets permissible exposure limits or building tolerance standards for mold.
• State Laws vary regarding guidelines and regulation of mold in indoor air.

Please note that school systems do not consider mold law so precious. When children are threatened by mold, school systems act, and they act promptly. Just watch your own local headlines and you will see schools go after mold. No one wants to risk the possibility of endangering the health of children.

But where is the concern for adult employees?

Just as standards were developed for lead, eventually states will develop identification and remediation standards for contractors, owners, and landlords, at which point evasion by insurance companies and employers will become criminal fraud. But we’re not there yet.

But drug companies know mycotoxins affect people. They even use a lot of mycotoxin derivatives when they make certain drugs. Don’t be surprised-you knew this before and forgot. Remember penicillin?

Allergies develop through exposure, so even if you might not be affected now, if you’re around a mold a lot, there’s a rising probability that you’re going to develop an allergy, even if you’re not elderly, a child or immune-compromised. This is just common sense.

So a lot of eyes will be on the Poway Toyota dealership case pressuring the system to hold responsible parties accountable. It’s a step.

Some molds make mycotoxins which make everyone ill. That’s what the word mycotoxin means: toxins made by mold. So by definition mycotoxins make people ill. But they don’t all make all people ill, and it usually takes a lot to do it.

Mycotoxins do not always make people sick. Yes, they are toxins but it takes a tremendous amount of spores to get you sick, UNLESS you have a sensitivity to that species that developed the mycotoxins.

The reason litigation is still at a stand still is there is no dead bang legal proof of causation. You can’t prove that because there is mold showing in the living room you develop a rash. There is evidence that if you have asthma, and you have a high sensitivity to mold or to mold that develops mycotoxins, no matter how tiny the exposure, your asthma can get worst.

That’s why people who sue each other on mold exposure can win on property damage but very difficult or nearly impossible to win on medical because of the causation factor. There are cases out there where some have prevailed but few.

We’ll be watching.

What? Not another Celebrity Lawsuit?

The five-bedroom, five-bathroom estate of Rachel Ray in Southampton has mold.

In the New York State Supreme Court, Rachel Ray and husband have filed a lawsuit against Amerispec Heritage Home Inspection Service and Joseph Schmitt Consulting Engineers. Apparently the companies failed to inform them of mold on the property when they purchased the property. John Paulson paid $277,000 for the property in 1994, selling it in 2005 for $998,000.

Tenant Diana Natale’s townhouse at the low point of their marshy neighborhood has been taken over by mold and is unlivable. Whether it is due to the nearby retention pond or negligence of the landlord is now a moot point as the building is condemned.

Tenants were withholding $6000 of rent to force their landlord into taking action against the mold, and he took them to court to get his money. The judge ordered the landlord to pay the tenants room and board at the motel where they have been living.

Don’t let the situation get that bad–If you’re in California, you might want to give us a call and see about getting an assessment from Byebyemold.

Samara Properties is now being sued after their tenant James Wilson died in October–after Samara Properties failed to respond to written and verbal complaints regarding leaks and mold in the Oklahoma property.

James Wilson’s coughing and upper respiratory problems are not an uncommon response to mold. Air quality tests revealed mold. On her doctor’s advice, Kimberly Wilson moved out of the home in December 2009. The windows and flooring of the $49,000 rental property are now being replaced.

Samara Properties (Najaya and Samir Khalil) own more than 200 properties in Oklahoma.

The risks associated with having mold in a home vary according to the time of year and the individual involved. Of course the prudent course is to eliminate molds from the living environment.

Mold spores exist both inside and outside. There are those who have little reaction from mold exposure, and there are those who have asthma, stuffy or runny noses, eye irritation, fever, wheezing, lung inflammation, and skin rash. In fact, allergic reactions range from mild to life-threatening. Those with pre-existing conditions like allergy, lung issues or immune-system dysfunction tend to have more dramatic negative physical responses to mold.

While the cause and effect seem clear, there is litigation going on in the court system to determine whether or not there is adequate proof that exposure to indoor mold can cause respiratory allergies.

A new study of children’s susceptibility to interior wetness and mold by the American Journal of Epidemiology suggests that children living in damp, water- damaged houses may develop nasal allergies and moist, moldy settings in the house are related an increased danger of children’s nasal allergies.

Generally it makes sense to eliminate the mold as it does affect the home environment. Plus such conditions (i.e. humidity) are also amenable to fungi and dust mites.

Download the pdf report to the California legislature on implementation of the toxic mold protection act of 2001.

The Chee family living in a Bucklands Beach (New Zealand) home for 9 years is suffering from the effects of leaks originating from an upstairs balcony leaking into the living room and spreading to the rest of the house.

The garage, living room and master bedroom areas have stachybotrys established. The mold known as stachybotrys, and other fungi produce toxic chemicals called mycotoxins. Individuals my inhale mold fragments, mycotoxins and spores, and react with allergic (or other) physical responses; the mold is linked to respiratory illnesses and infant deaths, but that is not a conclusive list by any means.

The New Zealand Weathertight Homes Tribunal awarded Joseph and Margaret Chee $141,800 for limited “target repairs.” The owner, Mr Chee had claimed $443,115.

The tribunal is set to rehear the case because of legal errors incurred.

Catastrophic Brain Injury From Mold
While the victim’s (Steve White) injury was significant and traumatic, the jury decided that in this case there was no credible evidence to support his claim of “Allergic Fungal Sinusitis.”

Lawyers need not despair for the category of mold/environmental case law , however, because contributing to the loss of this particular case was testimony of the victim’s former girlfriend who referred to the victim’s eviction from a former apartment after he created a dangerous condition from mold from his own fish tank.

Timeline
First came the victim’s toxic mold exposure from his apartment in the Simi Valley apartment complex, then he contracted allergic fungal sinusitis from which he developed a brain abscess, leading to permanent neurological damage. On January 9, 2005, the victim had emergency surgery to treat his condition and the law suit was filed on June 30.

Catastrophic injury from alleged mold exposure is difficult to prove. The problem is in proving causation between mold and illness. There is no one disease exclusively linked to mold, and mold exposure symptoms tend to occur only in its presence and tend to disappear at the end of exposure, although it sometimes incurs lasting effects.

If this is your situation too, and you’re in California, you might want to give us a call and see about getting an assessment from Byebyemold.

Exposed to toxic mold spores while attending Perquimans Middle School and the Accelerated Learning Center, Theresa Gay’s eighth-grader suffered serious asthma attacks and a variety of other symptoms. She has filed a lawsuit alleging the Perquimans County Schools discriminated against her son, who has a disability, by not providing “a clean learning environment.” He has a history of asthma, rhinitis, and hearing deficits, is allergic to grass, weeds, dogs, dust mites and mold.

If this is your situation too, and you’re in California, you might want to give us a call and see about getting an assessment from Byebyemold.

If you’re renting, and your rental unit suffers from mold, cracked paint and water dripping where it isn’t supposed to, then you may have cause for legal action, at the very least, legal action to compel your landlord to repair your environment. This is because roof leaks, the problems caused by roof leaks, in other words, mold, cracked paint, and water dripping inside are breaches of the landlord’s responsibility to provide a “habitable” living space.

So you may want to get your apartment tested, and see if you’re living in a toxic hot zone.

Re: Marceau v. Blackfeet Housing.

The U.S. Supreme Court has chosen not to examine if the federal government bears responsibility for toxic, mold-infested homes built on the Blackfeet Reservation with federal money.

American Indians say the houses sickened their families with asthma, sinusitis and other ailments.

What will the Supreme Court do if these houses were built with Toxic Chinese Drywall (which they may well have been)?