6/21/05 

Trenton, GA - On May 23rd, the Dade County Public Library officially closed its doors to the public because of a mold problem and the fear of the implications of health threats that the mold may cause.  The library closure definitely changes the way students are getting around their summer reading.

Martha Stinnett is a 15-year old sophomore at Dade County High School. She explains, ?We have to go to a different place for books.? This summer Stinnett says, she has ten books on her required summer reading list. Stinnett adds, ?I haven't got started on it because I don't have a library to go to.? The Dade County Public Library building has padlocks on its doors with most all of the books are still inside. When you walk up to the library doors, you will immediately find it's closed with plenty of notices posted. The Dade County notice explains the mold problem but also says, there is no set date for the library to reopen.  Unfortunately, some people are still ignorant to the national health crisis of mycotoxicosis from fungal exposure that occurs from some common indoor molds.

Lecia Eubanks is the Assistant Director of the Cherokee Regional Library System. She says, they shut down after they discovered mold growing on the walls, under the wall paper and even in the air return units. She says it all started with a leaky roof.  Mold from a problem such as this can proliferate within 24 to 48 hours.  The chances of toxigenic mold are often quite probable, thus closing the library made good sense. Eubanks adds, they've taken measures to provide as many services to Dade County's Public Library patrons as possible. Eubanks explains, ?We took it very seriously. To deny people a library is a serious matter and we found an alternate spot. The Commissioners have let us use the Commission room two days a week and we have a sampling of books.?

Five hundred books were brought to the Dade County Administration building, including the high school's required summer reading. Tuesdays and Wednesday's library workers come to the Commission room and set up a temporary library for those who will come. Eubanks says, ?I think we all know the THE library is important. I think when you're deprived of the library, then all of the sudden you find out just how important the library is.?

Eubanks says they have applied for a $200,000 dollar grant from the state to make the needed repairs to re-open. The county would have to provide $20,000 dollars in matching funds. Even if all that happens, the earliest the library can reopen would be in November.  According to standard guidelines of remediation for books, one must HEPA vacuum each page sometimes several times and expose the pages to UV light.  This process is tedious and costly.  Often, it is cheaper to purchase new books.

2/23/05

Los Angeles, CA - Judge Warren Ettinger, Los Angeles Superior Court, ruled that Dr. Juan Manuel Gutierrez, Ph.D., Board Certified neuropsychologist may offer his expert opinion that exposure to toxic mold was the cause of a Plaintiff's permanent brain injury.

In the case of Dee v PCS Plaintiff Darcee Dee, a former resident of Mammoth Park Towers in Sherman Oaks, California -- billed as ?Luxury Apartment Homes, Completely Renovated? -- has filed for damages in a suit in Los Angeles Superior Court. The defendants PCS Property Management LLP and 8611 Venice Blvd. Corp are either owned directly or indirectly by another LLP, whose principle is local PCS Telecommunication?s magnate, Joe Fryzer. The defendants own and manage 40 other high end luxury apartment buildings in Beverly Hills and Los Angeles, promoted with the motto: ?We don?t just say it, we mean it. Better Living. Better Life?.

Attorney for Ms. Dee, Scott B. Whitenack, Esq. (AKA Scott B. Stubblefield) from Westlake Village, California, is a published trial lawyer on the issue of Broker Fraud. He stated that his client says she never got to enjoy the "better living, better life" as represented by PCS. Instead, what she got was permanent brain injuries from her exposure to toxic mold while residing at the ?Luxury Mammoth Pak Towers.?

PCS Corp. has admitted that toxic mold was found in Ms. Dee's apartment. PCS employee, Karen Mackie-Thaler, then ordered the maintenance supervisor to open the walls for ?Destructive Testing? while Ms. Dee was still living in the apartment. The notorious Stachybotrys specie and other toxic molds harmful to Ms. Dee's health were found to be rampant. Equally disturbing, PCS and Karen Mackie-Thaler represented to Ms. Dee that the May 14, 2001 mold tests were inconclusive and further testing was needed. In reality, PCS and Karen Mackie-Thaler intentionally concealed from Ms. Dee the findings of Stachybotrys and other toxic molds at the subject property and never bothered to establish whether the destructive testing would be harmful to Ms. Dee's health. There is also proof that PCS and Karen Mackie-Thaler concealed from Ms. Dee further destructive testing was scheduled for June 1, 2001.

Mr. Whitenack said the evidence proves that PCS failed to move Ms. Dee from the apartment even after PCS was told to do so by their own Vice President. It also proves that the ultimate decision to leave Ms. Dee unaware and in a dangerously contaminated environment was made by Paul Jennings. Mr. Jennings is the co-owner and COO of PCS and affiliated entities. Mr. Whitenack went on to state that Ms. Dee was seeking punitive damages to punish the defendants for willful misconduct, in addition to her claim for personal injury. The total amount of the claim is over $6,000,000.00. In a precedent-setting decision, Mr. Whitenack stated that an important victory was won (for all US citizens) by the Court?s ruling that Dr. Gutierrez, Ph.D. was qualified as an expert to testify that the cause of Ms. Dee?s brain injury stemmed from her exposure to toxic mold.

"During preliminary motions by insurance defense firms, they seek to deny the opinions of Plaintiffs? expert witnesses, thus preventing any testimony by the experts as to causation. The purpose of this maneuver is to defeat claims and reduce the amount of monies insurance companies have to pay, ?said Mr. Whitenack." In my experience with mold cases, I have found that the defense expert?s witnesses base their opinions on medical studies or position papers prepared or sponsored by quasi insurance defense funded organizations, that have intentionally failed to include a cross-section of the hundreds -- if not thousands -- of medical studies that support the complete opposite conclusions."

Prior to this case, showing a direct causal connection between the exposure to toxic mold and the resultant injuries of victims has been a sticking point in numerous past cases. For those affected, the tangled web of claims procedures can be a nightmare in itself. Plaintiffs are required to submit to the "independent medical exam (IME)" performed by the physician of the defendant?s choice. This is true in both personal injury and workman compensation claim proceedings. Plaintiffs are then faced with the one sided, predetermined opinion: that their injuries were not caused by exposure to the mold. Independent analysts have noted that the position of the defense hinge almost exclusively on the findings of two studies: The Institute Of Medicine's, ?Damp Indoor Spaces and Health? dated May 25, 2004 (IOM report) or the American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine Position Paper released in 2002, (ACOEM report) or both.

The IOM report recently came under fire in an earlier Press Release of January 27, 2005, entitled ?Surgeon General?s Office Issues Conflicting Message on ?Toxic Mold?. The (IOM Report) ?failed to convey that the study was only charged to investigate allergic and non-infectious respiratory symptoms of fungal exposure, and that their findings never included examination of other serious symptoms.? The (IOM) study was sponsored at the request of the CDC after much public debate on the issue. The study was widely quoted in the popular press and has since been used in defense litigation in a case in Arizona where a woman was reported to have experienced severe injuries from mold exposure in a Phoenix apartment.

Mr. Whitenack further said that Dr. Gary Ordog, M.D. will testify on February 22, 2005 at 9 a.m. in Department ?19? of the downtown Los Angeles Superior Court. The court will determine at the request of the defense, if Dr. Ordog will qualify as an expert toxicologist and if he will be permitted to testify at time of trial. Dr. Ordog is the medical director of the only independent Medical Toxicology program in California. His office of Medical Toxicology currently sees more patients than any other in the country with the diagnosis of toxicity. He is currently the only facility in the county -- other than the military that offers a full diagnostic and treatment facility for those suffering from mold exposure. Dr. Ordog has recently come under much attack from the insurance defense industry, as he is one of several in the country that have been permitted to testify at hearings or in trials as to toxic mold claims.

Mr. Whitenack finally stated that the insurance defense firms in this case would follow their same plan and scheme, and call their retained expert, Dr. Marion Fedoruk, M.D. on February 24. Dr. Fedoruk is expected to testify consistent with his declaration that Plaintiff?s injuries were not caused by the exposure of toxic mold -- again basing his opinions on the 2 controversial reports: (IOM report) and (ACOEM report).

The 20-30 day jury trial is set to start on February 28, 2005 with the selection of jurors. As we have seen with many of these trials, nothing is as it appears.  If the jury was to side with the plaintiff's case, the judge will probably overturn the decision because there is just too much precedence here.  And no one wants to see the people get the justice they deserve since there is just too much money, fraud and profit involved with this issue.