Site Dedication
Barbara Dell Kessel
- [Google]
- [Yahoo]
- 1 guest
- 2 robots
- Tara McMillan
- jane lowe
This Site's Purpose...
|
ACHEMMIC's Call to Action
ACHEMMIC is a newly formed team of experts with the express purpose of educating lawmakers, physicians, and the general public about the hazards of toxic mold and other contaminants. The Action Committee on the Health Effects of Mold, Microbes and Indoor Contaminants was formed after the February 3rd meeting of the Federal Interagency Committee on Indoor Air Quality (CIAQ).
ACHEMMIC has submitted a letter to the CIAQ and other federal agencies requesting that action be taken on behalf of the countless Americans who suffer ill effects from toxic mold and other contaminants. In addition, this letter has been faxed to Capitol Hill for distribution to all 100 Senators. To view the cover letter, click here.
ACHEMMIC members include: Dr. Jack Thrasher, Dr. Ritchie Shoemaker, Carl Grimes, Dr. Michael Gray, Dr. Jeanette Hope, Sharon Kramer, Cheryl Wisecup (see February 11 entry), and others.
ACHEMMIC's letter makes reference to the September 2008 report from the General Accounting Office urging the EPA and CIAQ to reevaluate its position on indoor mold and take appropriate action to protect the public.
“The GAO report was issued sixteen months ago, but we have seen no progress. In the meantime, people are suffering and dying from exposure to indoor contaminants in their homes, apartments, schools and businesses.”
Toxic Tort Lawsuits Now Easier to Win in Michigan
Michigan Court of Appeals ruled that plaintiffs don't need an expert witness to prove that they suffered physical ailments as a result of exposure to mold. The Court says the defendant must disprove that the mold exposure did not cause the alleged illnesses.
The Michigan Court of Appeals in a case called Genna v Jackson recently ruled that plaintiffs alleging injury from exposure to mold did not have to present an expert witness to prove that they had suffered physical ailments as a result of exposure to mold. According to the court, it was enough that mold was present and that the plaintiffs had physical ailments that could be attributed to mold exposure, even though they did not present a witness that could make a causal connection between the exposure and the injuries that the plaintiffs allegedly suffered. The court left it to the defendant to disprove that the mold exposure did not cause the alleged illnesses.
|
|