Our firm prides itself in being “green” and we strive to be as paperless a law firm as possible. In addition to scanning all of the documents that we generate, we also receive all of our faxes as email attachments thereby eliminating the need to print. When producing larger documents to other attorneys, we put those files on CD in a pdf format. In the past three years, our firm has saved tens of thousands of pieces of paper from being printed and, consequently, we’ve significantly reduced the need for storage. The legal profession is heading in the “paperless” direction and we believe that our firm has taken a strong step forward in protecting the environment and readying itself for the future of litigation.

Attorney Brad Kelsky was able to overcome a legal challenge to the admissibility of Dr. Ritchie Shoemaker’s opinion on mold-related personal injury claims thereby allowing the doctor to testify at trial.  As seen elsewhere in this blog, mold-related personal injury claims are very difficult to prove.  In any case where these types of personal injury claims are claimed, the defense usually challenges the propriety of the plaintiff’s expert’s medical opinion.   In Florida, this is called a Frye challenge.  Under Frye, the plaintiff must prove that the expert’s methodology is generally accepted by the scientific community.  In a recent case in Collier County, Florida, two of the defendants challenged Dr. Shoemaker’s opinions and each brought their own expert witness to testify at the Frye hearing.  Brad E. Kelsky Esq., counsel for the plaintiffs, was able to establish that Ritchie Shoemaker, M.D.’s methodology in reaching his opinion was generally accepted by the scientific community.   For this reason, the court ruled against both defendants and ruled that Dr. Shoemaker will be able to offer his medical opinions about the plaintiffs’ personal injuries and how those injuries were related to exposure to a water damaged building.  This is a very significant victory for the case in Collier County and for those cases in other states where Dr. Shoemaker’s methodology has been challenged.

The news media has generated tremendous  fear associated with health problems caused by Chinese Drywall.  However, this widespread fear may be entirely misplaced.   Headaches, cough, sinus problems and breathing problems are also associated with the presence of mold.  Given the fact that Chinese Drywall was installed in a vast minority of homes, it is far more likely that problems associated with the symptoms identified above are caused by mold as a result of water intrusion.  For example, roof leaks, window leaks and door leaks will allow water to enter into a home possibly leading to the development of mold.  Likewise, if there is a fault – even a small fault—in an air conditioning system, the collision of warm air and cold air will result in condensation which, very likely, will result in mold growth.  It should also be noted that it is not uncommon for air conditioning coils to turn black due to the presence of mold (this issue is also known to occur in Chinese Drywall cases). 

The point is this:  if anyone has the symptoms mentioned above, the public should also be aware that there may be a culprit other than Chinese Drywall.   If there is a concern over the presence of Chinese Drywall, we would recommend that a home be tested for the presence of mold as well.  We also suggest that homeowners discuss problems with other homeowners in their community to find out if there are common complaints and issues.  We would not be surprised to find out that other individuals have issues with, for example, their air conditioning systems or windows.  If there are common complaints like these, homeowners should not limit their investigation solely to the existence of Chinese Drywall.  Instead, we believe it is imperative that the home be tested for mold as well.

We are not downplaying the presence of Chinese Drywall and we continue to be interested in pursuing these claims.  However, we feel it important for the public to understand that health problems may be caused by something other than Chinese Drywall, e.g., mold, and that determining the source of the problem in a home should not be limited to one cause only.

This article does not constitute legal advice or the formation of an attorney-client relationship, and is not for re-publication without express permission of the author.

Our office continues to get many inquiries concerning Chinese drywall.   As most homes have drywall throughout the premises, the potential construction defect claims for the use of this material can be staggering.  In order to determine whether a home has been constructed with the Chinese drywall, the homeowner needs to find out the identity of the manufacturer.  If it all possible, it makes sense to remove some drywall from an un-noticeable area to determine the ‘s identity (unless, of course, the homeowner already knows who the manufacturer is).  (It is important to replace and seal the drywall that was removed once the manufacturer can be identified.)  Drywall from The Knauf Group, Banner Supply and Rothchilt International, Ltd., have been linked to the sulfuric-smelling problem drywalls in homes.  If the removed drywall references any of these manufacturers, the homeowner may face the prospect of needing to replace a substantial amount of drywall (perhaps all of the drywall in a home).  As explained elsewhere in this blog, a homeowner would need to go through the Chapter 558 process before seeking legal redress from the general contractor or subcontractor.  Either way, if a homeowner believes that they may be exposed to the Chinese drywall, it is better to be proactive then to take a “wait and see” approach.

This article does not constitute legal advice or the formation of an attorney-client relationship, and is not for re-publication without express permission of the author.

Recently, there has been a tremendous amount of news concerning the use of drywall originating in China.   Specifically, drywall manufactured by The Knauf Group, Banner Supply and Rothchilt International, Ltd., have all been accused of selling/distributing drywall containing “fly ash” which can emit a sulfuric-type smell.  Under Florida law, claims for defective construction materials such as the “fly ash” drywall may be  required to go through the Chapter 558 presuit construction defect statutes prior to filing suit against the manufacturer, seller and/or builder/subcontractor.   Because drywall is often used throughout a home, the extent of the “fly ash” contamination may be significant.  Claims for defective materials like the fly ash” drywall must be analyzed on a case-by-case basis to determine whether the presuit construction defect statutes apply as there may be some exceptions (notably personal injury) to the process.

This article does not constitute legal advice or the formation of an attorney-client relationship, and is not for re-publication without express permission of the author.