1. How does a Federal court decide on the admissibility of scientific testimony?
Federal courts follow a set of universal guidelines termed as the Federal Rules of Evidence, governing the admissibility of scientific testimony . Although all federal courts abide by the Frye standard, they may not necessarily interpret the meaning in the same way. The federal courts follow the Daubert’s standard, which contains two components . The first element is the fact that to be regarded relevant, a scientific testimony should ‘’logically advance the material component of the case”. The second element of the Daubert’s analysis targets the reliability of the scientific testimony. It considers four non-exclusive factors in analyzing whether the scientific testimony being offered is significantly reliable: 1) Whether the scientific theory or technique is capable of being tested or has been tested, the peer reviewed publication status of the scientific theory, whether the technique in consideration has a certain rate of error, the acceptability of the technique or theory in the scientific community. The federal court considers two types of causation to determine the reliability of the scientific testimony. The first component, general causation, evaluates the reliability of the scientific basis for the conclusion that a mold compound under consideration has the capability of causing toxic effects and the second component, specific causation addresses the existence of a scientific basis for concluding that the substance at issue actually caused the harm.
2. In a case heard in Federal court that alleges detrimental health effects resulting from exposure to toxic mold, what must the plaintiff establish in order to gain a favorable judgment?
The plaintiffs often take the help of experts who depend upon the anecdotal reports of toxic effects, the incidence of complaints of similar symptoms associated with the presence of similar strains of molds, analogous studies, and evidence of a credible basis for believing that a certain type of mold at a particular concentration is potentially capable of causing toxic effects . The plaintiffs often take the assistance of medical experts who use the differential diagnosis technique, wherein all the potential causes for symptoms are analyzed and then causes are systematically ruled out, finally zeroing in on one likely cause.
3. Briefly describe the controversy concerning the use of “differential diagnosis” to establish the cause of harm in toxic exposure cases.
The use of differential diagnosis to evaluate the cause of damage in cases of exposure to toxic substances is debatable, since there is no way of avoiding an inaccurate ‘ruling in’ of causes that are unreliable based upon anecdotal information. In some cases, it may not be possible to either ‘rule in’ or ‘rule out’ any of the potential causes of toxic effects. Hence a testimony about the likely cause of harm may turn out to be an unsupported theory and may refute the Daubert’s analysis.
4. Describe a study that would allow us to better characterize the potential health effects of toxic mold on humans?
Stachybotrys chartarum is a mold that is found in homes damaged due to water and thrives on high cellulose and low nitrogen content gypsum board, fiberboard, and other substrates such as compostable pots . These materials are increasingly utilized in construction techniques and have generated an epidemic of the S. chartarum, which may cause potential building-related illnesses in humans. S. chartarum produces mycotoxins called T2 or tricothecene, which in high concentrations, shuts down protein synthesis and causes a cytotoxic syndrome. The ailments caused by this organism such as multiple organ system failure, bone marrow dysfunction, cardiovascular damage, skin irritation may not be seen in the inhabitants of moisture-damaged buildings . However, the occurrence of this mold in conjunction with Aspergillus species have been correlated with the symptoms associated with poorly ventilated buildings. T2 mycotoxins have also been detected in the sera of people from contaminated buildings. Thus, growing body of evidence points towards hazardous effects of molds on humans.
Works Cited
Larsen, J. "Toxic Mold, Part II: Expert Witness and Scientific Testimony Issues Concerning Mold Litigation in state and federal courts." Journal of controversial Medical Claims (n.d.): 10 (4) : 14-20.
Meggs. "Epidemics of mold poisoning past and present." Toxicology and Industrial health (2009): 25 (9-10): 571-576.
