Appellate Victory on Toxic Mold
gartner + bloom, P.C. congratulates Partner Arthur P. Xanthos on scoring an impressive appellate victory by convincing an appellate court to reverse a Brooklyn trial judge on a complex toxic tort causation issue.
At the trial level, Arthur P. Xanthos requested and conducted a “Frye” hearing to disqualify the plaintiff’s medical expert from testifying that toxic mold exposure caused the plaintiff’s massive neurological, dermatologic, and internal injuries. The expert had intended to give a medical opinion at trial that the plaintiff suffered a cascade of physical injuries after exposure to toxic mold over a decade ago in our client’s building.
Despite a strong presentation at the hearing, the Brooklyn trial judge refused to disqualify the plaintiff’s expert, reasoning that a treating doctor should be able to say just about anything at trial. So Arthur appealed to the Appellate Division.
Yesterday the Appellate Division ruled, unanimously reversing the Kings County trial judge. In its ruling, the appellate court highlighted the very high standard a toxic tort plaintiff must attain to warrant a trial for bodily injury damages, and reasoned that Arthur’s evidence, witnesses, and arguments at the trial level sufficiently proved that plaintiff’s medical expert’s opinion on causation was not generally accepted in the medical community. Access a copy of the decision by clicking here.
Arthur’s successful result for the client is one of hundreds he and the firm have obtained in the defense of toxic tort lawsuits over the last 30 years, earning us our stellar reputation in the defense of such claims. Grand kudos🎩to you, Art on delivering a spectacular outcome!
gartner + bloom, P.C. congratulates Partner Arthur P. Xanthos on scoring an impressive appellate victory by convincing an appellate court to reverse a Brooklyn trial judge on a complex toxic tort causation issue.
At the trial level, Arthur P. Xanthos requested and conducted a “Frye” hearing to disqualify the plaintiff’s medical expert from testifying that toxic mold exposure caused the plaintiff’s massive neurological, dermatologic, and internal injuries. The expert had intended to give a medical opinion at trial that the plaintiff suffered a cascade of physical injuries after exposure to toxic mold over a decade ago in our client’s building.
Despite a strong presentation at the hearing, the Brooklyn trial judge refused to disqualify the plaintiff’s expert, reasoning that a treating doctor should be able to say just about anything at trial. So Arthur appealed to the Appellate Division.
Yesterday the Appellate Division ruled, unanimously reversing the Kings County trial judge. In its ruling, the appellate court highlighted the very high standard a toxic tort plaintiff must attain to warrant a trial for bodily injury damages, and reasoned that Arthur’s evidence, witnesses, and arguments at the trial level sufficiently proved that plaintiff’s medical expert’s opinion on causation was not generally accepted in the medical community. Access a copy of the decision by clicking here.
Arthur’s successful result for the client is one of hundreds he and the firm have obtained in the defense of toxic tort lawsuits over the last 30 years, earning us our stellar reputation in the defense of such claims. Grand kudos🎩to you, Art on delivering a spectacular outcome!