Sometimes you just have to wonder how a case ever made it before a jury.
Take the case of Darcee Dee.
The Los Angelino lived in the Mammoth Park Apartments for four and a half months.
During that time (she claims) she was exposed to molds capable of producing mycotoxins, which in turn (allegedly) caused her to suffer from a laundry list of ailments ranging from fibromyalgia to dementia. The mycotoxin also (supposedly) increased her risks of various forms of cancer, which naturally causes her emotional distress.
So Darcee sues the apartment owners for allowing mold to contaminate her apartment. And she has three experts ready to testify that exposure to mycotoxins has caused her health to deteriorate.
Two big problems.
One, testing failed to show the presence of mycotoxins in the apartment at the time she lived there.
Two, medical tests purportedly showing Darcee suffered from the effects of mycotoxin exposure are not generally accepted by the medical community.
To no one’s surprise, the trial judge boots Darcee’s experts and a jury renders a defense verdict.
As the California Court of Appeal succinctly observed, the experts “sought to testify that Dee’s exposure to mycotoxins caused her symptoms and her susceptibility to cancer without any evidence that Dee was exposed to mycotoxins. [The experts’] opinions relied on an incorrect premise, and thus their opinions lacked evidentiary value.” (Dee v. PCS Property Management)
— Pat Murphy