Mold Issues in Court: Catch 21 and 1/2

You know what the catch 22 is, right? The solution to the problem refers the problem back on itself. It’s a paradox.

Here’s the original one by Joseph Heller:

There was only one catch and that was Catch-22, which specified that a concern for one’s safety in the face of dangers that were real and immediate was the process of a rational mind. Orr was crazy and could be grounded. All he had to do was ask; and as soon as he did, he would no longer be crazy and would have to fly more missions. Orr would be crazy to fly more missions and sane if he didn’t, but if he were sane he had to fly them. If he flew them he was crazy and didn’t have to; but if he didn’t want to he was sane and had to.

This is the situation with taking mold health issues to court. It’s not exactly Heller’s Catch-22 but close.

A court expert says that mold didn’t make the victim sick, so the individual goes back into the mold environment which makes them sick again; the victim then takes their mold issue back to court on the premise that mold exposure causes serious health problems that they have proof that they are suffering from, when the court refers them to doctors who deny that mold is the issue. Which sends them, especially if they are poor, back into the rickety environment that is supposedly not making them sick; but of course it makes them more sick and there they go, back to court again…

Which I suppose is Catch-21 and a half.

If you’re in California, you might want to give us a call and see about getting an assessment from Byebyemold.

To include the featured image in your Twitter Card, please tap or click their icon a second time.
This entry was posted in ByeBye, George Hatcher. Bookmark the permalink.