In the 2008 case of O’Brien v Citizens Insurance Company of America, the court managed to silence Ms. Delora O’Brien’s argument about her Multiple Chemical Sensitivity before she even started, by prohibiting her from providing expert testimony at trial in support of her claims.
Justice is all too rare in court cases involving Multiple Chemical Sensitivity.
In Oct. 2008, the Supreme Court in Suffolk County, NY., rendered a decision in a case where a woman sued her homeowner’s insurance company because of toxic remediation treatments to her home following a clothes dryer fire. The plaintiff claimed that the treatments, which included degreasers, furniture polish and window cleaners followed by an ozone treatment*, initiated her Multiple Chemical Sensitivity.
In O’Brien v Citizens Insurance Company of America, the court managed to silence Ms. Delora O’Brien’s argument before she even started, by prohibiting her from providing expert testimony at trial in support of her claims of Multiple Chemical Sensitivity. After listening to the Defendant’s argument discrediting MCS as an illness initiated by toxic chemical exposure, the court said, “There is nothing in the record that identifies a diagnostic test for MCS (IEI), nor are there any studies submitted which identify a mechanism or cause for MCS.” This conclusion was reached after the defendant, who refers to MCS as Idiopathic Environmental Intolerance or IEI, argued that there was no proof that MCS is a recognized illness due to the absence of “proof in the form of controlled studies, clinical data, medical literature, or peer review indicating the expert’s conclusions are generally accepted in the relevant scientific community.”
(By the way, always red flag any statement you see with Idiopathic Environmental Intolerance or IEI given as the name of MCS because it is designed to discredit MCS as a physiological illness.)
The court took a look at the Defendant’s argument and decided, “There is no evidence submitted to establish a causal relationship between any of the chemicals that are known to have been utilized during the remediation process at the O’Brien home and MCS (IEI). The Court concludes therefore that there is insufficient evidence to show general causation.” The final decision: Any opinions/conclusions on Multiple Chemical Sensitivity as an illness initiated by toxic chemicals must be omitted from the case.
Ms. O’Brien’s credibility was further compromised by the fact that the first doctor she visited after becoming ill with “headaches, fatigue and nausea,” diagnosed her as depressed and prescribed xanax and zoloft. Can you see where this is going?
Those of us with MCS know differently than the argument presented by the Defendant and the decision reached by the court. We know that current research, peer reviewed and published, clearly shows a causal relationship between exposure to a minimum of seven classes of toxic chemicals and the initiation of Multiple Chemical Sensitivity.
MCS researcher Martin Pall is at the forefront of this current research. His peer reviewed research is now published as chapter 92, “Multiple Chemical Sensitivity: Toxicological Questions and Mechanisms,” in the international reference manual General and Applied Toxicology, 3rd Edition (2009, John Wiley and Sons). “While the majority of this paper comes from my earlier publications on MCS,” says Pall, “it also contains several very important sections that are largely novel.” Here are three of his main points germane to our discussion about this court case:
1. There are seven classes of chemicals implicated in MCS and all seven of these can indirectly produce a common response in the body, increased NMDA activity. Furthermore, animal studies have shown that members of all seven of these classes of chemicals can have their toxic responses lowered by using an NMDA antagonist. This clearly demonstrates not only that they produce such increased NMDA activity but those increases play an important role in producing the toxic responses to these chemicals. Given that we previously had six types of evidence implicating excessive NMDA activity in MCS, we now have compelling evidence that this common response plays a key role in MCS.
2. The role of these chemicals acting as toxicants in MCS has been confirmed by four genetic studies, showing that genes that determine the rate of metabolism of these chemicals, influence susceptibility to MCS (only three were available when the review was written). These studies implicate six genes as determining such susceptibility, all of which have roles in the metabolism of chemicals otherwise implicated in initiating cases of MCS. It follows that the roles of chemicals in initiating cases of MCS is undeniable.
3. There have been a series of published studies reporting objectively measurable responses to low level chemical exposure among MCS cases that are distinct from any responses in normals. At least three of these should be practical specific biomarker tests that can be applied in clinical settings. All of these studies are consistent with the NO/ONOO- cycle mechanism as it is thought to play out in MCS and all provide, therefore, evidence supporting this mechanism. We have been in great need for such specific biomarker tests for MCS and these and other approaches to developing such tests must be further studied and may provide recognized specific biomarker tests in the near future, in my judgment.
I have heard argued on other MCS forums that the problem is the name of our illness, Multiple Chemical Sensitivity. Use that name in the courts, people argue, and you are immediately discredited. I disagree. I think no matter the name, we would still run up against this problem in the courts. Although I think a Plaintiff may have more success if he or she has other more easily measurable co-morbid illnesses along with the MCS; a physician and attorney may be able to build stronger medical evidence through those measurable illnesses than the MCS. But what about the people who only suffer the currently difficult to measure symptoms like “brain fog”? I say keep the name as it is found in most of the scientific literature, Multiple Chemical Sensitivity, and back up the arguments with the peer reviewed research. When asthma was once though of as a psychological illness, did you hear people clamoring to change the name? No, you saw the research and the body of literature grow to the point that the illness could no longer be seen as psychosomatic.
Read the court’s decision and weep for Ms. O’Brien. But know that one day– I hope soon– Multiple Chemical Sensitivity will be added to the long list of illnesses that were once thought to be “idiopathic” such as asthma, autism, Parkinson’s disease, ulcers, multiple sclerosis, lupus, interstitial cystitis, migraine and ulcerative colitis, all of which have been claimed at one time to be generated by a psychological mechanism. How long it will take for the courts to catch up with the current body of literature clearly showing a causal relationship between toxic chemical exposure and Multiple Chemical Sensitivity is anyone’s guess. But I think we may see more of this debate in the news as the recent BP oil well blow out in the Gulf and the subsequent health issues play out in the courts.
*Read more more about the dangers of ozone treatments here.
If you enjoyed this post, you might like these related stories:
