Man’s Wi-fi Lawsuit Tossed
Alleged Health Problems at Issue
Ant i-wireless activist Arthur Firstenberg’s lawsuit against his Santa Fe neighbor for her use of devices such as a cellphone and computers was dealt an apparent fatal blow Tuesday when state District Judge Sarah Singleton ruled that scientific evidence does not support electromagnetic sensitivity.
Singleton found that “studies have failed to provide clear support for a causal relationship between electromagnetic fields and complaints of EMS.”
She barred Firstenberg from presenting expert testimony that contends otherwise, based on evidence that she said “is not generally accepted and is not reported in journals that have received recognition as prestigious, accepted scientific journals” and which have “methodological problems which negate their reliability.”
Firstenberg, Singleton wrote, can’t prove “causation” of his ailments from Wi-Fi devices.
Therefore, Singleton said, he “cannot prevail” in the case or sustain it and “summary judgement” — tantamount to dismissal — in favor of the defendants “is appropriate.” Firstenberg has until Oct. 1 to file objections.
Lindsay Lovejoy, Firstenberg’s attorney, could not be reached for comment.
Firstenberg’s suit had the potential to have a major impact on the wireless industry and customers. Singleton herself has noted that it could set a legal precedent in the field.
In his 2010 complaint, Firstenberg sued neighbor Raphaela Monribot for $1 million dollars for “injuries, illness, pain and suffering” and another $430,000 for loss in value of his
home and also named landlord Robin Leith as a defendant. Monribot no longer lives in Santa Fe.
In a statement released by her attorney, Christopher Graeser, Monribot said:
“It took three years to arrive at what common sense would have easily dictated. I am very proud of my lawyers, who took this challenge and prevailed, because it seems as if common sense is indeed very hard to legally prove.
“Thus, despite the heavy toll that the case took on me, I am glad and proud to have experienced going through the process and hope that the outcome will have favorable consequences for the community of Santa Fe and beyond. May the right of the individual to use everyday technology in the privacy of his home always prevail against attacks of activists who wish to force their agenda on the rest of the world.”
Graeser’s law firm added: “We are happy that the court elevated science and common sense over paranoia and ignorance. We took this case because we wanted to do our part to see science prevail.
“People are entitled to believe what they wish. However, if they want to sue their neighbor for $1 million, they need to have reliable scientific evidence on their side. Firstenberg did not, and we are happy that our client’s position has been vindicated, although she ended up moving out of her house, and leaving Santa Fe, during the course of litigation.”
Singleton’s ruling was in response to competing motions on the causation issue, with defense attorneys arguing that no valid scientific studies support Firstenberg’s claims that Montribot’s computers, phones and even dimmer switches caused him physical symptoms ranging from hip pain to heart damage.
WHO cited
Singleton, citing reports by the World Health Organization and others, concluded “there seems to be no correlation between exposure” to electromagnetic fields “and degree or certainty of harm.”
Her order listed WHO findings that “well-controlled and conducted double-blind studies have shown that symptoms do not seem to be correlated with EMF exposure … these symptoms may be due to preexisting psychiatric conditions as well as stress reactions as a result of worrying about believed EMF health effects, rather than EMF exposure.”
Singleton also ruled recently that Firstenberg could not introduce evidence of his own private, uncontrolled testing and chastised him for not cooperating with an expert she appointed to come up with testing protocols that both sides could agree on.