Did smoking or workplace mold cause employee’s lung disease?
April 18, 2011 by Fred HosierPosted in: Illnesses, new court decision, Respiratory safety, Special Report, What do you think?, Worker health
PDF 
An employee says she should receive permanent disability benefits because mold at work was a significant factor in her chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). But she also smoked for 33 years. How did a court rule in this case?
Mary Beth O’Brien was diagnosed with COPD. She’d been a smoker for 33 years and stopped immediately after getting the diagnosis.
She’d been employed by Larry K. Fox & Associates, a financial advisor, as a marketing director for 14 months before her diagnosis.
Her symptoms got better after she stopped smoking, but several months later she reported that they got worse again.
The building where she worked had some water leaks. An indoor air quality assessment showed elevated mold concentrations, but they weren’t high enough to adversely affect air quality.
Six months after that assessment, O’Brien filed a petition before the Iowa Workers’ Compensation Commissioner for an injury in the course of employment.
She claimed her respiratory and pulmonary systems were injured as a result of exposure to mold in her workplace.
A second indoor air quality assessment of her office showed high levels of a black mold. It was recommended that all “water damaged drywall … of the former office of [O'Brien] should be remediated.”
What did the doctors have to say?
A doctor who examined O’Brien as part of an independent medical evaluation wrote, “The mold exposure from her workplace caused some aggravation of the preexisting condition. I think she did have aggravation of her symptoms from the moldy environment. I do not think there is any proof that there was a permanent change in the preexisting condition secondary to work related exposures. I believe the COPD can be credited to her past smoking.”
Another doctor, O’Brien’s primary physician, wrote, “While I agree with Dr. Gross that [O'Brien's] lung disease is partly due to tobacco use, I also believe she has had … well documented flares relative to her mold exposure.”
A workers’ comp commissioner ruled:
- O’Brien’s injury arose out of and in the course of employment, noting that both doctors agreed that the mold in her workplace aggravated her preexisting COPD
- her injury was a substantial factor in causing her permanent disability, therefore
- O’Brien should be awarded permanent partial disability benefits.
The company appealed, but the workers’ comp commission affirmed the commissioner’s ruling.
The company then appealed to a state district court which reversed the ruling. Finally, this case went to the Iowa Court of Appeals.
Court’s decision turns on one word
The appeals court noted that O’Brien’s doctor referred to “flares” as a result of the exposure to mold. It also noted that flares are “temporary events.”
The court said there was nothing in the doctors’ reports that specifically said the mold exposure was a significant factor in O’Brien’s claimed permanent disability.
The appeals court ruled O’Brien failed to present expert testimony establishing a causal connection between the workplace mold and her COPD. Disability benefits were denied.
What do you think of the court’s ruling? Let us know in the Comments Box below.
(Larry K. Fox & Assoc. v. Mary Beth O’Brien, Court of Appeals of Iowa, No. 0-960/10-1026, 3/21/11)
SafetyNewsAlert.com delivers the latest Safety news once a week to the inboxes of over 270,000 Safety professionals.
Click here to sign up and start your FREE subscription to SafetyNewsAlert!
Tags: COPD, indoor air quality, permanent partial disability, smoking, Workers' comp, workplace mold
Loading ...
April 18th, 2011 at 8:10 am
For me, the 33 years of smoking far outweighs any problems possibly related to the mold.
April 19th, 2011 at 7:02 am
I agree with the ruling - I don’t know all the details but it sounds like she was just out for a buck. Everyone has something aggravated causing millions of dollars to be spent by companies. I had an employee who had a bad knee, he knelt down on a mat to pick something up, opps I aggravated my knee at work. We got stuck paying for a full knee replacement and benefits. WC has gotten so out of hand.
April 19th, 2011 at 8:09 am
I believe that the final ruling was correct. The workplace is not the only place to have “flare ups”. The fact is the 33 years of smoking, a well known health hazard, was the primary cause which was not caused by work. So in my mind, there can not be a significant new aggravation of a work related illness. Mold is a serious concern but there are so many variables to exposures. Merely walking outdoors will expose you to many different types of molds and other allerigens and different people are affected in different ways. I don’t think you can point to one thing, her office, as the primary culprit even though levels were elevated. And then saying that there was a “significant” aggravation - it’s absurd. But, then there is the question of was the smoking masking an underlying condition of the mold exosure?
I think that mold exposure needs to be studied more to conclusively determine what is real and what is not.
April 19th, 2011 at 8:15 am
Thank god for the appeals process. Where do they find these bleeding heart worker’s comp people? Not everything is work related, she smoked for 33 years. Deal with the consequences of your decision.
April 19th, 2011 at 8:15 am
Chronic sinus infections and allergic symptoms can indicate constant exposure to black mold. Toxic mold poisoning not only irritates the mucous membranes but also causes damage to the nervous system. This might cause headaches; decreased attention span, concentration and mental acuity; and dizziness. Bleeding in the lungs is one of the more severe symptoms of black mold poisoning. 33 years of smoking is her fault. She can’t be a sneaky opportunist and lay the blame on something else. I agree no permanent disability should be awarded for a temporary flare.
April 19th, 2011 at 8:31 am
Thirty-three years of smoking….I say, RIGHT ON, court’s ruling!!!
April 19th, 2011 at 8:43 am
I’m inclined to agree with the first doctor and with the Appeals Court decision as I do not believe there is a connection between the presence of mold in her workplace and her COPD. However, there are other questions that need to be answered in an attempt to draw a corollary between the mold and the COPD. For one, I’d like to know when the water leaks began. Were they present during her 14 months of employ as a smoker? Or did they begin during that “several months later” when she reported an exacerbation of her symptoms? There simply is not enough information presented in this case to draw a conclusion on the mold. We know this occurred in the midwest, but what about the time of year for the IAQ assessments? Genera identified? Outdoor samples? Non-complaint area? Just stating “high levels of a black mold” doesn’t do anything for me. I’m not so quick to use the “S” word with regard to mold without knowing more about the water intrusion episodes.
April 19th, 2011 at 9:03 am
Yes, the ruling was right, the mold only caused flareups, clean the place up new drywall and fresh paint she should still be able to work with the typical smokers cough at any job. Its amazing when this occures to someone they do the obvious quit smoking and blame the company they are working for at the time. Be smart your facility should be clean of any mold or moisture issues and question smokers when hiring.
April 19th, 2011 at 9:29 am
I am glad to see that the courts got this one right. I am disappointed with but not surprised by the lower courts decisions. They seem to think that the employers are always at fault and that the employees can do whatever they want (smoking in this case) and not take ownership for their actions. I am sick…oh it must be the mold, not the smoking for 33 years. Even the doctors stated it correctly; temporary flares. On the other hand, the company should have taken care of the leaks quicker.
April 19th, 2011 at 10:17 am
Right on track for this, but look at the length of time it took to get there but just from the wording of an IME Doctor. We really need to educate the Medical Field. This should not have gone this far and it just makes it so you dont hire smokers or elderly or fat people and the list goes on and on. But DO Not Discriminate!! Wow what a joke
April 19th, 2011 at 1:05 pm
What a crock!This case should have been thrown out the instant it arrived. The “mold” was meaningless in this situation, especially so called “black mold” and the two doctors who even hinted that “mold” had any possible effect on 33 year smoked lungs should have their licenses revoked. the real problem here is that workers comp must respond to and litigate based on the words written by incompetent doctors whose words are treated like something coming from the bible to be pored over and analyzed for deeper meanings.
April 19th, 2011 at 2:15 pm
I agree-but it should not have gotten that far. The article does not mention, but one question I always ask about ‘doctors’ opinions’: Did the physician see the IAQ reports before determining that mold was a contributor? There could have been dust or other particulates confounding the data. The type and concentration of mold would also be a determining factor. Others have mentioned it and I agree: Educate the medical community.
April 19th, 2011 at 2:27 pm
A no brainer of a final ruling. However I would agree with some comments on the fact it should have never gotten that far in the first place. I wonder what the final $$$$ spend of both parties totaled that had the outcome that a 5 year old could have determined.
April 19th, 2011 at 3:56 pm
Clearly the right decision in the end. Had she taken a different approach to her claim, it would actually be reasonable to have gotten a few of her medical visits paid, for her “flair” episodes, but asking for permanent disability is beyond preposterous. Far too many people today expect someone else to pay the consequences of their own poor judgment. This is, I believe, the most litigious country on earth.
April 19th, 2011 at 9:27 pm
They got a ruling right this time.
On a side note: I’ve heard of a number of people who smoked for years and were reasonably healthy until after they quit. Since nicotine meets the definition of a drug (which is anything that alters or changes the normal body function(s)) it is concevable that the body build some type of immunity from various diseases because of the smoking and when they quit taking the nicotine the immune system starts going bonkers and leave the ex-smoker vulnerable. Anybody else know if this is logical??
April 20th, 2011 at 7:48 am
An unsure economy is a sad state of affairs. Some people and I must say some because I don’t know all the percentages, but some people are looking for a golden goose so they can be ok inspite of a failing economy. Motivation is not purely greed but I think insecurity and worrying about tomorrow is a motivator. Also people who are reaching golden years living check to check and haven’t had the opportunity to save a nest egg. I think these kind of scenarios will forever plague companies.
April 21st, 2011 at 4:18 pm
This gal puffed away for 33 years. She quits. Works in a place that has a mold problem and it’s the mold that caused her COPD? Somebody should tell her that her smoking has done irreparable harm to her lungs and the mold, while present, was NOT the cause of her disease. How much time and money was spent on this case before it finally found its way to the reasoned bench of the state’s appeals court. I’d really like to take a softer approach to this like Safety Guy, but I can’t. I’ve seen too many people out to make a buck off the system and while I’m sorry the woman is sick, she has to know it was a result of her own bad choices. Good decision - finally - by the courts. Case closed.
April 26th, 2011 at 6:44 pm
a person that smokes is very irresponsible with their health they don’t care if they get cancer or not thats why they dont stop smoking, so they figure some one else should take the blame for their carelesness.
April 27th, 2011 at 9:04 am
Nicotine is Highly Addictive! It isn’t that they are irresponsible, they are just plain addicted.
The nicotine in inhaled tobacco smoke moves from the lungs, into the bloodstream and up to the smoker’s brain within 7 to 10 seconds. Once there, nicotine triggers a number of chemical reactions that create temporary feelings of pleasure for the smoker, but these sensations are short-lived, subsiding within minutes. As the nicotine level drops in the blood, smokers feel edgy and agitated — the start of nicotine withdrawal. When a person inhales cigarette smoke, the nicotine in the smoke is rapidly absorbed into the blood and starts affecting the brain. The result is the release of adrenaline, the “fight or flight” hormone. Physically, adrenaline increases a person’s heart rate, blood pressure and restricts blood flow to the heart muscle. When this occurs, the smoker experiences rapid, shallow breathing and the feeling of a racing heartbeat. Adrenaline also instructs the body to dump excess glucose into the bloodstream. Nicotine activates the same reward pathways in the brain that other drugs of abuse such as cocaine or amphetamines do, although to a lesser degree. Research has shown that nicotine increases the level of dopamine in the brain, a neurotransmitter that is responsible for feelings of pleasure and well-being. The acute effects of nicotine wear off within minutes, so people must continue dosing themselves frequently throughout the day to maintain the pleasurable effects of nicotine and to prevent withdrawal symptoms.
April 27th, 2011 at 11:54 am
that is a very good explanation of the bad effects of nicotine in your system,much better reason to stop smoking. and don’t tell me they they cant stop smoking.
April 27th, 2011 at 12:00 pm
and may i add that that is exactly what an addict wants to hear, blame it on the addiction and when they get sick blame it on their employer.
April 28th, 2011 at 10:03 am
I don’t know if they can’t or won’t. It’s a nasty habit. I hate the lingering smell. It’s so nasty I won’t get into a car where friend’s have smoked because it bothers me that much. Pointing fingers is a natural tendency for when something happens but sometimes we need to know when we point at 1 person, 4 fingers are pointing back at us. Ultimately we are responsible for our own lives.