{"id":"alj-H300809-2024-08-12","awcc_number":"H300809","decision_date":"2024-08-12","opinion_type":"alj","claimant_name":"April Bennett","employer_name":null,"title":"BENNETT VS. FAYETTEVILLE PUBLIC SCHOOLSAWCC# H300809 August 12, 2024","outcome":"denied","outcome_keywords":["denied:2"],"injury_keywords":["back","repetitive"],"pdf_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/BENNETT_APRIL_H300809_20240812.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/","filename":"BENNETT_APRIL_H300809_20240812.pdf","text_length":57994,"full_text":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION \n \n WCC NO. H300809 \n \nAPRIL BENNETT, Employee CLAIMANT \n \nFAYETTEVILLE PUBLIC SCHOOLS, Employer RESPONDENT \n \nARKANSAS SCHOOL BOARDS ASSN., Carrier RESPONDENT \n \n \n \n OPINION FILED AUGUST 12, 2024 \n \nHearing   before   ADMINISTRATIVE   LAW   JUDGE   ERIC   PAUL   WELLS   in   Springdale, \nWashington County, Arkansas. \n \nClaimant represented by EVELYN E. BROOKS, Attorney at Law, Fayetteville, Arkansas. \n \nRespondents represented by JAMES A. ARNOLD II, Attorney at Law, Fort Smith, Arkansas. \n \n STATEMENT OF THE CASE \n \n On April  22,  2024,  the  above  captioned  claim  came  on  for  a  hearing  at  Springdale, \nArkansas.      A  pre-hearing  conference  was  conducted  on March  4,  2024,  and  an  Amended Pre-\nhearing  Order  was  filed  on March  12,  2024.      A  copy  of  the Amended Pre-hearing  Order  has \nbeen marked Commission's Exhibit No. 1 and made a part of the record without objection. \n At the pre-hearing conference the parties agreed to the following stipulations: \n 1. The Arkansas Workers' Compensation Commission has jurisdiction of this claim. \n 2. The   relationship   of   employee-employer-carrier   existed   between   the   parties on \nFebruary 28, 2021. \n 3. The respondents have controverted the claim in its entirety. \n 4. The claimant’s weekly compensation rates will be determined at a later date. \n\nBennett – H300809 \n \n-2- \n At  this  prehearing  conference  the  parties  agreed  to  the  addition  of  two  experts  to  their \nwitness lists. Dr. Keith Chambers, NMD, will testify for the claimant and Joe Henry with Atoka, \nInc., will testify for the respondent. \n By agreement of the parties the issues to litigate are limited to the following: \n 1. Whether Claimant sustained a compensable occupational illness to her body as a whole \ndue to exposure to mold in the workplace on or about February 28, 2021. \n 2.  Whether  Claimant  is  entitled  to  medical  treatment  for  her  occupational  illness  due  to \nexposure to mold in the workplace. \n The claimant's contentions are as follows: \n“Claimant   sustained   a   compensable   occupational   injury/illness \nwhen  exposed  to  mold  while  working.  Claimant  is  entitled  to \nmedical  treatment  for  the  illness  and  symptoms  caused  by  that \nexposure. Claimant reserves all other issues.” \n \n The respondents’ contentions are as follows: \n“Respondents  contend  that  the  claimant’s  condition  does  NOT \nmeet the definition of either a compensable injury or compensable \noccupational illness.” \n \n The  claimant  in  this  matter  is  a 44-year-old  female who  alleges  to  have  sustained  a \ncompensable occupational illness to her body as a whole due to mold exposure in her workplace \non or about February 28, 2021. The claimant at that time was employed by the respondents as a \njunior  high  engineering  teacher  and  track  coach.  The  claimant’s  job  duties  included  track \npractice  in  the  morning  before  school  and  the  last  hour  of  the  school  day.  She  taught  at \nWoodland Junior High in Room No. C6 and testified to spending five to six hours per school day \nin that particular room.  \n\nBennett – H300809 \n \n-3- \n The  claimant  gave  direct  examination  testimony  about  symptoms  she  began  having  in \nearly 2021 as follows: \nQ So  what  happened  to  you  in  early  2021  around  the  end  of \nJanuary, February? What happened? \n \nA I  started  getting  some  odd  symptoms:  Sleeplessness,  itchy, \nhives, headaches. They weren’t always all at the same time, but it \nwas  odd  to  me.  I  am  pretty  in  tune  with  my  health  and  I  really \nvalue  it,  so  it  was – they  left  just  kind  of  alarming  me  a  little  bit \nand  I  was  just  trying  to  figure  out  what  is  happening,  why  am  I \nhaving  hives  at  night  or  leg  tremors.  There  was  quite  a  few \nsymptoms that rotated. They weren’t really ever at the same time \nmost of the days. \n \nQ Did you know what was wrong? \n \nA No. Exhaustion, really exhausted. The exhaustion probably \nwas   what   limited   me   from   exploring   them   in   depth   at   the \nbeginning. I would just go to sleep instead. I would rest a lot. Lay \ndown a lot. \n \nQ When  did  you  or  did  you  at  some  point  start  seeking \nmedical attention? \n \nA That  summer  of  2021,  I  sought  out  medical  attention  and \nadvice. \n \n The claimant testified that she had some blood work and consultation of that blood work \nat  the  Institute  of  Natural  Health  in  St.  Louis,  Missouri, in  the  Summer  of  2021.  The  claimant \nwas familiar with that facility as she used that facility when she was employed as a professional \npole  vaulter.  The  claimant  testified  that  she  waited  for  additional  testing  until  the  end  of  that \nsame year due to her ongoing efforts to become pregnant. \n The claimant testified on direct examination that she received those lab results in March \nof  2022.  On  pages  101-110  of  Respondents’ Exhibit  1  there  appears  a  lab  report  regarding  the \n\nBennett – H300809 \n \n-4- \nclaimant from Genova Diagnostics/Metabolomix+. That report is dated March 28, 2022, and was \nordered by the Institute of Natural Health in St. Louis, Missouri.  \n On direct examination the claimant was also asked about those test results and her actions \nbecause of the results as follows: \nQ [BY MS. BROOKS]: Did you see the results of that test. \n \nA I did, yes. \n \nQ And what was it testing for? \n \nA It was testing my mycotoxins in the urine. \n \nQ So  when  you  saw  the  results  of  these  tests,  did  you \nunderstand what they were saying? \n \nA Barely.  Just  through  whatever  the  doctor  had  told  me \nwhatever it was showing me. \n \nQ Okay.   So   when   you   got   those   tests   and   had   the \nconversation with your doctor about whatever it was, what did you \ndo then with those tests results? \n \nA I called – well, I texted my principal. It was I think a Friday \nnight or a Saturday. And then we ended up in a phone call. \n \nQ And who was your principal? \n \nA David McClure. \n \nQ All  right.  And  what  did  you  text  him?  What  did  you  say? \nNot exactly, if you don’t remember, just what was the main gist of \nyour conversation? \n \n*** \n THE WITNESS: When we spoke on the phone, I told him I \nhad  medical  testing  done  and  I  think  I  am  being  exposed  to  mold \nand I believe it is in the classroom. What are my next steps is what \nI asked him. \n \nQ [BY  MS.  BROOKS]:  And  what  was  the  next  step?  What \nhappened after that? \n\nBennett – H300809 \n \n-5- \n \nA When I got to school Monday, he told me I could move to a \ndifferent  room.  I  believe  they  said  the  custodians  looked  into  the \nceiling tiles. \n \nI note that the timeline of the claimant appears to be inaccurate to some degree and that as early \nas March 8, 2022, the claimant had  admitted an  email into evidence with an exchange between \nher  and  Principle  David  McClure  over  her  concerns  with  mold  in  her  classroom.  That  email \nexchange is initiated by the claimant and found at Claimant’s Exhibit 2, pages 1 and 2 and states: \nHi,  there.    I  wanted  to  follow  up  with  the  brief  conversation  Mr. \nGlade had with me this morning about a mold check that happened \nfrom maintenance.   \n \nBeing told that they looked above the ceiling tiles and cleared the \nceiling  of  mold  is  concerning  to  me  and  tells  me  that  this  health \nissue is not being taken seriously.  Now, last spring, insulation did \nfall out of my ceiling and it did have mold on it.  I have a hard time \nbelieving there  were  no  other  pieces  up  there  still  lingering.    That \nbeing said, my main concern is the  air,  and the  HVAC that blows \nall day long, everyday. \n \nI cannot return to my room until: \n* A petri dish has been used in testing for mold \n*  An  indoor  air  mold  test  has  been  done  (and  from  what  I \nunderstand an outdoor air test must also be done outside the room \nas a control sample) \n* And  the  vents  from  the  HVAC  have  been  opened  and  swabbed \nand  tested  or  a  petri-dish  done  for  mold  in  the  actual  vents  and \nHVAC. \nAs stated before in my email yesterday I am very sick. \n \nRecap of yesterday’s email (a few edits were made for clarity): \nLast  Thursday  I  received  notice  and  a  phone  call  from  the  clinic \ndoctor  that  one  of  the  first  tests  done,  the  MOLD  testing,  was \ncomplete and I was “off the chart” and in a highly dangerous range \nfor  2  different  types  of  toxic  molds.    (I  can  provide  results  if \nrequested). \n \nI  reached  out  to  you  to  be  proactive  in  checking  one  of  two  main \nbuildings that I spend most of my days inside in our district. \n\nBennett – H300809 \n \n-6- \n \n1.  C-6 My classroom here at Woodland. \n2. The BARC-Indoor football fieldhouse at the high school \nIn  my  classroom  I  do  not  feel  good.    It’s  a  very  sick  feeling.  \nEveryday.    And  over  the  last  couple  of  years  it  has  become \nprogressively  worse.    And  much  of  how  I  feel  times  up  with  the \nHVAC   system   turning   on.      I   have   been   feeling   exhausted, \nnauseated,  sick,  headaches,  brain  fog,  muscle  fatigue,  itchy,  sinus \npressure,  and  other  random  symptoms  and  illnesses.    I  am  willing \nto discuss more with anyone who might need to know more. \n \nPlease keep me up to date on further testing that will be performed. \n \n Mr. David McClure responded by email minutes later as follows: \nApril, \n \nI will talk with Steve Flickinger at Maintenance again and let him \nknow the severity of the issue and see what needs to be done to get \nthe more thorough testing we need. \n \n On the morning of March 17, 2022, the claimant sent an email to Dr. Megan Duncan,  a \ndeputy superintendent for the respondent. That email is found as Claimant’s Exhibit 2, pages 5 \nand  6.  In  the  email  the  claimant  expressed  her  concerns  about  getting  testing  for  mold  done  as \nsoon as possible in her old C6 classroom and the “BARC” at the Fayetteville High School (the \nfacility where the claimant coached track). The claimant also discussed conditions she found in \nthe  C6  classroom  when  she  re-entered  it  to  get  supplies  for  her  new  classroom.  She  believed \nthose conditions made a case for testing quickly. The conditions she cited included a nonworking \nHVAC dial and small bucket of water and dish soap she had left that contained paint brushes and \nsponges. The claimant stated the water had a “terrible odor and visible mold fuzz.” \n Dr. Duncan responded via email later that morning as follows: \nMs. Bennett, \n \n\nBennett – H300809 \n \n-7- \nThank  you  for  letting  us  know.    Please  let  Mr.  McClure  or  Ms. \nVenters know if you need any materials out of room C6.   \n \nAs  noted,  we  are  in  the  process  of  investigating  the  area  to \ndetermine  the  next  steps.    Thank  you  for  your  patience  as  we  are \ninvestigating. \n \n On April 19, 2022, the claimant emailed Mr. Greg Mones, who is the Director of Human \nResources  for the  respondent.  That  email  is  found  at  Claimant’s  Exhibit  2,  pages  7  and  8. \nFollowing is a portion of that email: \nHi everyone. \n \nThank you again for meeting with me on April 7\nth\n.  I was wanting \nto follow up from that meeting and summarize what we discussed \nand our plan for action on those issues. \n \nBeing  able  to  share  with  Dr.  Duncan  and  Mr.  Mones  the  health \nproblems  I  have  been  having  that  have  progressed  over  the  past \ncouple of years, the medical backing to support the discoveries and \nplan,  as  well  as  what  our  options  are  for  exploring  possible \ncontamination  in  several  district  buildings  that  I  have  occupied, \nwas productive. \n \nMr. Mones had agreed he need to reach out to Worker’s comp as \nwell  as  possibly  through  them,  OSHA  to  understand  what  our \nprotocol would be to professionally test C-6  as well as the BARC \nAthletic  Facility  as  those  are  the  places  I  occupy  most,  outside  of \nmy own home. \n \nWe had mold testing done in our home and was negative for mold \nwhich was a relief for us to know our home is safe.  Built in 2014, \nLead poisoning in our house is not a concern. \n \nMr.  McClure  at  Woodland  has  allowed  me  to  take  over  another \ncommon  space  for  my  classroom  until  professional  testing  can  be \ndone  in  my  C-6  at  Woodland  and  either,  confirmed  for  toxic \ncontaminants and/or toxic mold, or that is eliminated as the source \nof my slow poisoning from lead and toxic mold. \n \nI am eager to hear back from Mr. Mones on what the next steps are \nthrough  HR  and  Dr.  Duncan’s  plan  to  test  my  classroom  and \nHVAC, which  I would like to be  a part of the discussion with the \n\nBennett – H300809 \n \n-8- \nprofessional  industrial  hygienist  or  whoever  is  given  the  task  to \ninvestigate those spaces.  I feel my input might help shed light on \nhow  and  when  I  felt  the  worse,  and  past  incidents  of  leaks  that \nmight be source locations for contaminants. \n \n Mr. Mones returned the claimant’s email on Friday, April 22, 2022.  In  that  email  he \ninformed  the  claimant  that  the  respondent  was  in  the  process  of  selecting  a  company  to  do \ntesting. Mr. Mones also discussed the accommodations being made so the claimant did not have \nto re-enter areas of the school facilities that she believed to be areas of concern. Mr. Mones also \ninvited  the  claimant  to  submit  any  information  that  she  would  like  the  environmental  testing \ncompany to know about the situation to him in writing and he would provide that information to \nthem. \n The  respondents hired  a  company  called  NWA  Mold  Inspector  to  test  the  facility  areas \nthat were of concern to the claimant. On April 23, 2022, Mr. Brian Suggs went to those facilities \nand conducted testing. Mr. Suggs was called as a witness by the respondents. He testified that he \nis  qualified  to  do  environmental  inspections  and  mold  testing.  He  further  testified  that  he  holds \n17 credentials in the field of mold testing. Mr. Suggs also identified his reports from that testing \nwhich were admitted into evidence at Respondents’ Exhibit 3, pages 75-107.  Following  is  a \nportion of Mr. Suggs direct examination testimony: \nQ Was the testing that you did as reflected by the results that \nyou  just  reviewed  done  in  accordance  with  usual  and  customary \nindustry standards? \n \nA Yes. \n \nQ You didn’t take any shortcuts or deviate from any of the \nusual and customary procedures? \n \nA No. \n \n\nBennett – H300809 \n \n-9- \nQ Were  any  limitations  or  restrictions  placed  on  you  by  the \nFayetteville School District? \n \nA No. \n \nQ You were just asked to do mold tests; is that correct? \n \nA Correct. \n \n On cross examination Mr. Suggs made it clear in his testimony the importance of outdoor \ntesting  in  the  area  of  indoor  testing  sites,  along  with  an  average  outdoor  testing  number  that  is \nused  as  a  safeguard  against  failed  outdoor  tests.  Mr.  Suggs  also  confirmed  that  he  collects  the \nsamples  and  sends  them  to  a  laboratory,  in  this  particular  case  Hayes  Microbial  Consulting, \nwhich does the laboratory work and returns the results to him.  \n On April 28, 2022, Mr. Mones sent an email to the claimant regarding the results of the \ntesting  that  was  done  in  the  respondent’s facilities at the claimant’s request. The body of that \nemail follows: \nMs. Bennett, \n \nAs  we  discussed  last  week,  the  district  was  working  to  select  a \ncompany  to  conduct  air  quality  testing  in  your  classroom  at \nWoodland and in the Indoor Practice Facility.  Over the weekend, \nNWA  Mold  Inspector  conducted  an  inspection  of  Woodland  Jr. \nHigh  in  C-6  and  of  the  Indoor  Practice  Facility  and  were  sent  for \nanalysis  to  Hayes  Microbial  Consulting.    The  Clearance  Report \nand the Analysis Report from the testing are attached. \n \nIn  both  facilities,  the  carbon  monoxide  levels  were  within  the \nnormal range.  The relative humidity was within the recommended \nlevels.    The  total  indoor  airborne  mold  spore  counts  were  lower \nthan  the  total  outdoor  control  samples  and  both  facilities  were \nfound to be within the normal range for mold. \n \nWe  are  in  the  process  of  arranging  testing  for  lead  in  the  water  at \nboth  facilities.    As  I  stated  in  my  previous  email,  if  you  have  any \ninformation  you  would  like  the  district  to  share  with  the  testing \ncompany,  you  may  send  the  information  to  me  via  email  and  the \n\nBennett – H300809 \n \n-10- \ndistrict  will  share  it  with  the  testing  company.    Once  testing  is \ncomplete and the district receives results, the results will be shared \nwith you. \n \nIn the meantime, if you have any questions, feel free to reach out. \n \nI note that the testing information provided to the claimant by Mr. Mones is consistent with the \ndocumentation from Hayes Microbial Consulting and Mr. Suggs found at Respondents’ Exhibit \n3, pages 75-107. \n On  April  29,  2022,  the  claimant  sent  an  email  to  multiple  respondent  administrators \nincluding Mr. Mones. That email appears to respond to Mr. Mones April 28, 2022, email which \nstated  the  results  of  the  respondent’s third-party  mold  testing.  The  claimant  expressed  her \n“concerns about the mold spore numbers presented from the testing done.” She also gave advice \non testing for lead in the HVAC system and called into question the accuracy of the testing that \nwas done. I note that multiple emails appear in the record in this matter, sent from the claimant to \nvarious respondent employees and from respondent employees to the claimant. Those emails are, \nto a limited extent, documented in Claimant’s Exhibit 2, pages 1 and 2, 5-10,  12  and  13,  but  a \nmore inclusive collections of emails is found at Respondents’ Exhibit 3, pages 2-43. The emails \nfrom the claimant after her April 29, 2022, response to Mr. Mones’ April 28, 2022, email with \nthe   testing   results   are   primarily   continued   complaints   or   concerns   over   the   testing   and \ncoordination over the claimant’s working locations as she never returned to her original C6 \nclassroom.  \n The claimant made a decision to do her own testing of her old C6 classroom. On May 23, \n2022, she collected and/or tested for mold using a Petri dish setup. The results of those tests are \nfound in a report found at Claimant’s Exhibit 2, pages 14 and 15. On June 26, 2022, the claimant \n\nBennett – H300809 \n \n-11- \nused  a  Zefon  vacuum  dust  collector  to  test  for  mold  in  the  HVAC  system  in  her  old  C6 \nclassroom. The results from her test are found at Claimant’s Exhibit 2, page 20-24. \n The  claimant  sought  medical  treatment  for  mold  exposure  from  Dr.  Keith  Chambers  at \nChambers  Clinic  in  Scottsdale,  Arizona,  in  mid  to  late  2022.  On  September  30,  2022,  Dr. \nChambers authored the following letter regarding the claimant: \nBased  on  the  medical  test  results  from  last  spring  through  the \nsummer,  and  most  recent  medical  testing  completed,  it  is  my \nevaluation  as  her  primary  doctor  to  request  that  in  order  to  move \nforward  with  certain  medical  treatments  she  is  removed  from  any \ntoxic  environment.  Based  upon  my  findings  Ms.  Bennett  cannot \ntolerate  being  exposed  to  an  environment  that  contains  dust  or \nmold  particles.  Doing  so  will  not  only  compromise  her  health \ncondition,   but   delay   improvement   from   the   treatments   I   am \nproviding    for    her.    Although    repetitive    exposure    to    the \naforementioned environment would be extremely detrimental, even \na  single  exposure  will  have  negative  effects  as  she  does  not  have \nthe  capacity  to  release  these  particles  from  her  body  and  have \ndeleterious effects. \n \nPlease  see  test  results  below  that  correlate  medical  testing  with \nhealth  concerns  regarding  the  environment  she  taught  in.  The \nprevious  exposure  correlates  with  medical  tests  performed  and \ncorroborate  with  what  has  been  found  in  her  system.  Her  health \nwill   continue   to   decline   if   not   removed   from   the   toxic \nenvironment. \n \n Dr. Chambers treated the claimant on several other occasions and authored another letter \non July 19, 2023, as follows: \nI am a naturopathic medical doctor with full prescriptive rights for \ntraditional  medications,  as  well  as  obtaining  additional  training  in \nalternative  medications  and  treatments.  I  received  training  from \nRitchie  Shoemaker  M.D.,  a  world-renowned  medical  doctor  who \nspecializes in mold disease diagnosis and treatment. \n \nAccording to the Great Plains Laboratory testing completed, which \nis  a  mainstay  for  mold  testing,  the  fact  that  of  the  Aspergillus \nfamily,  Ochratoxin  A  showed  a  very  high  level  in  the  urine \nsignifying   water   damage   in   the   environment.   In   addition, \n\nBennett – H300809 \n \n-12- \nmycophenolic     acid     was     exorbitantly     elevated     as     well. \nMycophenolic acid is produced by penicillium fungus and has the \npropensity to increase the risk of opportunistic infections. \n \nTo   investigate   this   presence   of   mold   disease,   testing   was \nperformed by use of the ERMI (Environmental Relative Moldiness \nIndex)    test    which    came    back    conclusive    with    elevated \nenvironmental  presence  of  aspergillus  and  penicillium  molds.  The \ncommonality  of  those  two  mold  spores  causes  symptoms  such  as \nshortness  of  breath,  severe  fatigue,  headaches,  nausea,  etc.  Due  to \nthe severity of symptoms present, the quantitative amount of mold \npresent   was   extremely   high   and   caused   a   plethora   of   other \nsymptoms  besides  what  was  listed  above.  This  shows  that  the \nconditions  were  from  the  classroom  environment  at  the  school \nMrs. Bennett worked in. \n \nIn  the  GI  Map  testing  completed  with  our  office,  there  is  a  high \nlevel of elastase presence. Linked below is research that correlates \naspergillus/penicillium, which  is  a  type  of  mold that  was  found  in \nMrs. Bennett’s mycotoxin urine test. \n \nAdditionally,   due   to   the   dysbiosis   of   the   gut   track,   the \nneurotransmitters   were   deficient   as   seen   in   the   Senesco   Lab \ncompleted  12/29/22.  Approximately  70-80%  or  neurotransmitters \nare   made   in   the   gut   track.   Due   to   the   deficiency   in   the \nneurotransmitters, there is a cascading effect of the presentation of \nsymptoms. \n \nIn  the  presence  of  mold  spores,  the  staphylococcus  aureus  grows \nexponentially.  NARES  testing  was  completed  by  swabbing  the \nnasal  passages.  The  staph  bacteria  were  found  in  large  amounts \nand  indicates  the  exposure  and  presence  of  mold.  The  danger  of \nstaph  in  the  nasal  passages  is  an  imbalance  in  the  pituitary  gland, \nwhich  is  the  master  gland  and  regulates  all  of  the  endocrine \nactivity in the body. \n \nIn conclusion, based upon all the testing completed, it’s conclusive \nthat  Mrs.  Bennett  was  not  only  exposed  to mold  but  sustained  the \nsymptoms which properly diagnosed her with mold disease. \n \n Dr.  Chambers  was  called  as  a witness  by  the  claimant  at  the  hearing  in  this  matter.  On \ndirect examination Dr. Chambers was asked about his educational background and his practice as \nfollows: \n\nBennett – H300809 \n \n-13- \nQ And could you please tell us your educational background. \n \nA I  have  degrees  in  biology  and  chemistry.  I  also  have  a \nDoctorate in Naturopathic Medicine, and MBA in management. A \nMasters in International Business. \n \nQ And what is your area of practice? \n \nA My   area   of   practice   is   chronic   disease.   One   of   the \nsubsegments of that is mold disease and Lyme disease. \n \nQ And where do you practice? \n \nA In Scottsdale, Arizona. \n \nQ And what is the name of your clinic? \n \nA Chambers Clinic. \n \nQ And do you practice there alone or are there other doctors? \n \nA Other doctors as well. Eight other doctors. \n \nQ And in your qualifications for your specialty, are you also a \nmedical doctor? \n \nA Yes. \n \nQ And so the education that you’ve had, does that include \nwhat we would just think of as normal medical school? \n \nA Yes. \n \nQ And then what on top of that? \n \nA I have full prescriptive rights and then I have other training \nin   all   of   the   alternative   medicines:   Botanical   medicine,   IV \nmedicine, Chinese medicine, as well as physical medicine. \n \nQ And  does  your  work  background  include  any  experience \nwith toxicology or environmental air situations? \n \nA Yes. I worked as a chemist in environmental toxicology as \nwell  as  I  taught  at  Mizzou  organic  chemistry.  And  I  worked  for  a \n\nBennett – H300809 \n \n-14- \ncompany     called     Watman     (phonetic)     analyzing     different \nenvironmental toxicities. \n \n On cross examination Dr. Chambers was asked additional questions about his educational \nand medical qualifications as follows: \nQ You said you were a Naturopathic Doctor? \n \nA That is correct. I am a naturopathic medical doctor. \n \nQ That is not a specialty recognized by the American Medical \nAssociation? \n \nA That’s right. \n \nQ Okay. You didn’t – you  went  to  separate  medical  school, \nnot to a medical school for an M.D. degree? \n \nA So  the  clarification  on  naturopathic  medical  school  is  you \nhave – it’s a four-year  medical  school  postgraduate  and  you  have \nfull prescriptive rights. And we are recognized as being equivalent \nto a straight M.D., so to speak. \n \nQ Who recognizes you as being equivalent to a straight M.D.? \n \nA Any pharmacy or any insurances. \n \n In  direct  examination  testimony  Dr.  Chambers  made  it  clear  that  he  believes  that  the \nclaimant  suffers  from  mold  disease.  Dr.  Chambers  stated  that  his  opinion  is  within  a  degree  of \nmedical certainty. Dr. Chambers also gave testimony that he had issues with the testing done by \nthe respondents as follows: \nQ Have  you  had  an  opportunity  to  review  the  report  in \nevidence that was done by Hayes Microbial Consulting where they \nlooked at the air in the school? \n \nA Yes. \n \nQ And again, you’ve already testified of your experience in \nenvironmental work, but is there anything that you observed in that \nreport that was concerning to you? \n\nBennett – H300809 \n \n-15- \n \nA With the air handling? \n \nQ Yes. \n \nA So  one  thing  I  noticed  on  the  air  handling  was  the  testing \nwas  very  short.  I  think  it  was  five  minutes  and  in  a  few  different \nlocations.  One  of  the  locations  was  on  top  of  the  desk.  Generally, \nwhen they go and they do an air filtration, my experience, they will \nleave those – first of all, it is on the floor because the spores settle \non the floor. Also, usually it’s a 12- to 24-hour  collection to get a \ntrue composite sample of what is in the room or rooms. \n \nQ And  the  results,  I  believe  in  one  place  is  267  and  another \n200  meters  cubed  within  the  room,  the  C6  room.  What  do  those \nnumbers mean to you? \n \nA So  those  numbers  are  either  at  or  above  the  threshold  to \nshow  that  there  was  indeed  mold  spores  that  are  an  unacceptable \nrange, even with the brief sample collection. \n \n On  cross  examination  Dr.  Chambers  was  asked  about  testing  done  on  the  claimant  for \nmold exposure as follows: \nQ What objective testing of her symptoms did you do? \n \nA As I said, I did the nasal swab. \n \nQ Okay. The nasal swab told you what? \n \nA The  nasal  swab  said – that  explains  that  she  had  been \nexposed to high areas of mold exposure. \n \nQ But it didn’t tell you where that exposure occurred? \n \nA No, sir. \n \nQ You performed  a nares swab on January 26, 2023. Do you \nrecall that or have the records related to that? \n \nA Yes. \n \nQ And she did have staph as a result of the January 26, 2023 \nculture; correct? \n\nBennett – H300809 \n \n-16- \n \nA Yes. \n \nQ But  did  not  have – and  I  am  going  to  butcher  this  word – \nAspergillus? \n \nA That’s right. \n \nQ What is Aspergillus? \n \nA Aspergillus is a particular type of bacteria. \n \nQ Mold? \n \nA It is related to mold, yes. \n \nQ Okay. Is that an indication as mold disease? \n \nA When you have Aspergillus? \n \nQ Yes. \n \nA It is often accompanied, but it is not diagnosed by that. \n \nQ Okay.  According  to  your  test  results,  she  did  not  have  the \nAspergillus  in  the  January  26,  2023  culture,  but  did  have  it  in  the \nJuly 12, ’23 culture? \n \nA Yes. \n \nQ So  she  got  Aspergillus  somewhere  between  those  two \ndates. Is that consistent with your test results? \n \nA That would be. \n \nQ Okay. \n \nA Because  continual  exposure,  they  can  morph  into  other \nthings as you go along. \n \nQ And she did not have the staph in July, so that was gone? \n \nA After treatment. \n \n\nBennett – H300809 \n \n-17- \nQ Okay. She wasn’t in the C6 classroom between January 26, \n2023 and July 12, 2023; was she? \n \nA I wasn’t – \n \nQ You don’t have any idea where she was? \n \nA All I know is she was doing what she does in school. \n \nQ Okay.  but  if  she  was  not  in  the  C6  classroom,  you  can \ntestify that she didn’t get the Aspergillus in the C6 classroom at \nWoodland Junior High; correct? \n \nA That would make sense. That is a commensurate bacteria. \n \n The respondents in this matter called Joe Henry as a witness. Mr. Henry is employed by \nATOKA  Environmental  Engineering  Consulting  Firm,  located  in  Little  Rock,  Arkansas.  Mr. \nHenry’s deposition, taken on April 30, 2024, was also admitted into evidence as Claimant’s \nExhibit 3. Mr. Henry testified that his firm is a “dedicated environmental consulting company \nthat is involved in all phases of environmental issues, both indoor and outdoor.” Mr. Henry’s \ncurriculum vitae and list of litigation cases is found at Respondents’ Exhibit 5, pages 1-9.  It \nincludes   a   B.S.   in  Biology/Microbiology   from   the   University   of   Arkansas   and   graduate \nMicrobiology Studies  from  the  Memphis  State  University.  Also  included  are  several  litigation \ncases where Mr. Henry served as an expert witness for both plaintiffs and defendants. \n On  direct  examination  Mr.  Henry  was  asked  about  his  review  of  the  present  matter  and \nhis opinions about that review as follows:  \nQ Okay. And you and  I have never met before  I got in touch \nwith you in connection with this case; is that right? \n \nA Have not. That is correct. \n \nQ At my request, did you review certain documents? \n \nA I did. \n\nBennett – H300809 \n \n-18- \n \nQ And  did  those  consist  of  tests  done  by  Brian  Suggs  at  the \nWoodland Junior High? \n \nA Yes. \n \nQ Along  with  two  other  test  results  that  were  done  by  Ms. \nBennett? \n \nA Yes. \n \nQ Okay. Let me start first with the test done by Brian Suggs. \nDo you know Brian? \n \nA I do not. \n \nQ Okay.  Were  the  test  results  that  he  produced  and  the  lab \nthat  he  used  produced,  were  those  the  type  of  mold  testing  results \nthat you normally see? \n \nA Usually. \n \nQ Okay. And did you review those? \n \nA I am sorry? \n \nQ Did  you  review  those?  Let’s  talk  first  about  C6,  the \nclassroom. \n \nA Okay. \n \nQ Did you review those? \n \nA I did. \n \nQ And  those  have  both  an  indoor  component  and  an  outdoor \ncomponent; is that correct? \n \nA That is true. \n \nQ Why is that important? \n \nA Well,  that  raises  a  lot  of  issues.  The  consensus  over  the \nyears  has  been  that  when you  take  samples  that  you  want  to \ndetermine their origin or if, in  fact, they  are hazardous or toxic or \n\nBennett – H300809 \n \n-19- \nharmful in some way, then you compare those test results with the \nresults taken outdoors and that is why the outdoor sample is listed \nin this battery of tests. \n \nQ Okay. Mold is everywhere? \n \nA Mold is everywhere. \n \nQ Bunches of different kinds? \n \nA A lot of different kinds. \n \nQ Okay. I am going to try to be fairly general here. When you \nreviewed  the  test  results  that  Brian  did,  was  there  anything  that \nconcerned yo from a safety standpoint? \n \nA No. \n \nQ None  of  the  rest  of  us,  or  maybe  some  of  the  rest  of  the \nfolks here have, but I am not an expert in mold tests, but generally \nspeaking, was the volume of mold that showed up either inside or \noutside alarming or significant? \n \nA They were relatively minor. \n \nQ Would you consider those to be clean environment? \n \nA I would, as designated by the definition of clean. \n \nQ Okay. As far as the individual molds themselves, was there \nanything  identified  inside  the  classroom  or  inside  the  indoor \npractice facility that isn’t present in the general atmosphere? \n \nA The  profile  of  molds  that  were  present  were  pretty  typical \nfor indoor environments. \n \n Mr.  Henry  was  also  asked  on  direct  examination  about  the  testing  performed  by  the \nclaimant as follows: \nQ Okay. Did you review – I think you have already indicated \nyou reviewed the test done by Ms. Bennett. \n \nA Yes. \n \n\nBennett – H300809 \n \n-20- \nQ Okay. One of them, I think, was a Petri dish test? \n \nA True. \n \nQ Can you tell us what, if anything, you gleaned from the test, \nthe Petri dish test? \n \nA Well, laymen, people who are interested to try to figure out \nwhat is going on in their house, can buy a Petri dish filled with an \nagar  that  would  grow  mold  if  you  expose  it  to  the  air.  And  as \nintriguing  as  that  may  sound,  it  is  really  not  a  reliable  method  of \ngetting an idea of what is in the air or how much or where it came \nfrom. \n \nQ Okay. \n \nA And  it  is  just  you  expose  a  plate  to  the  air  for  15,  20,  30 \nminutes.  And  molds  are  typically  blowing  around  in  the  air  from \nair currents and some of them will settle on the surface of that agar \nand you could incubate it and it will grow. \n \nQ If I put a Petri dish in this room and left it for X number of \nminutes  or  hours  and  then  went  through  the  incubation  process, \nwhat would you expect? \n \nA There was either mold in the air or there wasn’t. \n \nQ Okay.  As  far  as  being  able  to  use  that  test  to  determine \nwhether  there  was  something  inside  the  classroom  that  wasn’t \npresent outside, does that test tell you anything? \n \nA Only if whatever was present was something that raised an \neyebrow. \n \nQ And did it? \n \nA No. \n \nQ There is also an ERMI test that she did. \n \nA Uh-huh. \n \nQ Is that a “yes”? \n \nA Yes. Sorry. \n\nBennett – H300809 \n \n-21- \n \nQ What is the ERMI test for? \n \nA Well,  the  ERMI  test  was  developed  by  the  government  to \ntry to better evaluate indoor air quality concerning mold growth. \n \nQ Okay. \n \nA And  did  a  lot  of  work  on  it  and  came  up  with  this \nmoldiness   index   and   this   method   was   developed.   And   it   is \nconducted  and  run  in  a  laboratory  by  collecting  dust  from  around \nthe  house.  And  typically  it  is  one  or  two  square  meters  of  area \nusing different types of collection material. I think Swiffer is used \nnowadays  pretty  typically  to  collect  mold,  dust,  and  those  kind  of \nthings that would be present in dust. \n \n Then that is sent in to a laboratory that is equipped with the \nequipment to analyze that, and also to convert the test results to an \nindex or a number that could tell us whether the  environment in a \nhouse was or had been mold in it at some particular time. \n \n And  based  on  that  index  or  the  number,  that  it  would  be \neither  low,  no  hazard;  middle,  relative  hazard;  and  then  a  high \nnumber with possibly a good hazard or a bad hazard, rather. \n \nQ And did you review her results? \n \nA I did. \n \nQ And what was your – \n \nA I don’t remember what the number was. \n \nQ Okay. \n \nA  I think it was a little on the high side, if I am not mistaken. \n \nQ Okay. Is that a test that you routinely use in your business? \n \nA No, we don’t. \n \nQ Why? \n \nA Well,  there  are  restrictions  about  what  you  can  interpret \nfrom   that   mold   test.   It   is   scientifically   thought   out.   It   is \n\nBennett – H300809 \n \n-22- \nscientifically analyzed using statistical evaluations and all that kind \nof thing. And it will pick up the DNA from any kind of mold that \nis  present.  I  think  there  are  something  like  36  different  molds  on \nthis  panel  of  molds  that  are  tested  for  and  typically  they  are  ones \nthat you would normally see indoors and some that you would see \noutdoors.  And  they  compile  all  of  that  information  into  the  score \nthat I’ve described. \n \n Now,  if  I  were  going  to  come  to  a  conclusion  about  what \nthat meant, that tells me  that at one time if there  is a high score – \nand  this  could  be  over  a  long  period  of  time.  It  could  have  been \nover five years, ten years. It depends on how clean the house is. It \ndepends on how much outside air is introduced into the house. And \nit  depends  on  how  much  is  collected  in  hidden  areas  that  you \nwould normally go look for dust. Most of us don’t clean up under a \ncouch or in the back of a closet or somewhere like that as often as \nwe would a tabletop, for example. \n \n So the numbers and test results that we get from that would \nindicate  that,  okay,  maybe  there  was  at  one  time  a  lot  of  mold \nthere. Where did it come from? Did you take one outside? Did you \ntake  one  or  two  or  three  or  four  in  the  rest  of  the  house  and  see \nwhat  those  were?  What  does  the  rest  of  the  house  look  like?  One \ntest is not going to tell us as much. It may say, okay, if it is a high \nnumber, it may be prone to have been a problem at one time or it \ncould  possibly  be  something  current,  but  we  don’t  know  that \nunless we take other types of tests that we normally run indoors. \n \nQ Okay.  From  that  test  result,  can  you  say  anything  about \nwhether   there   was   something   unusual   or   significant   in   that \nclassroom? \n \nA I really can’t. \n \nQ Okay. \n \nA And if I could give you a for instance, a hypothetical. If, for \nexample – and we have  been trained over the years to know what \nto  look  for  in  the  environment.  But  for  example,  I  go  into  a \nclassroom  or  a  bedroom  or  wherever  and  take  a  series  of  tests  to \nsee what the profile and  the concentration of mold spores are in  a \ngiven  environment  and  there  is  one  particular  mold  that  is  sky \nhigh, say in the neighborhood of 25,000 spores per cubic meter are \nthere  and  it  is  kind  of  a  loner.  There  may  not  be  but  one  or  two \nother  molds  present.  That  tells  me  that  has  a  source  that  is \n\nBennett – H300809 \n \n-23- \nlocalized and that it is giving off a large number or spores into the \nair  because  the  air  currents  will  disturb  the  colonies  and  you  will \nget  a  higher  number  inside  of  a  contained  environment  like  this \nroom. \n \n So if I saw something like that, I would say, okay, we have \ngot a problem. We need to look further and see where that problem \nis originating so we can get rid of it. \n \nQ And  in  the  ERMI  test  that  she  provided,  the  results  you \nreviewed, was there anything alarming? \n \nA Well,  if  I  used  that  and  compared  it  to  the  test  results  that \nwere  done  from  the  mold  sampling,  I  couldn’t  really  make  a \ncorrelation. \n \nQ Okay.  Some  people  are  more  susceptible  to  mold  than \nothers; correct? \n \nA True. \n \nQ Okay.  And  I  guess  some  molds  are  more  dangerous  than \nothers? \n \nA Indeed they are. \n \nQ Did  you  notice  anything  in  any  of  these  test  results  where \nthere was a mold that was particularly dangerous from a scientific \nstandpoint? \n \nA Not comparing to what is found in the literature, no. \n \n Mr.  Henry  was  also  questioned  on  direct  examination  about  the  source  of  mold  for \ninstances where a person is susceptible to it and its effects as follows: \nQ Okay.  If  you  are  going  to  try  to  make  some  conclusion \nabout  the  source  of  mold  in  a  person  who  is  susceptible  to  mold, \nwould  you  necessarily  need  to  exclude  other  places  of  possible \nexposure? \n \nA Certainly. \n \nQ Like in a house where they live? \n \n\nBennett – H300809 \n \n-24- \nA Yes, sir. \n \nQ And   would   it   be   fair   from   a   scientific   standpoint   to \nconclude that Ms. Bennett’s problem was mold exposure, if she, in \nfact, has one, was due to the classroom when her house was never \ntested? \n \nA It  would  be  nice  to  know  what  her  history  had  been  and \nwhether  or  not  she  had  been  predisposed;  whether  or  not  she  has \nunderlying autoimmune conditions. Any of those things are factors \nthat  would  signal  whether  she  is  allergenic  or  not  allergenic.  I \ndon’t know that, but it is something that would be important to \nknow. It would be important to know the background of where she \nhad lived previously and what exposures might have occurred then. \n \nQ Okay. So in the absence of that kind of testing, it would be \nspeculation or conjecture? \n \nA It’s speculation. \n \n On  direct  examination  Mr.  Henry  was  also  asked  about  questions  he  answered  from  the \nclaimant’s attorney in his prehearing deposition, found at Claimant’s Exhibit 3, as follows: \nQ Okay.  Now,  we  have  already  established  mold  can  be  a \nproblem anywhere; correct? \n \nA It can. \n \nQ And you gave your deposition not long ago to Ms. Brooks; \nis that correct, in connection with this case? \n \nA Yes, I did. \n \nQ And she showed you some photographs that showed water \ndamage and you agreed that that could be a problem? \n \nA Oh, definitely. Sure. \n \nQ If left unattended; correct? \n \nA Yes, sir; that is correct. \n \nQ And do you know when that water damage occurred? \n \n\nBennett – H300809 \n \n-25- \nA I do not. \n \nQ Or when it was corrected? \n \nA I do not. \n \nQ Or how long it was there. \n \nA I do not. \n \nQ Okay. HVAC systems, they can be a problem; correct? \n \nA They are a localized source of mold problems, yes. \n \nQ Okay.  And  we  don’t  know  what  this  system  was  like; \ncorrect? \n \nA We do not. \n \n On  cross  examination  Mr.  Henry  was  asked  about  mold  being  everywhere  and  the \ndifference between a clean area and a moldy area as follows: \nQ Mr.  Henry,  so  if  there  is  mold  everywhere,  mold  outside, \nmold inside, why don’t we try to eradicate outdoor mold? Why is it \nindoor mold that seems to bother us? \n \nA Well,  that  is  an  interesting  question.  Indoor  mold  tends  to \nbe – when  we  are  exposed  to  larger  quantities  of  mold  in  an \nenvironment like in our home that is moldy or has water damage at \nsome point, they are constantly breathing that in in a concentrated \nsource. \n \nQ So there is no fresh air to kind of move that out? \n \nA There is no fresh out to dilute it. \n \nQ Okay. So when you say particularly dangerous mold, would \nyou  agree  that  the  standard  is  no  mold  is  the  best  mold?  That  any \nmold in an indoor environment can be dangerous? \n \nA Well, not necessarily. \n \n\nBennett – H300809 \n \n-26- \nQ Okay. Well, you said that the mold sample that she took in \nthese  Petri  dishes  did  not  raise  your  eyebrows  or  I  think  that  is \nwhat Mr. Arnold said. \n \nA I don’t use those as a tool and I don’t rely on them. \n \nQ What  did  those  show?  What  kind  of  mold  was  in  those \ndishes? \n \nA I don’t recall what was on the plates or what the test results \nwere. \n \nQ Okay. So what is the definition of clean? \n \nA The industry, the indoor air quality industry is not regulated \nby any branch of the government. There are no standards by which \nwe have to meet in order to qualify a home or a business or a plant \nwhereby a certain level of mold spore density has to be maintained. \n \n Now, there are limits based on all the research that qualifies \na  home  as  being  either  clean  or  moldy.  Now,  that  is  not  implying \ninfection.  That  is  not  implying  sensitivity  or  allergenic  responses. \nThis  is  implying  whether  a  home  should  be  cleaned  up  or  if  it  is \nnormal, which would be any value less than 1,000 mold spores per \ncubic meter of air. Anything growing over about 1,200 – I’m sorry, \nabout 1,300 mold spores would be considered moldy. \n \n The   claimant   has   asked   the   Commission to   determine   whether   she   sustained   a \ncompensable  occupational  illness  to  her  body  as  a  whole  due  to  exposure  to  mold  in  the \nworkplace on or about February 28, 2021. Here, the claimant’s claim is for a compensable \noccupational   disease,   specifically   mold   disease.   Pursuant   to   A.C.A.   §11-9-601(e)(1),   an \noccupational disease is any disease that results in disability and arises out of and in the course of \nemployment.  Furthermore,  the  claimant  has  the  burden  of  proving  by  a  preponderance  of  the \nevidence  that  a  causal  connection  exists  between  her  occupation  or  employment  and  the \noccupational disease, A.C.A. §11-9-601(e)(1)(B). \n\nBennett – H300809 \n \n-27- \n Dr.  Chambers,  during  his  in-person  testimony,  stated  that  he  believed  the  claimant  to \nhave  mold  disease  within  a  degree  of  medical  certainty.  While  I  am  not  making  a  finding  as \nsuch, I will base my opinion on the supposition that the claimant does have mold disease. Given \nthat  supposition,  that  mold  disease  exists  within  the  claimant,  she  must  still  show  a  causal \nconnection   between   her   mold   disease   and   her   employment   with   the   respondent   to   a \npreponderance of the evidence. I find that the claimant is unable to do so. \n The  respondents had  a  qualified  third  party  perform  unrestricted  testing  on  areas  that \nconcern the claimant. Those areas were areas that the claimant spent the vast majority of her time \nworking in for the respondent. Those areas, when tested, were within normal range. The claimant \nis unable to prove that mold existed anywhere in the respondents’ facilities that would have \naffected  her  health  or  caused  mold  disease.  The  claimant  conducted  her  own  testing  after  the \ntesting done by the respondents. The claimant is not qualified or specialized in doing such tests \nbut wishes the Commission to rely upon them. In fact, those tests according to Mr. Henry, who is \nan expert in such matters, were normal or unrevealing of mold issues in the areas she tested. The \nclaimant’s own testing also failed to account for any outdoor mold around the respondents’ \nfacilities  she  tested,  as  she  did  not  do  any  outdoor  testing.  The  tests  performed  by  the  claimant \nhave very little weight. The testing performed by the respondents, who hired a third-party mold \ninspector  with  proper  qualifications,  gives way  to  much  more  weight  in  determining  the  mold \nlevels  in  the  respondent’s facilities. Those tests found the building to be “clean” as it relates to \nmold levels. \nThe  credibility  of  witnesses  and  the  weight  to  be  given  to  their  testimony  are  matters \nsolely within the province of the Commission.  Ringier America v. Combs, 41 Ark. App. 47, 849 \nS.W.2d 1 (1993). \n\nBennett – H300809 \n \n-28- \n The claimant’s husband was also listed as witness in this matter but was unavailable for \nthe hearing due to an emergency. The parties agreed to the following regarding the claimant’s \nhusband’s testimony: \nMS.  BROOKS:  Your  Honor,  we  were  going  to – I can’t \nremember  what  you  said  yesterday  about  Mr.  Bennett  who  could \nnot be here. \n \n THE COURT: Sure. Let’s take that up now. I think it is an \nappropriate time to do so. \n \n Yesterday,  my  office  received  an  email  and  then  we  had  a \ntelephone  conference  between  the  attorneys  in  this  matter,  Mr. \nArnold and Ms. Brooks, regarding I believe it was the Claimant’s \nspouse and he was anticipated to be a witness in this matter today, \nbut  had  a  personal  emergency  that  required  his  out-of-state  travel. \nHe is no longer in Arkansas. \n \n It  is  my  understanding  that  Mr.  Arnold  has  agreed  to \nstipulate that any of the testimony given by the Claimant would be \nconfirmed by her spouse’s testimony about I guess – well, I don’t \nwant  to  get  into  the  details,  but  his  testimony  would  corroborate \nher testimony. \n \n MR.  ARNOLD:  That  is  correct.  I  think  we  also  discussed \nfrom a credibility standpoint, her credibility would attach to him as \nwell; is that correct? \n \n THE  COURT:  I  believe  we  did  discuss  that,  that  I  would \nrely  upon  her  credibility  for  his  credibility  as  well  and  I  think  the \nparties have agreed to that; is that correct? \n \n MR. ARNOLD: That is correct. \n \n MS. BROOKS: Yes, Your Honor. \n \n MR. ARNOLD: And I am agreeable to that stipulation. \n \n The claimant gave cross examination testimony about her telling a medical provider that \nshe had her home tested for mold and “there were no red flags” as follows: \n\nBennett – H300809 \n \n-29- \nQ Maybe I am getting a bit ahead of myself right now, but the \nfolks in St. Louis – and there is a report or two from them in here – \nbut you told me that you had tested your home and that there were \nno reflags: correct? \n \nA Yes. \n \nQ That was a lie; wasn’t it? \n \nA I  did  test  the  home.  It  was  damaged  in  the  mail.  My \nhusband and I decided to go through the house again and decide if \nwe were going to further test again and we did not. \n \nQ When  I  took  your  deposition,  I  asked  you  if  you  had  done \nany  tests,  any  tests  on  your  home,  your  car  or  anywhere  else  and \nyou  told  me  no.  And  now  for  the  first  time  you  are  saying,  yeah, \nwe did test it, but the results were lost in the mail? \n \nA At the time of the deposition, I didn’t remember. It was \ndone – we just talked about this the other day. It was done right at \nthe  beginning.  It  was  damaged  in  the  mail  by  the  company.  They \ncalled us and I said I am not going to retest, but I don’t think my \nhouse has mold in it. I know where I feel sick. \n \nQ Okay. Because you told the people at the school, you know, \nthat you spent the majority of your time in three places. Okay? \n \nA Yes. \n \nQ The classroom at C6 and you said that you were there five \nto six hours a day? \n \nA Yes. \n \nQ In that one room? \n \nA In that room. \n \nQ Without leaving? \n \nA No. I even ate my lunch in there. \n \nQ All right. Did you teach in the summer in that room? \n \nA No. \n\nBennett – H300809 \n \n-30- \n \nQ Okay. So would you teach for roughly eight or nine months \nout of the year in that room? \n \nA Probably nine to ten months out of the year, yes, sir. \n \nQ Okay. The second area you identified was the – I think we \ntalked about the BARC? \n \nA The BARC is what they called it, yes. \n \nQ Okay. Tell me what those initials stand for. \n \nA Bulldog – I have no idea. \n \nQ Okay. B-A-R-C? \n \nA B-A-R-C. It’s an acronym, yes. \n \nQ Okay. It is the indoor practice facility? \n \nA Yes, sir. \n \nQ And how many hours a day would you spend there? \n \nA There was two days a week, not back to back, that I would \nspend a couple of hours with the pole vaulters. \n \nQ Okay. And was that year-round or did you practice outside? \n \nA We would go outside when the weather got better. \n \nQ Okay.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  I  think  in  some  of  the  emails \nbetween  you  and  the  school  district,  you  generally  started  the \nindoor training around Halloween? \n \nA Yes. \n \nQ Okay.  So  you  would  spend  a  couple  of  hours  a  couple  of \ndays a week for a period of four or five months in the wintertime? \n \nA Yes. I would say that is about right. \n \nQ Okay.  And  the  third  place  that  you  identified  was  your \nhome? \n\nBennett – H300809 \n \n-31- \n \nA Yes. \n \nQ And how many hours a day do you spend in your home? \n \nA I don’t know. Sleep hours. Dinner hours. Weekends. \n \nQ Yes. \n \nA Yes. \n \nQ How many hours a day? \n \nA Do you want me to do the math? \n \nQ Yeah. \n \nA I  get  home  at  4:30  or  5:00,  so  that  is – I  don’t  know, \nhonestly. Normal hours, I would go home, get home between 4:00 \nand 5:00, unless I had to go to the BARC to do pole vault practice \nin the evenings, and a couple of days a week for that, and then the \nweekends.  So  for  48  hours  on  the  weekend  and  12  to  14  hours  at \nnight sleeping, yeah. \n \nQ Okay.  So  without  question,  the  majority  of  your  time  was \nspent in your home and not in C6 or in BARC? \n \nA Yes. \n \nQ Okay.  And  at  your  request,  the  school  had  a  professional \ncome  in  and  test  your  class  and  BARC  and  those  test  results  are \nhere before the Judge today. Yet, the place you have spent the most \ntime is your home and we don’t have any testing there? \n \nA Correct. \n \nQ Despite  the  fact  that  you  told  your  doctors  that  you  had \ndone it and there weren’t any red flags? \n \nA There is no testing done, yes. \n \nQ Why did you lie to your doctors? \n \nA I don’t remember. I do not believe my house had mold in it. \nI still stand to that. \n\nBennett – H300809 \n \n-32- \n \nQ Okay.  You  didn’t  think  the  schoolroom  had  mold  in  it \nbefore the testing, did you, Ms. Bennett? \n \nA Mold  wasn’t  even  in  my  brain  before  the  testing.  That \nwasn’t even something that I knew anything about it. \n \n The  claimant  was  also  asked  on  cross  examination  about  relating  information  to  the \nrespondents that mold testing was done in her home, and it was negative as follows: \nQ Okay. I am referring now to Page 10 on the Respondents’ \nNonmedical Exhibits. You talk about here the three places that you \nspent 99 percent of your time. You state, “I will be having testing \ndone in my own home as well.” \n \n So you knew that that was important? \n \nA Yes. If I stated it, I thought it was at this time. \n \nQ Okay.  I  want  to  call  your  attention – and  I  will  have  you \nread this. Let’s look at Page 15 of Respondents’ hearing exhibit. I \nhave a sentence in the middle of that circled here and highlighted. \nWould you read what your April 19, 2022 email to the Fayetteville \nSchool District representative says. \n \nA In the red? \n \nQ Yes. \n \nA “We had mold testing done in our home and it was negative \nfor mold which was a relief for us to know our home is safe.” \n \nQ Okay. And that is a lie? \n \nA I don’t remember results from a test like that. \n \nQ You didn’t do it other than the other that got lost in the mail \nor whatever. \n \nA I don’t know. I don’t know how to answer that. I don’t \nremember doing a test result that gave me a negative or anything. \n \n\nBennett – H300809 \n \n-33- \nQ Okay.  So  the  statement – I  am  going  to  read  it  myself – \n“We had mold testing done in our home and it was negative for \nmold which was a relief for us to know our home is safe.” \n \n That is an inaccurate, false statement? \n \nA I  do  not  have  results  from  a  test  that  I  stated  that  I  had \ndone. \n \nQ Why did you lie to them? \n \nA I don’t remember that. I can’t answer that question. \n \n Given the importance of finding the source of the mold that the claimant believes caused \nher  alleged  mold  disease  and  the  claimant’s  dishonesty  to  a  medical  provider  and  to  the \nrespondents, I find the claimant’s credibility to be low. The claimant spent the majority of her \ntime  in  her  home  and  did  not  have  her  home  tested,  then  was  untruthful  about  doing  so.  The \nclaimant states that she and her husband inspected the home for mold and found it safe. Trained \nand qualified mold inspectors cannot do what the claimant claims to have done. To determine the \npresence of mold, tests must be performed, and laboratories must determine the results. But the \nclaimant and her husband’s untrained eye making such a determination is simply unreasonable. \nThe  claimant  may  very  well  suffer  from  mold  disease,  but  she  is  unable  to  prove  by  a \npreponderance  of  the  evidence  that  any  respondent  facility  is  causally  linked  or  related  to  her \nalleged mold disease. \n From a review of the record as a whole, to include medical reports, documents, and other \nmatters properly before the Commission, and having had an opportunity to hear the testimony of \nthe  witnesses and  to  observe their demeanor,  the  following  findings  of  fact  and  conclusions  of \nlaw are made in accordance with A.C.A. §11-9-704: \n \n\nBennett – H300809 \n \n-34- \n FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW \n 1.  The  stipulations  agreed  to  by  the  parties  at  the  pre-hearing  conference  conducted  on \nMarch  4,  2024,  and  contained  in  an  Amended Pre-hearing  Order  filed March  12,  2024,  are \nhereby accepted as fact. \n 2. The claimant has failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that she sustained \na  compensable  occupational  illness  to  her  body  as  a  whole  due  to  exposure  to  mold  in  the \nworkplace on or about February 28, 2021. \n 3. The claimant has failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that she is entitled \nto  medical  treatment  for  her  alleged  occupational  illness  due  to  exposure  to  mold  in  the \nworkplace. \n ORDER \nPursuant  to  the  above  findings  and  conclusions,  I  have  no  alternative  but  to  deny  this \nclaim in its entirety. \nIf  they  have  not  already  done  so,  the  respondents  are  directed  to  pay  the  court  reporter, \nVeronica Lane, fees and expenses within thirty (30) days of receipt of the invoice. \n IT IS SO ORDERED. \n \n                                ____________________________                                               \n       HONORABLE ERIC PAUL WELLS \n       ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE","preview":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION WCC NO. H300809 APRIL BENNETT, Employee CLAIMANT FAYETTEVILLE PUBLIC SCHOOLS, Employer RESPONDENT ARKANSAS SCHOOL BOARDS ASSN., Carrier RESPONDENT OPINION FILED AUGUST 12, 2024 Hearing before ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE ERIC PAUL WELLS in Springdale, Washington County, ...","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T22:49:56.458Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/alj-H300809-2024-08-12","pdf":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/BENNETT_APRIL_H300809_20240812.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/"}}