Town ignored mold for years then denied sick worker’s comp claim

Her health cratered. Pneumonia by June 2024. Bronchitis by November. Fatigue, insomnia, endocrine problems, and roughly 30 pounds of weight loss across multiple medical visits. 

By September 2025, she suspected the building. She told her supervisor, and Oakland pulled boards from the walls. Photographs showed what looked like mold and water damage. An environmental consultant confirmed it – air samples from five areas contained multiple mold types, with damage “suggestive of prolonged and sustained” water intrusion. 

The medical picture split. Blood tests came back “Normal,” but a urine test showed five different mycotoxins. An allergist diagnosed allergic rhinitis caused by mold after finding an aspergillus fumigatus allergy. Oakland’s own evaluating allergist initially said the urine results supported “some sort of fungal disease” – but when follow-up tests returned negative, he told the worker they showed no “allergic pathology.” 

A third physician, consulted independently, wrote in February 2026 that her history was “typical of mold toxicity” and that testing “both point to a significant exposure.” 

At a September 9, 2026 expedited hearing, Tennessee’s Court of Workers’ Compensation Claims found the worker credible – “calm and at ease, self-assured and forthcoming” – and held she had enough evidence to likely prevail at trial. The only expert opinion in the record backed her claim. Oakland’s defense rested on negative tests its own doctor never fully explained.