STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA
 

SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS FILED 

June 11, 2014 

RORY L. PERRY II, CLERK 

JUDY L. TREADWAY, SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS 

OF WEST VIRGINIA 

Claimant Below, Petitioner 

vs.) No. 12-1402 (BOR Appeal No. 2047199) 

(Claim No. 2010118982) 

FAYETTE COUNTY COMMISSION, 

Employer Below, Respondent 

MEMORANDUM DECISION 

Petitioner Judy L. Treadway, by Gregory S. Prudich, her attorney, appeals the decision of 

the West Virginia Workers’ Compensation Board of Review. Fayette County Commission, by 

Marion E. Ray, its attorney, filed a timely response. 

This appeal arises from the Board of Review’s Final Order dated October 24, 2012, in 

which the Board affirmed a May 4, 2012, Order of the Workers’ Compensation Office of Judges. 

In its Order, the Office of Judges affirmed the claims administrator’s January 13, 2010, decision 

denying Ms. Treadway’s workers’ compensation application. The Court has carefully reviewed 

the records, written arguments, and appendices contained in the briefs, and the case is mature for 

consideration. 

This Court has considered the parties’ briefs and the record on appeal. The facts and legal 

arguments are adequately presented, and the decisional process would not be significantly aided 

by oral argument. Upon consideration of the standard of review, the briefs, and the record 

presented, the Court finds no substantial question of law and no prejudicial error. For these 

reasons, a memorandum decision is appropriate under Rule 21 of the Rules of Appellate 

Procedure. 

Ms. Treadway worked as a tax deputy for Fayette County Commission from October of 

2003 until July of 2009. She worked in the first floor of a concrete building that was partially 

underground, damp, musty, and had flooded multiple times. She suffered from several 

respiratory, sinus, and ear infections over a period of several years. Ms. Treadway filed a 

workers’ compensation application on November 28, 2009. The claims administrator rejected the 

claim and found that the disability complained of was not due to an injury or disease received in 

the course of and resulting from her employment. 

1 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Office of Judges affirmed the claims administrator’s decision and found the claim 

was not compensable. The Board of Review affirmed the Order of the Office of Judges. On 

appeal, Ms. Treadway disagrees and asserts that Karen Hultman, D.O., and Alan Ducatman, 

M.D., have diagnosed her with chronic sinusitis and bronchitis and agree with Christopher 

Martin, M.D., that the environment in the building was of such poor quality that it could cause 

her upper respiratory symptoms and those of her co-workers. Ms. Treadway further argues that 

all three doctors agree that in instances where individuals improve when removed from the 

environment and where multiple individuals suffer from similar symptoms as she has 

experienced with her work environment that the likelihood of a relationship between the 

environment and the sickness increases. Fayette County Commission maintains that Ms. 

Treadway failed to prove her illnesses came from exposure to mold at her workplace and that the 

only evidence that is not based on speculation is the opinion of Dr. Martin who concluded that 

Ms. Treadway did not have a compensable claim. Fayette County Commission further maintains 

that Ms. Treadway was not exposed to abnormal amounts of mold at work because air qualities 

studies showed that the mold outside was similar to the air quality of mold inside. 

As the Office of Judge pointed out, there is a large amount of evidence in this case; 

however, there is no physician stating that Ms. Treadway has an occupationally related disease. 

Even the physician’s portion of the Report of Injury was left blank. Ms. Treadway has issues 

with chronic sinusitis, but she has failed to provide evidence that her chronic sinusitis or any 

other diagnosis is an occupationally acquired condition. Dr. Ducatman diagnosed Ms. Treadway 

with chronic sinusitis with several exacerbating factors, including building issues as described 

and ongoing cigarette smoking. The Office of Judges determined that the building environment 

being an exacerbating factor is not the same thing as the building environment being the causal 

agent in Ms. Treadway’s chronic sinusitis. Furthermore, the mold inspection reports found 

relatively low exposure to abnormal levels of mold spores. Dr. Martin concluded that extensive 

testing was performed on Ms. Treadway’s lungs and that her lungs were normal. The Office of 

Judges concluded that, even though the building where Ms. Treadway worked has issues, 

ultimately there is no medical opinion that states Ms. Treadway has an occupationally acquired 

disease. 

We agree with the reasoning and findings of the Board of Review and the Office of 

Judges. There is no medical evidence to support that Ms. Treadway has an occupationally 

acquired disease. Ms. Treadway has failed to prove she has suffered an occupational injury or 

disease, and therefore, her claim is not compensable. 

For the foregoing reasons, we find that the decision of the Board of Review is not in clear 

violation of any constitutional or statutory provision, nor is it clearly the result of erroneous 

conclusions of law, nor is it based upon a material misstatement or mischaracterization of the 

evidentiary record. Therefore, the decision of the Board of Review is affirmed. 

Affirmed. 

2 
 

 

 

 

 

 

ISSUED: 

CONCURRED IN BY: 

Chief Justice Robin J. Davis 

Justice Brent D. Benjamin 

Justice Margaret L. Workman 

Justice Menis E. Ketchum 

Justice Allen H. Loughry II 

3