STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA 

SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS FILED 

February 26, 2016 

RORY L. PERRY II, CLERK 

GUARDIAN FIBERGLASS, INC., SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS 

OF WEST VIRGINIA 

Employer Below, Petitioner 

vs.) No. 15-0331 (BOR Appeal No. 2049725) 

(Claim No. 2012028477) 

TERRY LLOYD,
 

Claimant Below, Respondent
 

MEMORANDUM DECISION 

Petitioner Guardian Fiberglass, Inc., by T. Jonathan Cook, its attorney, appeals the 

decision of the West Virginia Workers’ Compensation Board of Review. 

This appeal arises from the Board of Review’s Final Order dated March 12, 2015, in 

which the Board affirmed a July 30, 2014, Order of the Workers’ Compensation Office of 

Judges. In its Order, the Office of Judges reversed the claims administrator’s May 24, 2012, 

decision rejecting Mr. Lloyd’s application for workers’ compensation benefits. Instead, the 

Office of Judges held the claim compensable for acute sinusitis and toxic effect of mold. 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. 

Mr. Lloyd worked as an electrician for Guardian Fiberglass, Inc. At the end of January of 

2012, Mr. Lloyd and several colleagues conducted renovations of their office space. During the 

remodeling, black discoloration which was believed to be mold was discovered under the 

baseboards. Mr. Lloyd and his colleagues used bleach to clean the mold spots, but it reappeared 

several days later. Mr. Lloyd began suffering from respiratory and nasal related symptoms at this 

time, and in the beginning of March of 2012, EMLab P&K, an industrial hygienist, conducted 

testing which confirmed that several types of mold were present in Mr. Lloyd’s work 

1 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

environment. Following this testing, Mr. Lloyd sought treatment from Kevin Culbert, D.O, who 

found that he experienced several symptoms including nosebleeds, chest congestion, sinus 

discomfort, and coughing with production. Dr. Culbert found that Mr. Lloyd had somatic 

symptoms suggesting exposure to mold particles and mycotoxins in his work environment. Dr. 

Culbert recommended that Mr. Lloyd be removed from the affected area until the mold problem 

was corrected. He also referred Mr. Lloyd to an allergist, Robert C. McQueen, M.D. Dr. 

McQueen found that Mr. Lloyd experienced fatigue and flu-like symptoms after being exposed 

to mold at work. He performed allergy skin testing on Mr. Lloyd and determined that he had an 

allergic response to mold. He found that Mr. Lloyd possibly had allergic rhinitis and stated that 

he would test for sinusitis related to mycotoxins. Based on Dr. Culbert’s and Dr. McQueen’s 

opinions, Mr. Lloyd filed an application for workers’ compensation benefits alleging that he 

suffered mold exposure at work. The application was signed by Dr. Culbert. Dr. Culbert also 

submitted a letter to the claims administrator requesting that Mr. Lloyd remain off work until the 

mold was removed from his work environment. 

Dr. McQueen also submitted a letter to the claims administrator. Dr. McQueen concluded 

that, even though Mr. Lloyd showed some evidence of mold allergy, his symptoms were 

primarily related to the toxic effect of exposure to mold. Dr. McQueen also submitted a second 

letter to the claims administrator in which he listed Mr. Lloyd’s conditions as acute sinusitis and 

toxic effect of mold. 

Following Mr. Lloyd’s application, Guardian Fiberglass, Inc.’s, industrial hygienist again 

tested the air and surface presence of mold in Mr. Lloyd’s work environment. After reviewing 

this testing, Dr. Culbert concluded that there was no need for Mr. Lloyd to remain off work 

because the levels of mold in his work environment were not greater than the ambient outdoor 

mold levels. On May 24, 2012, the claims administrator rejected Mr. Lloyd’s application for 

workers’ compensation benefits stating that there was no evidence that an injury or disease 

occurred in the course of and resulting from his employment. 

Two years after the claims administrator’s decision, Christopher Martin, M.D., performed 

an independent medical evaluation of Mr. Lloyd. He concluded that Mr. Lloyd had not been 

exposed to any unusual levels of mold in his workplace and did not suffer any adverse health 

consequences because of any exposure. Dr. Martin found that Mr. Lloyd’s symptoms were not 

consistent with the normal effects of mold exposure. He found that Mr. Lloyd did not have any 

diagnosable medical condition related to his exposure to mold. Dr. Martin took chest x-rays and 

performed pulmonary function testing on Mr. Lloyd, and he determined that neither revealed the 

effect of mold exposure. However, on July 30, 2014, the Office of Judges reversed the claims 

administrator’s rejection of Mr. Lloyd’s application and held the claim compensable for acute 

sinusitis and toxic effect of mold. The Board of Review affirmed the Office of Judges’ Order on 

March 12, 2015, leading Guardian Fiberglass, Inc., to appeal. 

The Office of Judges concluded that the claim should be held compensable for acute 

sinusitis and toxic effect of mold. The Office of Judges adopted Mr. Lloyd’s position regarding 

the compensability of the claim because it determined there was an equal amount of evidentiary 

weight in favor of Mr. Lloyd’s and Guardian Fiberglass, Inc.’s, positions. The Office of Judges 

2 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

specifically relied on the opinion of Dr. McQueen who diagnosed Mr. Lloyd with acute sinusitis 

and toxic effect of mold exposure related to his work. The Office of Judges also considered Dr. 

McQueen’s opinion that Mr. Lloyd possibly suffered allergic rhinitis related to mold exposure, 

but it did not hold the claim compensable for this condition because Dr. McQueen did not 

conclusively diagnose him with an allergic reaction to mold exposure. The Board of Review 

adopted the findings of the Office of Judges and affirmed its decision. 

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

Judges. Mr. Lloyd has presented sufficient reliable evidence to demonstrate that he developed an 

occupational disease in the course of and resulting from his employment. The treatment notes of 

Dr. McQueen demonstrated that Mr. Lloyd suffered acute sinusitis and toxic effect from 

exposure to mold in his work environment. Dr. McQueen’s opinion is consistent with the testing 

performed by EMLab P&K. Dr. McQueen attributed Mr. Lloyd’s symptoms to his work 

exposure, and this opinion is supported by the treatment notes of Dr. Culbert. The Office of 

Judges was within its discretion in relying on Dr. McQueen’s opinion. It provided adequate 

reasons in support of its decision under West Virginia Code § 23-4-1g (2003) which requires that 

“[i]f, after weighing all of the evidence regarding an issue in which a claimant has an interest, 

there is a finding that an equal amount of evidentiary weight exists favoring conflicting matters 

for resolution, the resolution that is most consistent with the claimant’s position will be adopted.” 

Although Dr. Martin questioned the relevance of EMLab P&K’s testing, his evaluation is not 

sufficiently consistent with the remainder of the evidence in the record. The Office of Judges was 

within its discretion in disregarding Dr. Martin’s opinion. 

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. 

ISSUED: February 26, 2016 

CONCURRED IN BY: 

Chief Justice Menis E. Ketchum 

Justice Robin J. Davis 

Justice Brent D. Benjamin 

Justice Margaret L. Workman 

Justice Allen H. Loughry II 

3