The Tribune

By RASHAD ROLLE

Tribune News Editor

rrolle@tribunemedia.net

A SUPREME Court judge has dismissed a lawsuit by a government meteorological officer who claimed mould exposure in government offices caused his respiratory illness, ruling that the medical evidence did not prove his workplace caused or materially contributed to the condition.

In a ruling delivered March 13, Justice Camille Darville Gomez rejected Wayne Neely’s negligence claim against the Attorney General, the Ministry of Transport and Aviation, and the Department of Public Service.

Mr Neely alleged that years spent working in unhealthy office environments — first at Lynden Pindling International Airport and later at the JL Centre and other locations used by the Department of Meteorology — exposed him to mould that triggered serious respiratory illness.

He said the conditions caused or materially contributed to his illness, which doctors diagnosed as mould hypersensitivity syndrome.

However, after reviewing oral testimony, expert evidence and documents, the court found that although complaints about mould and building conditions had been raised, the evidence did not establish that the workplace caused the illness.

Justice Darville Gomez said the case ultimately failed on the issue of causation.

She noted that the claimant had the burden of proving, on a balance of probabilities, that workplace exposure to mould caused or materially contributed to his medical condition.

While there were complaints about mould, leaks and ventilation problems at government facilities, the court found the evidence did not demonstrate that the defendants breached their duty to provide a safe workplace.

The judge also found the defendants had responded to concerns by carrying out testing, remediation work, and eventually overhauling the air-conditioning system at the JL Centre.

Those steps, she said, showed the authorities did not ignore complaints about building conditions.

Even more decisive was the medical evidence. Although Mr Neely was diagnosed with mould hypersensitivity syndrome and suffered chronic respiratory symptoms, the court said his medical expert could not establish that exposure in the workplace caused the illness.

The judge noted that the diagnosis was based largely on the claimant’s history rather than on environmental testing linking workplace mould to his condition.

Tests conducted in the buildings did not show mould levels sufficient to confirm the workplace as the source of his illness, and mould exposure could not be scientifically linked to his symptoms.

The court also noted that mould is common in many environments and that hypersensitivity reactions can be triggered by exposures outside a specific workplace.

Justice Darville Gomez concluded that the claimant had not proved that any breach of duty by the defendants caused or materially contributed to his illness.

Because causation was not established, the judge said it was unnecessary to consider damages.

The claim was dismissed, with costs awarded to the defendants.

Mr Neely was ordered to pay the defendants’ legal costs to be assessed if not agreed, while he is entitled to fixed costs of $750 under a previous court order dated January 25, 2023.