AFFIDAVIT OF DR. AUBREY WORRELL
IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S
MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER
The following affidavit in Support of the Protective Order in the case
of Marie O'Hara vs. Southwest Baptist University and Campbell Pest
Control was submitted to the Greene County Court on December 30, 1997.
Affidavits from Dr. Thomas Callender, Dr. Gunnar Heuser, and Dr.
Jack Thrasher confirming injuries resulting from pesticide exposures
at Southwest Baptist University were already submitted in the original
Motion for Protective Order on September 19, 1997.
========================
IN CIRCUIT COURT OF GREENE COUNTY
STATE OF MISSOURI
MARIE ANN O'HARA ,
Plaintiff
Case No. CV 191-CC-2880
v.
SOUTHWEST BAPTIST UNIVERSITY
et al.,
Defendants
AFFIDAVIT OF DR. AUBREY WORRELL
IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER
Comes now Aubrey M. Worrell, Jr., of lawful and being duly sworn,
and deposes as follows:
1. I am a medical doctor licensed by the State of Arkansas
to practice medicine since 1962. I am engaged in the full-time
practice of treating pediatric and adult allergy and immunology
problems, and I work at the Pine Bluff Allergy Clinic, P.A. in
Pine Bluff, Arkansas.
2. I went to medical school at the University of Arkansas,
where I received my M.D. degree in 1962. After graduating from
medical school I underwent further training to complete intern-
ship, residence and specialty training requirements during the
period July 1, 1965 to June 30, 1967 as a resident in pediatrics
at Wilford Hall, U.S.A.F. Hospital, Lackland Air Force Base,
Texas; and during the period of January 1, 1969 to December 30,
1970 as a resident in pediatric allergy a Wilford Hall, U.S.A.F.
Hospital, Lackland Air Force Base, Texas.
In 1970, I completed my academic training to become a specialist,
and 1972 I was certified as an allergist and immunologist by the
American Board of Allergy and Immunology.
- 1 -
3. Marie O'Hara first became my patient in August 1990.
She has been my patient and has remained under my care
continuously since that time. Although I have not been able to
see Ms. O'Hara personally since August 23, 1990 because her
medical condition makes it extremely difficult, expensive, and
dangerous for her to travel, I have remained in close touch with
Ms. O'Hara by frequent telephone conversations with her or her
caretaker ... about Marie O'Hara's condition, problems, and
progress over these past seven years.
Recently, Marie provided me with an extensive questionnaire
updating her diet, living conditions, problems and the progress
of her condition. I feel comfortable that I can properly offer
the following conclusions and opinions about her diagnosis,
prognosis, treatment, and necessary health safeguards for her
in the conduct and completion of this litigation, all to a
reasonable degree of medical certainty.
4. Marie O'Hara suffers from Total Allergy Syndrome and
severe Environmental Illness. She sustained chemical injuries
from pesticide exposures in September 1988 and again in January
1989 which resulted in multiple, serious health problems and
left her totally disabled. Her symptomatology includes Multiple
Chemical Sensitivities, allergies to a wide range of foods, severe
asthma and propensity to severe and potentially fatal seizures.
On my recommendation, she has for the past seven years lived in
a confined space inside her home where the possibility of her being
exposed to any of a large number of organic chemicals which might
touch off her seizures or trigger asthma attacks can be minimized.
On my recommendation she follows a restricted diet of organically
grown foods. It is necessary to isolate her from exposure to any type
of chemicals, pollens, dusts and molds. For that reason all the
windows, doors and other opening into the restricted living area
to which she is confined within her own home should be sealed
with non-allergic materials such as aluminum foil.
Within her sealed living unit, Marie
- 2 -
requires continuously purified air, highly filtered air conditioning
in summers, and special electric heaters which produce what
is known a "soft heat" in cooler weather.
5. Since she first became my patient it has been and remains
my recommendation that Marie O'Hara should not leave the
isolation of her home for any activities.
Within the confines of her restricted space and under the regiment
of restricted living I prescribed for her, Ms. O'Hara's condition
has stabilized in the sense that she now suffers from convulsions
less frequently and that her allergy symptoms are less severe.
But it is important to bear in mind that Ms. O'Hara's is still a
very ill woman, and that current stability of her health could
easily become undone with any activity that might expose her
to any of a wide-range of organic chemicals or which otherwise
might trigger any of her allergies.
She is still, for example, too weak to engage in the treatment
process known as detoxification which is widely and often
successfully used in persons who have suffered chemical
exposure such as hers.
My grave concern is that, if the stability of her symptoms
which Marie O'Hara has only painfully come to enjoy were
to be disturbed, her seizure activity very well could again
be triggered and might not be easily brought under control,
or even might not be at all controllable.
For this and other reasons, I conclude that any activity which
might trigger either her Total Allergy Syndrome or her Multiple
Chemical Sensitivities could be potentially fatal to her.
6. If at any time it becomes necessary to transport Marie O'Hara
to any location outside of her sealed and isolated living unit,
she should be transported ONLY in a specially equipped and
sealed trailer which has been previously properly prepared for
her by a complete cleaning. Its cleaning must use only non-
allergenic substances, and that cleaning must achieve the
removal of all organic chemical odors and vapors without the
presence of solvents. During the time Marie
- 3 -
might thus be transported, it would be critical to her survival
even in such a specially equipped and prepared unit, that Marie
O'Hara not be exposed to any automobile exhausts and especially
not to any diesel fumes.
Even if such conditions can be maintained, during such transport it
cannot be assured that Ms. O'Hara would not be exposed to any
of a wide variety of chemical substances to which she has severe
sensitivities.
Therefore it would remain my recommendation that she not be
transported for any reason. I offer these comments concerning
her minimum, vital safety precautions for transport only for the
guidance of the Court in the event that it becomes legally
unavoidable of the Court to require her to be present at some
place outside her isolated living unit.
Once at any other such location, Marie must be provided all the
safeguards she requires in her home as described here.
7. I strongly recommend that any persons who the Court might
require to be in the presence of Marie O'Hara, or to be in any
close proximity to her, should be required by the Court to take
the following, minimum precautions in order to avoid damage
to her health. Shoes and other foot wear should be left outside
the door of Marie's home.
No colognes, deodorizers, aftershave lotions, hair sprays,
perfumes, or similar substances should be used. Hair should
be shampooed with, and baths or showers taken only with
mild, non-allergenic soap. No cosmetics should be worn.
If possible, no clothes which have ever been dry cleaned
should be worn in her presence. And if worn in her vicinity
(as in outside the door to her living unit, for example) such
clothing should not be at all freshly cleaned but rather as far
removed as possible from any dry cleaning processing. It is
far better that washable clothing only be worn both in her
presence and in her vicinity, and that same should be washed
only with baking soda and definitely not with any type of
detergent.
- 4 -
8. If the Court believes that it must require Marie O'Hara to
be examined by any doctors selected by all or any of the
defendants, or to perform an independent medical examination
for the guidance of the Court, it is my strong opinion that
Marie O'Hara should not be transported outside her home for
any such examinations.
A perfectly adequate neurological examination of Marie O'Hara
could be conducted within the confines of her sealed living unit,
as could a psychiatric evaluation if the Court were to deem
necessary.
Any such examination should be conducted within the sealed
unit by an appropriately prepped team of a doctor and nurse.
In my opinion, such examinations will provide sufficient and
appropriate guidance to the Court and would allow the defendants
fully to meet their need for evaluation by a doctor whom they
deem to be unbiased without placing Marie O'Hara in physical
jeopardy.
As stated, my grave concern is the possible re-triggering of her
convulsive symptoms with the distinct possibility that, once her
current stability has been disrupted, the seizures might prove
intractable.
It is critical that Marie should not be subjected to any invasive
testing procedures during any medical examination she might be
required to submit to by the Court, such as the drawing of blood
via syringes or even the application of an inflatable blood-
pressure cuff. These are invasive procedures in her case because
of past experiences which have triggered seizures.
9. I definitely and most emphatically would oppose the suggestion
that Marie O'Hara should be required to leave her isolated
living unit to appear anywhere for a deposition.
In fact, as her physician I would and must insist that she not
be required to do so. In my opinion she should be questioned
at another location of their choosing by counsel who can be
linked to her via a remote cable or even via an uplink to a
communication satellite. During such a process of verbal
examination, at the very least Marie should be shielded from
having an unnecessary
- 5 -
number of persons in the vicinity of her isolated living unit.
In my opinion one camera operator at the most should be in the
vicinity of her living space.
That camera must be sufficiently prepped in terms of his or her
personal hygiene and clothing (as I have indicated above), and
he or she should not actually intrude into her living space except
as may be required to set up and later to retrieve a microphone.
Any camera and related equipment should be kept outside her
isolated living unit, and any and all petroleum-based and other
organic chemicals should be wiped off such equipment with
clean, non-oily cloths to the maximum extent possible.
10. Further, it is my opinion that any deposition must be
conducted under the operative premise that Marie should not
be subjected to undue stress. Thus it would be appropriate that
the total time defendants are allotted for questioning should be
limited by the Court, and that such questioning time should be
further limited to a maximum of no more than 4 or 5 hours per
day including frequent rest periods for Marie.
In this regard I wish to reemphasize my opinion that the stress of
either overly-long days of deposition questioning or of too many
days of questioning could jeopardize Marie's physical well-being
and potentially reverse the present hard-won stability of her
symptomology.
Therefore, I respectfully urge this Court in the strongest possible
terms to impose tight limits on the length of her deposition as well
as on the methods by which it is accomplished.
11. I offer the foregoing opinions about my patient Marie Ann
O'Hara as my best medical advice and to a reasonable degree of
medical certainty. It is my solid belief and deep concern that,
unless this Court imposes and enforces close restrictions upon the
manner, method and duration of the pre-trail discovery to which
Marie may be subjected by the defendants, their pre-trail discovery
could very well have severe, adverse effects
- 6 -
upon the health and even the life of my patient. So, in addition
to the restrictions and limitations I have suggested above, I
strongly recommend that the Court not permit defendants to engage
in any ambient-air of other testing of her living quarters which
could or might in any way disrupt the stability of Ms. O'Hara's
isolated living unit or the quality of the air therein.
The current environment there, while not ideal, has over these past
few years permitted her health to progress to the point where her
frequent and prolonged convulsive activity and other symptoms have
largely stabilized.
That she continues in a very delicate state of vulnerability to outside
chemical influences is shown by her recent deterioration at the start
of the current heating season.
12. Further affiant says not.
COUNTY OF
STATE OF ARKANSAS
Aubrey M. Worrell, Jr., M.D.
[original copy notarized on 23rd day of December]
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF GREENE COUNTY
STATE OF MISSOURI
MARIE ANN O'HARA,
Case No. CV 191-CC-2880
Plaintiff,
v.
SOUTHWEST BAPTIST UNIVERSITY
CAMPBELL PEST CONTROL
et al.,
Defendants
MEMORANDUM FOR CLERK
Comes now Plaintiff, by her Special Limited Counsel, and
certifies that on 30th day of December, 1997, she served via first
class U.S. Mail, on counsel named below, the Affidavit of Dr.
Aubrey Worrell in Support of Plaintiff's Motion for Protective Order.
MIDWEST CENTER FOR LAW & JUSTICE
By: James E. Parrot [original copy signed]
Richard E. Schwartz, MBE #19133
James E. Parrot, MBE #38056
393 North Euclid Ave., Ste. 300
St. Louis, MO 63208
(314)454-0022: Office
(314)454-1211: Fax
Special Limited Counsel for Plaintiff
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that I served a copy of the foregoing
via first-class, prepaid mail the 30th day of December, 1997, upon:
Ronald D. Marney, II, Esq.
Blackwell, Sanders, Matheny, Weary & Lombardi LLP
Two Pershing Square, Ste. 1100
2300 Main Street
P.O. Box 419777
Kansas City, MO 64141-6777
(816) 983-8080: Fax
Attorneys for Defendant Southwest Baptist University
Gary R. Cunningham, Esq.
Daniel, Clampett, Lilley , Dalton, Powell & Cunningham
3171 East Sunshine
P.O. Box 10306 G.S.
Springfield, MO 65808
(417) 882-7445: Fax
Glenn A. Burkart, Esq.
Burkart & Hunt, P.C.
226 Woodruff Building
333 Park Central East
Springfield, MO 65806-2225
(417) 864-7859: Fax
Attorneys for Defendants Campbell Pest Control
Leroy F. Vadney, Esq.
Law Offices of John E. Hill
30 Hotaling Place, 1st Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111
(415)392-2809: Fax
Counsel (not of record) for Plaintiff
JE Parrot [original copy signed]
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Top~ ~Updates~ ~~Return to Welcome~~ ~How Can I Help?~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
