Tacker v. INanoBio/National - Memorandum Decision - Arizona Court of Appeals - May 6, 2025

Christopher S. Norton, Esq.
Jul 5
2 min read

Facts

Kylie Tacker, a senior fabrication engineer for INanoBio Inc., was exposed to the solvent N-Methylpyrrolidone (NMP) during work on February 16, 2023. Despite using safety equipment, her shorter stature caused her to lean outside the fume hood, leading to prolonged exposure. She experienced neurological and pulmonary symptoms, including breathing difficulties, fatigue, impaired balance, and slowed cognition. She sought medical attention and was diagnosed with solvent intoxication. Later, an Anti-Mullerian Hormone (AMH) test revealed low or low-normal ovarian reserve levels. Tacker filed a Worker’s Report of Injury, but her claim was denied by the carrier, National Fire Insurance Company of Hartford. After hearings, the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) found Tacker suffered a compensable injury of acute solvent exposure but denied compensation for reproductive toxicity or long-term medical care. Tacker petitioned the Arizona Court of Appeals for review.

Issue(s)

Did the ALJ err in accepting the testimony of INanoBio and Hartford’s expert witness, Dr. Brooks, despite alleged contradictions?
Did the industrial accident directly cause infertility and diminished ovarian reserve (DOR), making them compensable?
Did the ALJ improperly exclude compensation for medical services after February 18, 2023?

Holding

The ALJ did not err in accepting Dr. Brooks’s testimony and resolving conflicting evidence regarding reproductive toxicity.
The ALJ did not abuse discretion in finding Tacker failed to prove infertility and DOR arose from the industrial accident.
The ALJ properly excluded compensation for medical services after February 18, 2023, as Tacker’s neurological and pulmonary symptoms resolved within 48 hours of exposure.

Key Takeaways

Expert Testimony: The ALJ has the authority to resolve conflicting expert testimony and determine credibility. Courts defer to the ALJ’s findings when supported by reasonable evidence.
Burden of Proof: Claimants must prove compensable injuries by a preponderance of evidence, including causation. Speculative or inconclusive evidence does not meet this burden.
Compensation Period: Workers’ compensation benefits are limited to the period of disability directly caused by the employment-related injury.
Reproductive Toxicity Claims: Evidence of possible causation is insufficient to establish compensability for reproductive injuries without clear medical proof.