This is an employment action brought under state and federal law. Donna Neil (“Plaintiff”) brings this lawsuit against her former employer, KMT Waterjet Systems, Inc. (“KMT”), and Flow International Corporation (“Flow”) (collectively, “Defendants”), both of which are subsidiaries of Shape Technologies, Inc. (“Shape”).

On January 13, 2023, Neil submitted an ADA Reasonable Accommodation Request Form, alleging that she began to suffer “allergies related to the extreme mold odors” in her office. She claimed these odors caused “acute respiratory symptoms,” “cognitive difficulties,” “digestive problems,” and “rashes.”

She alleged that she was suffering from “mental disturbances/electric shock,” “paranoia,” “kidney pain,” “heart palpitations,” and “oxygen often dropping into the 80s.”

Thus, Defendants retained Dr. Ronald H. Saff to evaluate these complex medical claims. Neil, however, filed a motion to exclude the testimony of Saff on the ground that it is irrelevant because the medical cause of her symptoms is not an element of her claims.

Allergy and Immunology Expert Witness

Dr. Ronald H. Saff is a board-certified allergist and immunologist and has been retained by many attorneys as an expert witness in mold, sick building, “toxic” mold, drug allergy, food allergy, and asthma litigation. He has also served as an assistant clinical professor of medicine at the Florida State University College of Medicine.

Get the full story on challenges to Ronald Saff’s expert opinions and testimony with an in-depth Challenge Study.

Discussion by the Court

On September 02, 2025, Saff rendered a 4-page opinion. It boils down to the contention that mold exposure did not cause Plaintiff’s health problems; rather, her problems were caused by a combination of the side effects of medication and psychiatric illnesses.

To begin with, the Court found that Saff is qualified to testify based on his knowledge, skill, training, experience, and education as indicated in his report and that his opinion is reliable based on the records he has evaluated.

Moreover, there can be no doubt that Saff’s opinion regarding the medical cause of Plaintiff’s symptoms is relevant and may assist the trier of fact. To be sure, Saff may not opine on ultimate legal issues—such as whether Plaintiff is a “qualified individual” or whether her requested accommodation was “reasonable” as those terms are defined by law. However, the question of what medically caused Plaintiff’s symptoms is a factual predicate that underlies those determinations. Accordingly, the Court denied the motion to exclude Saff’s testimony without prejudice.

Plaintiff also sought to exclude Saff’s testimony on the grounds that his opinion belongs solely before an administrative law judge (“ALJ”) under the Kansas Workers’ Compensation Act (“KWCA”), because the KWCA provides the exclusive remedy for Plaintiff’s claims.

The KWCA is a liability scheme, not an evidentiary rule. It provided the exclusive remedy for claims arising from on-the-job injuries. Plaintiff’s ADA claims did not require proof of an on-the-job injury; they require proof of certain elements as defined by the ADA. Moreover, the KWCA’s exclusive-remedy provision has no bearing on whether a federal court adjudicating an ADA discrimination claim may hear medical evidence. As a result, the Court denied Plaintiff’s motion to exclude to the extent it sought to limit Saff’s testimony under the KWCA.

Held

The Court denied Plaintiff’s motion to exclude the testimony of Ronald H. Saff, M.D., in part and denied it without prejudice in part.

Key Takeaway

If Plaintiff’s symptoms were not caused by mold exposure in her workplace, a jury could reasonably conclude that relocating her to Building 3 (her accommodation request) would not have enabled her to perform the essential functions of her job, rendering her unqualified under the ADA and unable to make a prima facie case.

Thus, Saff’s causation opinion is sufficiently tied to the facts at issue in this case, and Plaintiff’s challenges to its weight and credibility are properly addressed through cross-examination.

Case Details:

Case Caption:	Neil V. KMT Waterjet Systems, Inc.
Docket Number:	2:24cv2602
Court Name:	United States District Court, Kansas
Order Date:	May 22, 2026

Category: Allergy and Immunology Expert Witness

Allergy and Immunology Expert’s Causation Opinion Admitted

Allergy and Immunology Expert’s Causation Opinion Admitted