{"id":76574,"date":"2025-12-01T10:20:07","date_gmt":"2025-12-01T10:20:07","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/76574\/"},"modified":"2025-12-01T10:20:07","modified_gmt":"2025-12-01T10:20:07","slug":"4-charged-in-boys-death-in-oakland-county-hyperbaric-chamber-explosion-to-return-to-court","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/76574\/","title":{"rendered":"4 charged in boy\u2019s death in Oakland County hyperbaric chamber explosion to return to court"},"content":{"rendered":"

OAKLAND COUNTY, Mich. \u2013 The four people charged in the death of a 5-year-old boy who was killed in a hyperbaric chamber explosion at a health care facility in Oakland County will return to court Monday. <\/p>\n

Tamela Peterson, 58, of Brighton, Jeffrey Mosteller, 65, of Clinton Township, Gary Marken, 66, of Spring Arbor and Aleta Moffitt, 60, of Rochester Hills, were charged after Thomas Cooper was killed when the hyperbaric chamber he was receiving treatment in exploded at the Oxford Center in Troy on Jan. 31, 2025. The boy\u2019s mother was also injured in the explosion.<\/p>\n

Tamela Peterson (top left), Gary Marken (top right), Jeffrey Mosteller (bottom left), and Aleta Moffitt (bottom right) at their March 11, 2025, arraignment on charges linked to the Jan. 31, 2025, death of a 5-year-old boy inside a hyperbaric chamber that exploded at the Oxford Center in Troy. (WDIV)<\/p>\n

The four workers are expected to appear in 52-4 District Court on Monday, Dec. 1, for a continuation of their preliminary examinations. <\/p>\n

The first two days were held in September, and the third witness who testified, Andrew Melnyczenko, the technical and safety director of the hyperbaric and altitude medicine program at the Mayo Clinic in Minnesota, is expected to continue testifying on Monday. <\/p>\n

The purpose of a preliminary examination is to determine if a felony was committed and if there is probable cause to send a defendant to a higher court, where they could then face trial.<\/p>\n

Allegations<\/p>\n

The four workers are accused of ignoring several safety guidelines for operating hyperbaric chambers, including not using a grounding wrist strap, rolling back the chamber cycle count, giving the 5-year-old boy a blanket straight from a running dryer, using polyester pillows and more.<\/p>\n

Charges<\/p>\n

Peterson, the Oxford Center\u2019s founder and CEO, along with Mosteller, the safety manager, and Marken, the primary management assistant, were charged with second-degree murder.<\/p>\n

They were also given the alternative charge of involuntary manslaughter, which means that a jury will decide which charge accurately fits their conduct.<\/p>\n

Moffitt, who was allegedly operating the hyperbaric chamber at the time of the explosion, was charged with involuntary manslaughter and falsifying medical records<\/p>\n

Preliminary hearing — Get caught up on the testimony so far<\/p>\n

Ahead of Monday\u2019s hearing, here\u2019s everything that happened during the first two days of the preliminary examination:<\/p>\n

Day 1 — Monday, Sept. 15<\/p>\n

The first witness called to the stand was Tiffany Hosey<\/a>, a Certified Hyperbaric Technologist (CHT) and Certified Hyperbaric and Wound Specialist (CHWS), who worked at the Oxford Center. She said she met Tamela Peterson at DMC Detroit Receiving Hospital when Peterson brought her daughter in for treatment.<\/p>\n

She became friends with Peterson and Mosteller and reached out to the two, looking for a job when she was considering leaving DMC. She said she was hired at the Brighton Oxford Center in fall 2020 and worked there until spring 2024.<\/p>\n

Hosey said her primary role was for research, but she would fill in for other jobs when people took breaks or vacations. While she did not work at the Oxford Center in Troy, she was familiar with the Troy staff. The defense argued that Hosey didn\u2019t work at the Troy facility and that her statements would be considered hearsay as she didn\u2019t have firsthand knowledge of how Troy was managed.<\/p>\n

She said she was aware of the Troy Oxford Center and that Peterson was in charge of both facilities, and that when she went to the Troy facility, practices appeared to be the same for both.<\/p>\n

\u201cAlmost every decision went through Tammy,\u201d Hosey said. \u201cAny time there was an issue or concern, Tammy was the person you brought it to, always.\u201d<\/p>\n

She said she knew Mosteller as a safety director at both centers.<\/p>\n

\u201cHe was in charge of all safety protocols, staff training and maintenance,\u201d Hosey said.<\/p>\n

When asked how often training occurred, she said \u201crarely.\u201d<\/p>\n

She said she was let go after she expressed safety concerns<\/a>, including patients in hyperbaric chambers being grounded. She said she questioned Mosteller regarding policies over the phone, through email, through Teams messages and in person.<\/p>\n

She said she asked Peterson multiple times why grounding straps weren\u2019t used. She reportedly said grounding straps presented suffocation risks and that Mosteller had done independent tests that \u201cproved\u201d they weren\u2019t necessary.<\/p>\n

The test reportedly had a staff member lying still on a stretcher without a sheet, not in a pressurized hyperbaric chamber. The test did not alleviate Hosey\u2019s concerns.<\/p>\n

\u201cMy primary concern was that we were putting grounding straps on the patients who are going inside the hyperbaric chamber,\u201d Hosey said. \u201cIt is used to reduce the risk of fire due to static electricity.\u201d<\/p>\n

When asked what it would mean to have a fire inside a hyperbaric chamber, Hosey said, \u201cIt means death.\u201d<\/p>\n

The defense argued that there are multiple ways for a hyperbaric chamber to be grounded and that the manual instructions for checking to see if a chamber is grounded do not require it to be on or pressurized.<\/p>\n

\u201cIt\u2019s my opinion that no matter what test he did, no matter what the result was, it doesn\u2019t supersede the national fire code or the chamber manufacturer\u2019s recommendations,\u201d Hosey said.<\/p>\n

Hosey said she was fired after expressing her concerns regarding the safety protocols to human resources. She was called into Peterson\u2019s office, where she reportedly asked her about her concerns about the grounding straps and Hosey said she attempted to explain why she felt that way, but Peterson shut her down, reportedly being told she was \u201cuneducated and ill-informed.\u201d<\/p>\n

Mosteller reportedly backed Peterson up and reiterated to Hosey that the grounding straps weren\u2019t necessary.<\/p>\n

The defense questioned whether her experience before working at the Oxford Center, which focused on multiplace hyperbaric chambers, meant she might not be qualified to know what protocol is for how monoplace chambers should be used.<\/p>\n

Additionally, Hosey was questioned about why she continued to work at the Oxford Center despite her safety concerns.<\/p>\n

\u201cFor nearly four years, you continued your employment at the Oxford Center despite these safety concerns you had, correct?\u201d a defense attorney asked, to which Hosey responded, \u201cCorrect.\u201d<\/p>\n

While speaking with Marken\u2019s attorney, Hosey agreed that Marken was not part of the medical decisions and that he also believed in the therapy. The attorney compared him to a janitor, saying, \u201cIf you need a lightbulb, you get Gary.\u201d<\/p>\n

Hosey said that Marken\u2019s job was more complicated than that of a janitor, but agreed that if she needed a lightbulb, he would be the employee she would contact.<\/p>\n

Hosey agreed with the attorney that Marken didn\u2019t have anything to do with the child\u2019s death and that he spent most of his time at the Brighton facility and not the one in Troy.<\/p>\n

She referred to him as Peterson\u2019s \u201cright-hand man,\u201d but couldn\u2019t list all of his responsibilities at the Oxford Center. However, she did testify that Marken did not make medical decisions.<\/p>\n

Hosey said employees would document how long someone was in a hyperbaric chamber in real-time with pen and paper, which would then be logged into the records once they were out. She said they would sometimes write down a time when they assumed the chamber was pressurized, knowing it takes roughly 10 minutes to fully pressurize, leading to potentially incorrect records on how long someone was receiving treatment.<\/p>\n

When asked if there were standard daily safety checks that were required, Hosey asked, \u201cAccording to the Oxford Center or to experts?\u201d<\/p>\n

She went on to say that experts push for daily or weekly safety checks, but that she did not see the Oxford Center in Brighton perform them at that frequency. When asked if the Oxford Center had monthly safety checks, she answered, \u201cThere should be.\u201d<\/p>\n

When asked if she saw the Oxford Center in Brighton perform yearly safety checks, she said no.<\/p>\n

When asked why she didn\u2019t use the grounding straps, Hosey said it wasn\u2019t protocol and that other patients might start asking why they aren\u2019t using the straps. She said there was no real benefit to not using the grounding straps, as using them doesn\u2019t cost much or use a significant amount of time.<\/p>\n

Day 2 — Tuesday, Sept. 16<\/p>\n

Testimonies resumed just after 9:30 a.m. Tuesday<\/a>, beginning with Francois Burman, who has more than 30 years of experience in hyperbaric medicine.<\/p>\n

Burman has taught courses in hyperbaric chambers since 1997 and has been involved with the Undersea and Hyperbaric Medical Society since 2001. He has also served as a committee member for the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) since 2017.<\/p>\n

The defense questioned Burman\u2019s status as an expert, while prosecutors highlighted his work on NFPA guidelines. They noted concerns about his expertise in electronic engineering but said they would address those during testimony rather than beforehand.<\/p>\n

Burman said the Undersea and Hyperbaric Medical Society contacted him to help police understand the medical technology at the Oxford Center in Troy.<\/p>\n

He concluded the Oxford Center was not operating according to NFPA guidelines based on his observations and video evidence of the fire.<\/p>\n

The defense argued Burman was not qualified to determine the fire\u2019s cause since he is not a fire marshal.<\/p>\n

Prosecutors countered that Burman is qualified to discuss factors leading up to the fire and share his opinions on what he believes happened.<\/p>\n

Defense argued that the prosecutors were trying to \u201cbackdoor\u201d an expert opinion regarding a topic he wasn\u2019t considered an expert on, stating that Burman is an expert on preventing fires and what can cause fires, not what does cause fires.<\/p>\n

Fire risks, monitoring<\/p>\n

Burman explained the safety differences between monoplace and multiplace chambers. Multiplace chambers have less static electricity fire risk because they typically use 23% oxygen, while monoplace chambers can reach 100% oxygen, where fire can \u201cspread faster than the speed of sound.\u201d<\/p>\n

Burman said that\u2019s why the NFPA guidelines recommend that only two chambers be observed by one person because time is critical.<\/p>\n

Then he was asked if it was OK if one technician was monitoring five or more chambers at once.<\/p>\n

\u201cIt would be impossible to respond appropriately to a patient having a seizure,\u201d Burman said. \u201cIf you\u2019re observing Chamber 5 and there\u2019s a seizure in Chamber 1, you will not see the seizure, you won\u2019t hear anything from a speaker. You\u2019d be oblivious to it.\u201d<\/p>\n

Burman testified that likely causes of fire in a monoplace chamber include electric devices, static electricity, and hand warmers — items that might be smuggled in. If nothing is smuggled in, static electricity is the main cause of fire, he said.<\/p>\n

He explained that for a fire to exist, it needs something to burn, oxygen, and an ignition source. Burman noted that the increased oxygen and pressure inside a hyperbaric chamber lowers the temperature needed for ignition.<\/p>\n

The grounding strap<\/p>\n

Burman was asked if he had ever heard of a grounding strap being a choking or suffocation risk. <\/p>\n

He said there has never been a recorded instance of that happening. If a child were choking on the strap, he said it would be relatively easy for an operator or technician to intervene before harm occurred. He added that people in a high-oxygen environment can survive for five to six minutes if suffocating, and it can take about a minute for the chamber to depressurize.<\/p>\n

He said that while a grounding strap doesn\u2019t eliminate the risk of discharge, it reduces it to being nearly impossible. He added that he would never allow a child in a monoplace chamber without a grounding strap.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe risk is just too high,\u201d Burman said. \u201cThere\u2019s no logical reason to do that.\u201d<\/p>\n

Burman said he saw video of what happened at the police station before he went to inspect the Oxford Center in Troy in person. He said the video he saw showed that the boy was not checked to see if he was grounded before treatment began.<\/p>\n

Inside the hyperbaric chamber with the boy were reportedly a pillow, a sheet, and a gray blanket. Burman said he saw the boy move around inside the chamber five or six times, enough to pull the sheet off the mattress. This movement, he believes, contributed to the build-up of a static charge that would have been dissipated safely if the boy had been grounded. Instead, when his knee got close to the grounded mattress, where the sheet was pulled up, there was a visible spark.<\/p>\n

\u201cWithin the next second, everything inside the chamber was alight,\u201d said Burman.<\/p>\n

When asked if a grounding strap would prevent static discharge, he said yes. The built-up charge would go down the path of least resistance, which would have been the grounding strap if one were present. Without one, he said, the charge jumped through the air as a spark to the grounded mattress when his knee got within a few millimeters. To prevent a charge, one would have to be in contact with a conductive surface or grounded at all times.<\/p>\n

Burman said when he visited the Oxford Center, he learned the pillows used in the chambers had 100% polyester fillings with cotton pillowcases, which can build and cause static charges.<\/p>\n

\u201cWhen it rubs against the cotton, that\u2019s when you start stripping off electrons and generating a charge,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n

Multiple defense questions focused on possible risks involving hyperbaric chambers and static electricity, which Burman continually answered would be mitigated by a properly grounded patient wearing a grounding strap.<\/p>\n

When asked if he could think of anything besides static build-up that could have ignited the chamber, Burman stated, \u201cI didn\u2019t see anything else and I went into this looking.\u201d<\/p>\n

The third witness to speak was Andrew Melnyczenko, the technical and safety director of the hyperbaric and altitude medicine program at the Mayo Clinic in Minnesota. He has nearly 30 years of experience in hyperbaric medicine and chairs the Hyperbaric Oxygen Safety Committee for Undersea and Hyperbaric Medical Society. Melnyczenko has also taught safety courses for medical professionals and served in the U.S. Air Force as an aerospace physiology technician.<\/p>\n

The defense argued that Melnyczenko didn\u2019t have qualifications related to fire prevention and that there was little he could say that they hadn\u2019t already heard from Burman. The prosecution argued that there can be more than one expert in any given field and that Melnyczenko would primarily focus on the parts of the hyperbaric chamber\u2019s manual that were allegedly ignored by people at the Oxford Center.<\/p>\n

The judge allowed the prosecution to proceed with Melnyczenk as a proposed expert, but limited redundant testimony and left specific admissibility disputes to be resolved as they\u2019re presented. <\/p>\n

Melnyczenk will return to testify for the next court hearing, expected to take place in December.<\/p>\n

Copyright 2025 by WDIV ClickOnDetroit – All rights reserved.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"OAKLAND COUNTY, Mich. \u2013 The four people charged in the death of a 5-year-old boy who was killed…\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":76575,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[34],"tags":[44245,143,904,145,144,4863],"class_list":["post-76574","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","category-oakland","tag-hyperbaric-chamber-explosion","tag-oakland","tag-oakland-county","tag-oakland-headlines","tag-oakland-news","tag-troy"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/76574","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=76574"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/76574\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/76575"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=76574"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=76574"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=76574"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}