State News : Delaware

NWCDN is a network of law firms dedicated to protecting employers in workers’ compensation claims.

NWCDN Members regularly post articles and summary judgements in workers’ compensations law in your state.  

Select a state from the dropdown menu below to scroll through the state specific archives for updates and opinions on various workers’ compensation laws in your state.

Contact information for NWCDN members is also located on the state specific links in the event you have additional questions or your company is seeking a workers’ compensation lawyer in your state.




Claimant was involved in a compensable work accident and was placed on total disability. He filed a Petition to add the left shoulder as a compensable body part, while the Employer filed a Termination Petition to end total disability and to address resolution of injuries. Right before the Hearing, the Claimant conceded to end total disability, and thus the Employer communicated to the Workers’ Compensation Fund a request for it to waive reimbursement of total disability, while noting the Hearing was still going forward on other issues. The Fund agreed.  

The morning of the Hearing, the Claimant requested a continuance of the resolution issue. The Board granted the continuance, and the Hearing went forward solely on the left shoulder issue. A few days later, the Board issued the Order on the continuance, which prompted the Fund to renege on its waiver of reimbursement; the Fund argued the continuance allowed it to bring in evidence to justify reimbursement and began scheduling a deposition. The Employer filed a Motion to Enforce the settlement/waiver, which was presented at a Legal Hearing, with the Board taking the matter under advisement while it considered whether to grant or deny the motion. 

The Board subsequently issued a Decision on Claimant’s Petition, finding the left shoulder was never injured in the work accident. It accepted the testimony of Dr. Matz, who discussed the lack of shoulder complaints in the early records, the lack of acute MRI findings, and other data points arguing against a specific shoulder injury. As such, claimant’s Petition was denied. 

A week later, the Board issued its ruling on the Motion to Enforce. The Order confirmed there was no indication of “deception or sharp practice on the part of Employer’s counsel,” and that the Employer was fully up front with the Fund about what it was seeking and what it intended to do; the continuance was strongly opposed by the Employer, and thus there was no foul play. The simple fact was the Fund had agreed to waive reimbursement, and the continuance was solely on the issue of resolution, and not on the issue of termination of total disability. Therefore, the Board ordered the Fund to abide by its waiver, resulting in no reimbursement from the Employer. 

Should you have any questions regarding this Decision, please contact Nick Bittner, or any other Attorney in our Workers’ Compensation Department. 

Gary Steadman v. Evergreen Waste Services, IAB No. 1519915, Decision on Petition to Determine Additional Compensation Due, dated Nov. 21, 2022, Order on Motion to Enforce, dated Nov. 28, 2022

Claimant was allegedly injured in a work incident on July 25, 2018. Following a Hearing, the Industrial Accident Board issued a Decision finding claimant had sustained only a limited injury which had resolved, with treatment only compensable through January 2, 2019. Later, several medical bills for treatment after the date of resolution of injury were paid by accident.

Upon learning of the mistaken payments, the adjuster immediately requested reimbursement, with Heckler & Frabizzio providing a letter to be sent to each provider, explaining the consequences of the Board’s prior Decision, and reinforcing the need to issue reimbursement. However, none of the providers complied. The Employer filed a Motion with the Board, seeking to compel reimbursement of the mistaken payments. At the Legal Hearing, no physicians were present, despite receiving notice. Claimant’s attorney was present and argued against ordering reimbursement, out of concern the providers would then seek payment from the claimant.

In an Order dated August 11, 2022, the Board agreed with the Employer and granted the Motion. Because the treatment was all administered by certified providers under the Workers’ Compensation System, and because the Board has statutory authority over medical payments, the Board was empowered to compel reimbursement. Further, as the payments were issued for treatment after a clear cutoff date, the Board agreed they were made by mistake. As such, the providers were required to issue reimbursement within thirty days, or else they would be subject to further sanctions from the Board.

Should you have any questions regarding this Decision, please contact Nick Bittner, or any other Attorney in our Workers’ Compensation Department.

Patricia Wesley v. State of Delaware, IAB No. 1475026 (Aug. 11, 2022).

Claimant was involved in an 8/30/18 work related motor vehicle accident while working as a police officer. The neck and low back were accepted by Employer. She underwent a compensable two-level cervical fusion surgery on 8/7/19.

On 9/15/21, Claimant filed a Petition seeking 26% permanent impairment to the cervical spine and 10% permanent impairment to the lumbar spine, based upon Dr. Rodgers’ opinion. Dr. Rodgers rated permanency under the 5th Edition of the AMA Guidelines. Employer contested the ratings based upon the opinion of Dr. Piccioni, who found there was 9% permanency to the cervical spine and 3% permanency to the lumbar spine. Dr. Piccioni rated permanency under the 6th Edition of the AMA Guidelines.

After trial, the Board issued a Decision dated 7/7/22 finding in favor of Employer, and awarding Dr. Piccioni’s ratings. The Board noted that Claimant’s cervical fusion was successful. The surgery improved her pain and function. The treating surgeon released Claimant to work without any restrictions for the neck or back thereafter. Post-surgery imaging showed no nerve root compromise. Claimant declined offered lumbar injections. Claimant did not seek a second opinion for the neck or back. The Board also accepted the opinion of Dr. Piccioni that the 6th Edition focuses more on objective findings and function, whereas the 5th Edition relies more on subjective complaints.

Should you have any questions regarding this Decision, please contact Greg Skolnik, or any other attorney in our Workers’ Compensation Department.

Mobley v. City of Wilmington, IAB Hrg. No. 1476680 (July 7, 2022). 

Claimant was involved in a compensable work accident in 2019 injuries to multiple body parts, including the low back. In 2021, the Claimant filed a Petition to Determine Additional Compensation Due seeking payment for lumbar spine Platelet-Rich Plasma (“PRP”) injections.
Claimant called Dr. Grossinger in support of his position. Dr. Grossinger suggested that PRP was appropriate to consider given the failure of various other conservative modalities. As part of his testimony, Dr. Grossinger stated commentary made by Dr. Rudin in the medical records that PRP is a fraction of the cost of lumbar surgery, with quicker recovery, and that the vast majority of Dr. Rudin’s PRP patients improve and do not go on to have surgery.
Employer’s medical expert, Dr. Gelman, alleged that PRP injections are an “investigational” procedure with unproven efficacy and not part of the Delaware Practice Guidelines. Dr. Gelman further stated that PRP was not FDA approved and there were no high-level studies to prove PRP is effective.
The Board found in favor of the Employer. The Board noted that Dr. Grossinger is not an orthopedist and has no experience with PRP injections to the spine. The Board agreed with Dr. Gelman that while some reputable medical facilities are conducting PRP treatment, there are no high-level studies to prove its effectiveness. With that, the Board indicated that the Claimant failed to meet his burden to prove PRP was reasonable and necessary to his low back treatment.
Should you have any questions regarding this Decision, please contact John W. Morgan, or any other attorney in our Workers’ Compensation Department.
Matthew Bryant v. Marjam Supply Co., Inc., IAB Hrg. No. 1481980 (Sept. 28, 2021). 

On June 28, 2018, claimant allegedly suffered an injury to his right eye. A Petition was filed shortly before the expiration of the statute of limitations in 2020, and it named Benchmark Builders as the claimant’s employer. During the course of discovery, claimant indicated he was injured while working at a specific development in Middletown, Delaware, and identified blueprints and photographs as evidence of same. Benchmark denied the claim, as they never employed the claimant and did not believe the accident could have occurred when and where alleged.
At a Hearing, the evidence presented that claimant was brought to the jobsite by an individual, Onellas Morales; who provided tools and instructions. No one knew who he worked for, and his van had no logos or lettering. In addition, he paid the workers in cash. Claimant introduced the blueprints and photographs as evidence that he worked for Benchmark at the Middletown development. However, the Employer then testified and reviewed the documents – the blueprints were dated as being created in 2019, the year after the accident. The development in question broke ground in 2019 and was an open field in June 2018. The photographs showed houses that did not match the blueprints, and they lacked any signage relating to Benchmark.
The Board denied claimant’s Petition, finding no evidence he worked for Benchmark or was even injured at a Benchmark job site. The Board also considered a theory of liability under 19 Del. C. § 2311, which can hold a general contractor responsible when the subcontractor lacks valid Delaware workers’ compensation insurance. However, claimant could not prove any chain of employment linking back to Benchmark. To succeed under Section 2311, claimant must prove he worked for Benchmark or a subcontractor (or even a sub-subcontractor) of Benchmark on a Benchmark worksite. Because no one knew who brought on Mr. Morales or where the injury occurred, claimant’s Petition was denied outright.
Should you have any questions regarding this Decision, please contact Nick Bittner, or any other Attorney in our Workers’ Compensation Department.
Denilson Mendez v. Benchmark Builders, IAB No. 1496799 (Feb. 2, 2022).

Lights…Camera…Termination: Surveillance Footage Wins Best Picture
Claimant was involved in a compensable work accident in 2016, when he was operating a construction vehicle that crashed and turned over, resulting in injuries to his head, face, neck, and back. Claimant was paid a substantial period of total disability benefits. On March 30, 2021, the Employer filed a Termination Petition seeking to terminate total disability.
Employer’s medical expert Dr. Gelman testified that at his defense medical examination, Claimant presented with a rolling walker and singled prong cane, moved slowly, dragged his left foot, and had trouble straightening his left leg. Surveillance footage, on the other hand, showed claimant walking without any limp, climbing into and out of a pickup truck, walking briskly, and not using any assistive devices. Based on this evidence and his examination, Dr. Gelman felt claimant could work in some capacity. Claimant’s medical expert, Dr. James Zaslavsky, testified that claimant could not work, surveillance notwithstanding, as it was his understanding that claimant did not take his medication on dates he was to be examined, which could have explained his worse presentation.

Claimant interestingly “doubled down” and testified at trial that he did not walk without a cane or walker, despite what was clearly shown on the surveillance. The Board issued a Decision indicating that they agreed with Dr. Gelman and the Employer, and granted the Termination Petition.

Should you have any questions regarding this Decision, please contact John W. Morgan or any other attorney in our Workers’ Compensation Department.

Joseph Frederick v. A-Del Construction Co., Inc. and/or Colonial Trucking, Inc., IAB Hrg. No. 1440955 (Dec. 2, 2021).

Claimant filed a Petition seeking 14% permanency to the right upper extremity (shoulder), as rated by Dr. Rodgers. Following a Hearing, the Board issued a Decision, commenting that although they felt that there was likely some applicable permanency rating due to the work injury, Claimant had not met his burden of proof as to there being 14% impairment. The Board specifically noted that it was uncomfortable with Dr. Rodgers’ permanent impairment rating when his testimony made it clear that he had not reviewed medical records documenting prior right shoulder injuries and treatment. 
Claimant then provided Dr. Rodgers with the pre-existing medical records. Dr. Rodgers issued an addendum maintaining the same rating. Claimant re-filed the Petition.
Following a Legal Hearing, the Board dismissed the Petition, finding the same was precluded by res judicata and/or collateral estoppel.
Should you have any questions regarding this Decision, please contact John Ellis or any other attorney in our Workers’ Compensation Department.
St. James v. State, IAB Hrg. No. 1490378 (Oct. 28, 2021)(ORDER)

Over the summer of 2021, a new Deputy Attorney General was appointed to represent the Delaware Department of Labor (DOL) primarily focused on ‘protecting’ the Delaware Workers’ Compensation Fund. Simultaneously, new policies and procedures were instituted. By letter dated July 14, 2021, the DOL stated it would deny the filing of Termination Petitions if there were no First Report of Injury and/or Agreement in the Board’s file; likewise, the DOL indicated it would consider Motions to Compel the filing of such documents with potential fines for noncompliance against employers/ carriers.
By memorandum dated July 16, 2021, the DOL indicated it would be objecting to Termination Stipulations and Orders that did not include reimbursement to the Workers’ Compensation Fund. These new WC Fund positions resulted in more litigation before the Industrial Accident Board relating to Termination Petitions. 
In the case of Kristopher Small v. Fieldstone Golf Club, IAB No. 1492931, the Fund Attorney filed a Motion to Dismiss the Termination Petition, while also requesting reimbursement of all benefits paid by the Fund. The Fund Attorney’s rationale was that claimant had gone back to work during pendency of the Petition and thus consented to termination. One of our workers’ compensation partners, Nicholas Bittner, Esq., opposed the Motion, which resulted in the parties appearing at an evidentiary Hearing. In an Order dated 09/15/21, the Industrial Accident Board agreed with our legal arguments and denied the Fund Attorney’s Motion to Dismiss, finding that an active controversy still existed, which rendered dismissal inappropriate.
On September 16, 2021, by memorandum, the DOL advised that it is in the process of “revamping” all forms, and that it will only be accepting the revised forms once this task has been completed. The DOL outlined its intent to reject any forms that have been modified without the Department’s authorization. It is unclear at this time whether the DOL will consider substantial compliance (i.e., minor deviations in the forms so long as all required information is present) when accepting or rejecting documents. More information will be forthcoming once the DOL has published the new documents; it has promised that advance notice will be given before the strict requirements come into effect. Once that happens, care should be given to ensure compliance to avoid fines and rejected Petitions. 
On the horizon, the Delaware Industrial Accident Board has scheduled a public meeting for October 15, 2021, at 10 AM by Zoom Meeting. The agenda includes introduction of new Board members; SB 94 - review and potential impact on IAB operations; and DSBA request on rules changes. Our office will be attending, and we will update you as to any farther developments. In the meantime, please contact any of our workers’ compensation attorneys if you have any questions or if we can be of further assistance.

Approximately two years ago, we reported on a Board Decision in the matter of Kathy Thomas v. City of Wilmington, IAB Hrg. No. 1417741 (July 30, 2019), where the Board for the first time indicated a preference for the 6th Edition of the AMA Guides over the 5th edition, in the context of total knee replacement surgery.
Specifically, the Board commented: “The Board is well aware that the Claimant’s Bar does not favor the 6th Edition solely for the reason that impairment ratings are lower which in turn translates to a lower financial recovery for claimants. The Board finds that in cases such as this one involving a specific surgical procedure the 6th Edition provides more accurate and equitable ratings that account for favorable surgical outcomes than the 5th Edition. In those cases and cases involving prosthetics use of the 6th Edition would be preferred.” We questioned whether this was the start of a new trend.
Just last week, the Board issued a new Decision in Craig Currington v. City of Wilmington, IAB Hrg. No. 1445651 (Sept. 10, 2021), accepting the opinion of defense expert Dr. Piccioni over that of Dr. Rodgers (same experts used in Thomas). In awarding the lower 6th Edition rating (23%) over the 5th Edition rating (37%), the Board noted that they considered Dr. Piccioni’s experience in performing total knee replacement surgeries over Dr. Rodgers, who does not perform these procedures. Dr. Piccioni testified credibly as to improvements in technology since the 5th Edition was published in 2011 that increase function, including better implants that are designed to match the natural contours of the knee, provide more stability, better materials used, reduced bleeding, and less scar tissue. Mr. Currington had in fact experienced substantial improvement with his knee replacement, as he was limited to light duty before surgery, within months of the surgery was working full duty in a physically demanding job without substantial problems. The Board accepted Dr. Piccioni’s opinion that this great outcome was consistent with the improvements he sees in his own patients due to advancements in technology.
Should you have any questions concerning this Decision, please contactGreg Skolnik, or any other attorney in ourWorkers’ Compensation Department.

It has long been understood in Delaware that permanency is a battle between two experts, each with their own rating, and supported or supplemented by factual and medical evidence. Under well-settled law, the Board can only fashion its own alternative rating when supported by and based upon the evidentiary record. Turbitt v. Blue Hen Lines, Inc.  711 A.2d 1214 (Del. 1998). Despite this possibility, permanency is overwhelmingly approached and argued as an either/or proposition – a choice between the claimant’s expert rating and the defense expert’s rating. 
However, a growing trend has been emerging in this area. Faced with a high rating from claimant’s expert and a 0% rating from the defense expert, the Board is beginning to find claimants failed to meet the burden of proof as to the precise permanency rating. This results in the Board denying the Petition but not affirmatively finding there is no permanent impairment.
Three recent cases are illustrative. In St. James v. State of Delaware, IAB No. 1490378 (May 18, 2021), the Board rejected a 14% right upper extremity impairment rating, noting the claimant’s lack of disclosure of prior injury to the body part raises an issue of possible apportionment, which the claimant’s expert did not address. As such, the Petition for permanent impairment benefits was denied. In DeBenedictis-Bayne v. State of Delaware, IAB No. 1482162 (Apr. 13, 2021), the Board noted concerns with Dr. Rodgers’ rating of 20% cervical spine impairment. Dr. Rodgers’ examination findings did not support the elevated rating, and while the Board declined to find 0% permanency, it denied the Petition, as the claimant failed to meet her burden of proof. In a similar Decision, in Shipmon v. State of Delaware, IAB No. 1461921 (Jan. 6, 2020), the Board found Dr. Rodgers’ 22% cervical spine impairment rating to be “highly inflated.” Again, the Board did not specifically find a 0% impairment rating, but it denied the Petition. Claimant appealed, and the Superior Court recently affirmed the Board’s denial of the Petition (see Shipmon v. State of Delaware, C.A. No. N20A-01-007 DCS, Jul. 30, 2021).
It is possible these claimants will obtain new, reduced permanency ratings and will re-file for permanency. In that instance, it will of course be our position that the prior litigation outcomes would preclude re-filed permanency allegations as a matter of law, but if this argument is rejected by the Board, then the prior hearing record would at a minimum be of assistance in challenging the re-filed claims on their merits. Hopefully, the mere costs of re-filing with a new permanency opinion would dissuade claimants. Going forward, these outcomes should be considered at the time of the 30-Day Rule deadline in similar matters.
If you should have any questions on this issue, then please contact any Attorney in ourWorkers’ Compensation Department.