Case Law » Workers' Compensation Law
Causation
Nancy Baxter v. State of Delaware, IAB Hearing No. 1359222 (March 21, 2011)
Claimant filed a Petition to Determine Compensation Due alleging injuries to her neck and right shoulder as a result of the cumulative detrimental effect of her employment as a judicial case processor for the Justice of Peace Court. Claimant testified that her clerical job duties involved approximately 95% typing and 5% telephone usage. Claimant’s treating doctor, Dr. Arnold Glassman, testified that she has cervicothoracic and myofascial pain as a result of her repetitive work activities. Dr. Alan Fink, Employer’s medical witness, testified that Claimant suffers from right occipital neuralgia and bursitis of the right shoulder, which is not causally related to her work activities. The Board held that Claimant failed to meet her burden of proving that the neck and right shoulder problems were causally related to her work activities, so the Petition was denied in its entirety. The Board did not find Dr. Glassman’s opinion persuasive because it was based solely on the history provided by Claimant; he performed a very limited review of Claimant’s medical records just prior to his deposition; he was not familiar with Claimant’s job duties or activities outside of work that could have caused or contributed to the alleged injuries; and Dr. Glassman did not begin treating Claimant until months after she had been released to return to work following the alleged work injuries.
Salyer v. State of Delaware, IAB Hearing No. 1336020 (June 17, 2010)
Claimant filed a Petition to Determine Compensation Due seeking acknowledgement of injuries to his cervical, thoracic and lumbar spine and a contusion to his head, allegedly sustained during a work accident on March 25, 2009. The parties stipulated that Claimant previously sustained injuries to his neck and back in two motor vehicle accidents in 2000 and 2005. Employer did not dispute that the work accident occurred. Employer acknowledged, through the testimony of its medical expert, Dr. Ali Kalamchi, a minor contusion to Claimant's forehead and a strain injury to the cervical spine which exacerbated Claimant's pre-existing neck problems. However, Employer disputed any injury to the lumbar spine as a result of the work accident.
In support of his Petition, Claimant presented the deposition testimony of Dr. William Atkins. Dr. Atkins had treated Claimant since 2003. Employer objected to Dr. Atkins' deposition testimony on the ground that, despite multiple requests from Employer, Dr. Atkins failed to produce his entire medical file. Dr. Atkins produced his records in a piecemeal fashion; produced an additional 117 pages of records just minutes prior to his deposition; and Dr. Atkins' entire file had not even been produced at the time of the hearing. The Board overruled Employer's objection, holding that preclusion of Dr. Atkins' testimony would significantly prejudice the Claimant, even more so than Employer had already been prejudiced, by unfairly punishing Claimant for Dr. Atkins' failure to cooperate. However, the Board cautioned Dr. Atkins that such conduct would not be tolerated in the future. Dr. Atkins was placed on notice that his failure to timely produce records would result in stiff penalties, as the Board was growing weary of "such unnecessary and unprofessional tactics." The Board ultimately held that Claimant did not meet his burden of proving that the work accident caused an exacerbation of his pre-existing low back condition, noting Dr. Atkins' inadequate documentation of Claimant's injuries and treatment was one of its major concerns.
Watson v. Kraft Foods, IAB Hearing No. 130578 (June 20, 2008)
This matter involved Claimant's allegation that he suffered an industrial injury due to an identifiable work accident and/or developed a cumulative detrimental effect injury to his low back while working for Kraft. Claimant filed a petition seeking payment of total disability benefits and medical expenses. Kraft argued that Claimant was not injured at work. The Board accepted the opinion of Dr. Piccioni, Kraft's medical expert, over the opinions of Drs. Milligan and Lieberman, Claimant's medical experts. Dr. Piccioni stated that there was no isolated event causing Claimant's back condition according to his histories. Dr. Piccioni explained that he would have expected a gradual onset while performing work activities that gradually worsened if Claimant suffered from cumulative effect injury. The Board noted that Drs. Milligan and Lieberan did not indicate in their records that Claimant's injuries were related to work nor did they submit payment for medical bills to the workers' compensation insurance carrier.
Meloni v. General Motors Corp., IAB Hearing No. 1243136 IAB Hearing No. 1243684 (June 25, 2004)
This case includes a comprehensive discussion of the standard of causation for cumulative detrimental effect injuries. The Claimant must prove that the ordinary "stress and strain" of employment formed the substantial cause of his workers' compensation claim. That ordinary "stress and strain" must exist as a direct cause to the basis of the claim without which the injuries would not have occurred.
Blake v. State of Delaware, Del. Supr., No. 477, 2001, Veasy, C.J., (Mar. 12, 2002)
The Court held that a doctor's testimony that he was satisfied to a reasonable degree of medical certainty that a work accident accelerated the claimant's injury and his need for surgery, was sufficient evidence for the Board to infer that the accident proximately caused the surgery. The proper standard, correctly applied by the Board, is whether the surgery would have been required at that time but for the accident.
Gilliard Belfast v. Wendy's, Inc., 754 A.2d 251 (Del. 2000)
The Supreme Court held that the IAB's decision to deny claimant, who was ordered by her treating physician not to work prior to a compensable second operation, compensation for total disability while she waited for second operation was contrary to law. In addition, the Court held that a claimant who can only resume some form of employment by disobeying the orders of his treating physician is totally disabled, at least temporarily, regardless of his capabilities.
