Case Law » Workers' Compensation Law
Statute of Limitations
Jose Luna v. Turf Pro, Inc., IAB Hearing No. 1368492 (October 4, 2011) (Order)
Employer filed a motion to dismiss Claimant’s Petition to Determine Compensation Due, filed on May 27, 2011, on the basis that the Petition alleged a May 13, 2009 work injury and was barred by the applicable two-year statute of limitations set forth in 19 Del. C. § 2344. Claimant argued that Employer had already made payments with respect to the claimed injury and the five-year statute of limitations set forth in 19 Del. C. § 2361(b) should apply.
Claimant testified that he injured his right foot at work on May 13, 2009, when stepping off the back of a truck. Claimant’s supervisor drove him to Christiana Hospital emergency room for treatment that same day. When Claimant received the hospital bills for the ER visit, they were paid by Employer, but the money for the bills was deducted from Claimant’s paychecks. Claimant agreed that he never completed an accident report or reported the injury to the office manager or owner of the company. The owner of the company testified that the medical bills were not paid as workers’ compensation or for a compensable work injury. He was unaware that the physical issues that Claimant developed with his leg on May 13, 2009 were allegedly due to a work injury. Rather, the medical bills were paid as a loan to Claimant so that he could avoid the collections process. Loan documents were prepared but never actually executed by Claimant. However, the actual checks written to pay the hospital bills had payment stubs expressly stating that the payments were a loan to Claimant.
The Board held that under these circumstances, it was clear that the medical bills were not paid pursuant to the Workers’ Compensation Act or under a sense of compulsion to pay under the Act. Further, the Board rejected Claimant’s argument that Employer should have followed the “payment without prejudice” procedure set forth in the Act, noting that Employer would have had to first know that there was at least an alleged work injury before it could make a payment without prejudice. Therefore, the Board dismissed Claimant’s Petition as time-barred under section 2361(a).
Sean Emory v. J.R.’s Truck Co., Inc., IAB Hearing No. 1295612 (March 31, 2011)
Claimant alleged that he sustained an injury, a partial finger amputation, while working for Employer on November 8, 2006. On November 16, 2006, he filed a Petition to Determine Compensation Due with the Industrial Accident Board seeking acknowledgement of his injury. On February 29, 2008, the Petition was dismissed without prejudice. On May 10, 2010, Claimant re-filed the Petition to Determine Compensation Due and filed a Petition to Determine Additional Compensation seeking payment of outstanding medical expenses. Employer did not have workers’ compensation insurance at the time of the work accident. However, Employer paid Claimant’s wages while he was out of work for several weeks immediately following the injury. Employer also paid some medical expenses for treatment incurred from November 8, 2006 through January 11, 2007. The claim forms corresponding to the medical expenses that were paid, clearly noted the treatment was related to a work injury. Although there was no formal Agreement as to Compensation filed with the Board within two years of the work accident, the Board held that there was an implied agreement since Employer “felt compelled” to make payments to Claimant under the Workers’ Compensation Act. Accordingly, the Board held that the statue of limitations was extended to five years from the date of the last payment made by Employer, January 11, 2007, and the 2010 petitions were filed in a timely manner.
Fleming v. Purdue farms, Inc. Del. Super., C.A. No. 02A-02-009, Stokes, J. (October 30, 2002)
The Superior Court held that pursuant to 18 Del. C. § 3914, a workers' compensation insurer is required to give written notice of the applicable statute of limitations during the pendency of a claim.
