 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Delhaize America4/29/2005
Date Submitted: January 3, 2005
Dear Counsel
This is my decision on Delhaize America, Inc.'s, doing business as Food Lion ("Food Lion"), appeal of the Industrial Accident Board's ("Board") approval of Karen King's ("King") petition for lost wages and medical expenses. The Board's decision is affirmed in part and reversed in part.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
King was a clerk for Food Lion. She hurt her back while mopping the floor at work in 1996. King missed time from work and received workers' compensation benefits, including temporary total disability and a nine percent permanent partial disability payment for her back injury. King eventually returned to work and was employed by Food Lion until she left in 1998. She then worked for several other employers. King's back pain never completely went away.
King was rear-ended by a drunk driver in 2000. She sustained neck and back injuries. King's pain increased after the automobile accident, but it eventually returned to the same level as before it. However, she now needs spinal fusion surgery. King filed a petition with the Board in 2003 for lost wages and medical expenses, alleging that her current back injury was related to the Food Lion accident.
The Board Hearing and Decision
King and two medical doctors testified at the Board hearing. King testified about the 1996 Food Lion accident, the 2000 automobile accident, and her medical history. Ganesh Balu, M.D., a specialist in physical medicine and rehabilitation, testified on behalf of King. His opinion was that the automobile accident made King's existing work-related back injury worse. John B. Townsend, M.D., a neurologist, testified on behalf of Food Lion. His opinion was that the automobile accident was the sole cause of King's current back injury.
The Board agreed with King and Dr. Balu, ruling that King's current back injury was a direct result of the 1996 Food Lion accident. The Board also ruled that King was totally disabled as of May 14, 2003, the date that Dr. Balu put her on "no work" status so that she could be evaluated by Ali Kalamachi, M.D., an orthopedic surgeon, for back surgery.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
The Supreme Court and this Court repeatedly have emphasized the limited appellate review of the factual findings of an administrative agency. The function of the Superior Court on appeal from a decision of the Industrial Accident Board is to determine whether the agency's decision is supported by substantial evidence and whether the agency made any errors of law. Substantial evidence means such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. The appellate court does not weigh the evidence, determine questions of credibility, or make its own factual findings. It merely determines if the evidence is legally adequate to support the agency's factual findings. Absent an error of law, the Board's decision will not be disturbed where there is substantial evidence to support it's conclusions.
DISCUSSION
I. Causation
The rule on causation where an employee's work-related injury is aggravated by a subsequent, non-work related accident is set forth in a line of cases beginning with Hudson v. E. I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., Inc.. In this case the Superior Court held that "a subsequent injury is compensable only if it follows as a direct and natural result of the primary compensable injury." If the subsequent injury is caused by the employee's own negligence or fault, then the chain of causation is broken and the subsequent injury is not compensable. Similarly, in DuPont Hospital for Children v. Haskin
Page 1 2 3 Delaware Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|