Case Title: Lewicki v. New Castle County

Citation: 

Docket Number: 171, 2006

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2006-11-15T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
JONATHAN LEWICKI,  
 
) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
)  No. 171, 2006 
 
 
Employee/Below  
) 
 
 
Appellant,  
 
)  Court Below:  Superior Court 
 
 
 
 
 
 
)  of the State of Delaware in 
v. 
 
 
 
 
 
)  and for New Castle County 
 
 
 
 
 
 
) 
NEW CASTLE COUNTY, 
 
)  C.A. No. 05A-06-010 
 
 
 
 
 
 
) 
 
 
Employer/Below  
) 
 
 
Appellee. 
 
 
) 
 
Submitted:  October 25, 2006 
Decided:  November 15, 2006 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, HOLLAND and JACOBS, Justices. 
 
O R D E R 
 
 
This 15th day of November 2006, it appears to the Court that: 
 
(1) 
The claimant-appellant, Jonathan Lewicki, filed an appeal from a 
Superior Court order affirming the Industrial Accident Board’s denial of his 
petition for medical expenses resulting from a choking incident that occurred 
during his employment as a New Castle County Police Officer.  Lewicki contends 
that the IAB erred by denying his petition and concluding that his injury did not 
“arise out of” and “within the course and scope of” his employment.1  Because 
                                                 
1  
19 Del. C. § 2304, in pertinent part: 
 
Every employer and employee, adult and minor, except as expressly excluded in 
this chapter, shall be bound by this chapter respectively to pay and to accept 
compensation for personal injury or death by accident arising out of and in the 
 
2
there is substantial evidence in the record to support the Board’s findings that 
Lewicki’s choking incident did not occur as a result of any specific job 
requirements and that a congenital medical condition caused his injuries, we 
AFFIRM. 
 
(2) 
Lewicki, a New Castle County Police Officer, suffered injuries 
resulting from a choking incident that occurred during his shift on December 31, 
2002.  Lewicki was scheduled to work as a road officer, answering radio and 
criminal complaints, from 8:00 p.m. to 4:00 a.m.  Lewicki was permitted to stop 
and eat lunch during his shift because he did not have a specific break time allotted 
for lunch.  Shortly before 3:00 a.m. on December 31, 2002, Lewicki purchased a 
hamburger, fries, and a soda from a nearby fast food restaurant and drove to 
Delcastle Recreational Park to eat and work on his computer.  Lewicki took a bite 
of the hamburger and a piece of meat became lodged in his throat.   
 
(3) 
Lewicki radioed for help and another officer arrived and dislodged 
some of the meat by performing the Heimlich maneuver.  An ambulance 
transported Lewicki to the Christiana Hospital, where Dr. Bruce Panasuk 
determined that Lewicki had an esophageal obstruction.  Dr. Panasuk performed an 
emergency surgery to remove the remaining food bolus and attempted to enlarge 
Lewicki’s esophagus, but could not completely enlarge it because of swelling and 
                                                                                                                                                             
course of employment, regardless of the question of negligence and to the 
exclusion of all other rights and remedies.   
 
3
irritation.  On January 15, 2003, Dr. Panasuk determined that Lewicki had a tight 
cervical esophageal web.  On February 4, 2003, Dr. Panasuk performed a second 
surgery to fully stretch out Lewicki’s esophagus.   
 
(4) 
 At Lewicki’s IAB hearing, Dr. Panasuk, Lewicki’s own treating 
physician, opined that Lewicki’s esophageal condition was congenital and that 
Lewicki’s position and duties as a police officer did not cause the food impaction, 
nor did it substantially contribute to his injury.  Dr. Panasuk opined that eating the 
hamburger was a substantial cause of the injury that required the emergency 
treatment and surgeries.  He explained that eating the hamburger was a triggering 
event that accelerated an asymptomatic condition.  Essentially, Dr. Panasuk opined 
that the incident could have happened anywhere, anytime. 
 
(5) 
Dr. Joel Chodos, a gastroenterologist who examined Lewicki on two 
separate occasions, testified on behalf of NCC.  Dr. Chodos testified that Lewicki’s 
esphogeal web caused the food impaction.  Based on his review of the x-rays and 
history from Lewicki, Dr. Chodos stated that he “cannot see how [Lewicki’s] 
duties as a police officer contributed to a congenital condition.”  He also opined 
that Lewicki would have suffered from a food impaction regardless of work 
conditions.  
 
(6) 
Before the incident, Lewicki was not aware of any condition in his 
esophagus.  Lewicki was never treated for a narrow esophagus and never had 
 
4
trouble swallowing food, though he had trouble swallowing large pills.  Lewicki 
also took and passed a physical examination during each of his seven years of 
employment with New Castle County Police Department.   
 
(7) 
The IAB denied Lewicki’s petition for compensation, finding that he 
had failed to prove that the incident “arose out of” his employment because his job 
requirements were not a “but for” cause of the food impaction.  The Board 
examined the origin of the accident and its cause.  The Board reasoned that the 
esophageal defect was congenital and nothing in Lewicki’s duties contributed to or 
caused the hamburger to lodge in his throat.   
(8) 
On appeal, the Superior Court affirmed the IAB’s decision reasoning 
that Lewicki choked because of a preexisting congenital condition.  Although 
Lewicki’s injury occurred “during the course of” his employment, it did not “arise 
out of” his employment, because it could have occurred anywhere, on or off duty.  
 
(9) 
Lewicki claims that the IAB erred by concluding that Lewicki’s injury 
did not “arise out of” and “in the course of” his employment as a police officer.  
Lewicki relies on a Superior Court decision, Bedwell v. Brandywine Carpet 
Cleaners,2 to support his contention that all injuries sustained while eating lunch 
                                                 
2  
Bedwell v. Brandywine Carpet Cleaners, 684 A.2d 302 (Del. Super. 1996) (where a 
carpet cleaner was compensated for injuries sustained after a slip and fall in the parking lot of a 
fast food restaurant where claimant (Bedwell) had stopped to eat lunch while traveling from one 
work site to another).     
 
 
 
5
during work hours are compensable because they arose during an eating period 
arising out of one’s employment.    
(10) “In an appeal from the IAB, the function of both this Court and the 
Superior Court ‘is to determine only whether or not there was substantial evidence 
to support findings of the Board.’”3  Substantial evidence is relevant evidence that 
a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion;4 therefore, 
this Court must affirm the findings of the Board if we find such evidence in the 
record.   
(11) For an employer to be liable for workers’ compensation under 19 Del. 
C. § 2304, a claimant must establish that he suffered a “personal injury or death by 
accident sustained by accident a rising out of and in the course of employment.”5  
For workers’ compensation to be available, the claimant must establish both 
requirements of “arising out of” and “in the course of employment.”6  The Board 
                                                 
3  
State v. Dalton, 878 A.2d 451, 454 (Del. 2005).   
 
4  
Histed v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 621 A.2d 340, 342 (Del. 1983); see also 
Breeding v. Contractors-One-Inc., 549 A.2d 1102, 1104 (Del. 1988).     
 
5  
19 Del. C. § 2304; see also 19 Del. C. § 2301(15) (defining “injury” and “personal 
injury”). 
 
6  
Stevens v. State, 802 A.2d 939, 945 (Del. Super. 2002). 
 
 
 
6
must analyze both “the origin of the accident and its cause” when deciding whether 
an incident arose out of employment.7     
(12) In the present case, Lewicki’s choking incident did not occur as a 
result of any specific job requirements; his congenital medical condition caused his 
injuries.  The Superior Court judge compared Lewicki’s situation to awarding 
benefits to a person who suffered a heart attack because of a congenital heart 
condition, but without any contributing or triggering event.  Because of Lewicki’s 
congenital condition, he could have choked at any time while eating at any place.  
Lewicki was not performing any specific job requirements at the time of the 
choking incident that caused him to eat other than normally.  Although Lewicki 
was eating while sitting in his car, consistent with the nature of shift work and 
while completing paperwork, it was mere coincidence that Lewicki choked while 
on duty.  After consideration of the record, we hold that there is substantial 
evidence to support the Board’s findings.  Although the incident occurred “during 
the course of” Lewicki’s employment, it did not “arise out of” his employment.  
Accordingly, we AFFIRM. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Myron T. Steele 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Chief Justice 
  
                                                 
7  
Id.