Title: Delhaize America v. Baker

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

754 A.2d 251 (Del. 2000).
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
DELHAIZE AMERICA, INC.,
§
§
No. 108, 2005
Employer Below,
§
Appellant,
§
§
v.
§
Court Below: Superior Court
§
of the State of Delaware
BONNIE BAKER,
§
in and for Sussex County
§
C.A. No. 04A-05-001
Claimant Below,
§
Appellee.
§
Submitted: July 13, 2005
Decided: August 12, 2005
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, HOLLAND and BERGER, Justices.
O R D E R
This 12th day of August, 2005, on consideration of the briefs of the parties, it
appears to the Court that:
1) Delhaize America, Inc. appeals from a Superior Court decision affirming an
Industrial Accident Board (Board) decision awarding compensation to  Bonnie Baker.
Delhaize argues that the Superior Court misapplied the holding in Gillard-Belfast v.
Wendy’s, Inc.  and deprived Delhaize of due process.
1
2) On October 3, 2000, Baker fell and injured her back while working at a
supermarket owned by Delhaize.  Baker did not seek medical attention for her injury
until October 31, 2000.  Baker’s family doctor referred her to Dr. William Moore, a
Delhaize America, Inc. v. Bonnie Baker, 2002 WL 31667611 (Del. Super.).
2
2004 WL 1535816 (Del. Supr.).
3
2
board certified orthopedic surgeon, who ordered Baker not to work while she
underwent a series of epidural injections intended to reduce the inflammation and
pain.  Baker received the epidural injections from May through June 2001.  On
July 20, 2001, Moore cleared Baker for part-time work.
3)  Baker filed a Petition to Determine Compensation Due, claiming that she
was totally disabled from October 31, 2000, until July 20, 2001, and partially disabled
thereafter.  The Board determined that Baker suffered from chronic lower back pain,
which was aggravated by the fall at work. The Board rejected Moore’s opinion that
Baker suffered from nerve root irritation, however, and  concluded that Baker failed
to establish that she was totally disabled for any period of time. Nonetheless, the
Board determined that Baker was totally disabled, as a matter of law, during the period
that Moore ordered her not to work (from December 21, 2000 until July 20, 2001).
The Superior Court affirmed, holding that Baker is entitled to total disability benefits,
under Gillard-Belfast, for the period of time during which her doctor ordered her not
to work.  
4)   In this appeal, Delhaize repeats the arguments it presented to the Superior
Court.  We affirm on the basis of the well-reasoned decision of the Superior Court.2
That decision, however, pre-dated Flax v. State of Delaware,  a decision of this Court
3
3
that also addressed the applicability of Gillard-Belfast.  In Flax, claimant’s doctor did
not dispute the fact that claimant could have worked in some capacity during the time
period in question.  The doctor stated that, if claimant had given him a job description
to review, he would have determined whether claimant could undertake it.  Thus, in
Flax the doctor’s instruction was not really a “no-work” order.  
5)  The holding in Flax is limited to its facts, and does not control the result
here.  The  Gillard-Belfast rule applies to any claimant, whether the parties agree that
the claimant is disabled or not.  Simply stated, if a claimant is instructed by his
treating physician that he or she is not to perform any work, the claimant will be
deemed to be totally disabled during the period of the doctor’s order.  This rule
assumes that the doctor acts in good faith, and does not extend beyond the time that
the Board decides whether the claimant is disabled as a matter of fact.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Superior
Court be, and the same hereby is, AFFIRMED.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Carolyn Berger
Justice