IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

UNITED PARCEL SERVICE
, § § No. 233 , 202 3 Employer Below, § Appellant, § Court Below

— Superior Court § of the State of Delaware

v. § § C.A. No. N22A

- 07

- 002 RUDOLPH HAWKINS
, § § Claimant Below, § Appellee. §

Submitted: December 6 , 2023 Decided: Febru ary 19
, 202 4

Before TRAYNOR
, LEGROW , and GRIFFITHS , Justices.

ORDER

On t his 19 th day of February 202 4
, having considered the briefs and the record
below, it appears to the Court that:
(1) United Parcel Service appeal s from a Superior Court order affirming a

decision of the Industrial Accident Board denying its motion to dismiss a former
employee’s petition to determine additional compensation due under the Workers’
Compensation Act

. 1 We find no merit to the appeal and therefore affirm the Superior
Court’s judgment.

1 Hawkins v. United Parcel Serv. , 2023 WL 3749355 (Del. Super. May 30, 2023) [hereinafter

“ Super. Ct. Order ”]

.2

(2) On October 28, 201 8 , w hile working as a driver for UPS, Rudolph

Hawkins sustained a compensable work

- related injury to his lumb a r and thoracic
spine and his left trigger and ring fingers

. During a thirty

- minute break, Hawkins ’s

vehicle was rear

- ended while he slept inside its sleeper berth compartment

. Because

of his resulting injuries , Hawkins began receiving total disability benefits
, effective

the following day

. 2 O n December 9, 2019, a little over a year after the accident,

Hawkins filed a p etition for a dditional c ompensation with the IAB (the “First
Petition”)

. (3) The First Petition sought approval for two surgeries that his doctors
recommended and a finding of recurrence of total disability as of October 17, 2019

. In response, UPS filed a p etition for r eview of c ompensation claiming that as of
February 7, 2020, Hawkins was physically able to return to work (the “Petition for

Review ”)

. The parties consolidated t he First Petition and the Petition for Review by
stipulation on October 19, 2020

. ( 4 ) Afte r some negotiating
, the parties agreed to settle both petitions

. With

the settlement finalized, Hawkins withdrew the First Petition without prejudice and

no longer oppos ed the Petition for Review

. As a result and at the parties’ request,

t he IAB issued a consent judgment on December 17, 2020
, granting the Petition for

2 The record is unclear as to what disability benefits Hawkins initial ly received immediately following the accident.3

R eview and terminat ing Hawkins’s total disability benefits as of February 7, 2020
(the “Stipulation ”) . The parties also entered into a separate agreement regarding
compensation due to Hawkins for partial disability benefits as of October 17, 2020
(the “Agreement”)

. Neither the Stipulation nor the Agreement explicitly addressed

whether Hawkins could later seek a finding of recurrence of either total or partial
disability

. ( 5 ) On April 21, 2021, Hawkins filed a second p etition for a dditional

c ompensation (the “Second Petition”). The Second Petition sought
, among other
things
, a finding of recurrence of total disability for the period from the “date of back

surger [ies] and [going forward] ” as well as permanent impairment benefits. 3
Although t he Second Petition did not specify the date s of the back surger ies , a permanency evaluation report attached to the Second Petition indicated that Hawkins

had back surger y on January 6 , 2020 (remov al of a spinal cord stimulator implant)

and on September 16, 2020 ( spinal fusion)

. ( 6 ) O n October 12, 2021, two days before a scheduled hearing with the

IAB, Hawkins withdrew the Second Petition without prejudice to give the parties

additional time to negotiate a settlement

. Two months later, without a settlement in
place, Hawkins filed a third petition for a dditional c ompensation based, in part, on
an alleged recurrence of total disability (the “Third Petition”). The Third Petition

3 Am. App. to Opening Br. at A 18 (Hawkins’s Petition dated April 19, 2021)

.4

was nearly identical to the Second Petition. UPS moved to dismiss the Third Petition
on February 25, 2022 (the “Motion”), arguing that the Third Petition was barred by
res judicata and collateral estoppel.
( 7 ) UPS made three arguments for dismissal

. First, it contended that
Superior Court Civil Rule 41(a)(1)

— which provides that a second voluntary
dismissal of a claim is with prejudice

— applied to Hawkins’s voluntary withdraw al

of the Second Petition and thus res ju dicata barred the Third Petition. Second, it

claimed that collateral estoppel barred Hawkins’s claim of recurrence of total
disability as of the date of his back surgeries. Lastly, it argued that any claims
stemming from the surgeries were implicitly resolved by the Stipulation.
( 8 ) On June 6, 2022, t he Board denied the Motion (the “Order”). 4 It held
that the Third Petition was not barred by the doctrine of res judicata because Rule
41(a)(1) does not apply to administrative proceedings

. 5 It also held that collateral
estoppel did not bar Hawkins’s claim for recurrence of total disability because

neit her the Agreement nor the Stipulation addressed whether Hawkins might have

“ a future change of condition that would lead to a recurrence of total . . . disability
at any point after October 17, 2020.” 6

4 Hawkins v. United Parcel Serv

. , No. 1478596, at 7 (Del. I.A.B. June 6, 2022) [hereinafter “ IAB Order ”].

5 Id . at 4

– 6

. 6 Id . at 3.5

(9) UPS appealed the Order to the Superior Court , w hich affirmed the

Board’s decision on May 30, 2023

. UPS then timely filed a notice of appeal with

this Court on June 29, 2023. On appeal, UPS repeats two of its argument s from

below: (1) res judicata bars the Board from considering the Third Petition ; and (2)
collateral estoppel bars the Board from revisiting the issue of total disability.
( 10 ) We review whether an administrative agency has applied the law
correctly d e novo

. 7 Even so, w e accord substantial weight to the IAB’s application
of legal principles in the specialized context of our state’s workers’ compensation

scheme because it “ has the occasion to give life to that scheme on a weekly basis in
the many cases that come before it.” 8 When a decisio n of the Board is appealed from
the Superior Court, we review the agency’s decision directly. 9

( 1 1 ) First, the Third Petition is not barred by r es judicata under Superior

Court Rule 41 because the IAB is not required to follow the Superior Court Civil

Rules in its proceedings. Superior Court Civil Rule 41(a)(1) provides that a second
voluntary dismissal of a claim is with prejudice

. 10 A dismissal with prejudice is

7 Betts v. Townsends, Inc. , 765 A.2d 531, 533 (Del. 2000) (citing Oceanport Ind. , Inc. v. Wilmington Stevedores, Inc. , 636 A.2d 892, 899 (Del. 1994))

. 8 Christiana Care Health Servs

. v. Davis , 127 A.3d 391, 395 (Del. 2015) (cit ations omitted)

. 9 Delmarsh, LLC v. Env ’t Appeals Bd

. , 277 A.3d 281, 289 (Del. 2022) (cit ations omitted).

10 The Rule states , in relevant part
, that, “[u]nless otherwise stated in the notice of dismissal or stipulation, the dismissal is without prejudice, except that a notice of dismissal operates as an adjudication upon the merits when filed by a plaintiff who has once dismissed in any court of the United States or of any state an action based on or including the same claim.” Super. Ct. Civ. R. 41(a)(1).6

considered a judgment on the merits. 11 If Rule 41(a)(1) were to apply , Hawkins’s
voluntary dismissal of the Second Petition would operate as a dismissal with
prejudice, and therefore bar him from filing the Third Petition. We find that it does

not

. ( 12 ) Under the language of the IAB’s enabling statutes, t he Superior Court

Civil Rules do not apply to its proceedings. 12 “[T] he Delaware legislature has given
the IAB broad authority to fashion its own rules ” 13 and the Board has indeed
promulgated its own rules (the “Board Rules”). 14 There is no rule similar to Rule
41(a)(1) in the Board Rules, the W orker ’s C ompensation Act
, or the Administrative

Procedures Act

. 15 And UPS has not pointed to any provision of the Delaware Code

that suggests, let alone requires, that the IAB must follow the Superior Court Civil

Rules

. A dministrative agencies are creatures of statut e and “derive their powers and
authority solely from the statute creating such agencies and which define their

11 RBC Cap. Mkts., LLC v. Educ. Loan Tr. IV , 87 A.3d 632, 643 (Del. 2014) (cit ations omit ted ).

12 See 19 Del. C. § 2301A(i) (“The [IAB] may promulgate its own rules of procedure for carrying out its duties consistent with Part II of this title and the provisions of the Administrative Procedures Act.”).

13 Nobles

- Roark v. Burner , 2020 WL 4344551, at *2 (Del. Super. July 28, 2020), aff’d , 247 A.3d 259 (Del. 2021)

. 14 See 19 Del. Admin. C. §§ 1331

- 1.0 to

- 31.0 ( Rules of the Industrial Accident Board ).

15 Id .; 19 Del. C. §§ 2301

– 2397 (Workers’ Compensation Act ) ; 29 Del. C. §§ 10101

– 10 161 (Administrative Procedures Act).7

powers and authorities.” 16 Accordingly, the Superior Court Civil Rules do not
govern the IAB . I t is within the IAB’s sound discretion to promulgate its own rules

or consider the Superior Court Civil Rules for guidance or instruction . A ny suggestion contrary to this well

- settled principle is misguided

. 17

( 13 ) Second, c ollateral estoppel does not bar Hawkins’s claim for recurrence
of total disability because whether his total disability had terminated as of February

7, 2020 and had not recurred as of October 21, 2020 was not determined by the IAB.

Whe n the Board has de termined an issue of fact necessary to its decision, “the
doctrine of collateral estoppel precludes relitigation of that issue in a subsequent suit
or hearing concerning a different claim or cause of action involving a party to the

first case.” 18 UPS argu es that the S tipulation
, a consent judgment issued by the IAB
, has preclusive effect. We disagree.

16 Bridgeville Rifle & Pistol Club, Ltd. v. Small , 176 A.3d 632, 661 (Del. 2017) (quoting Off. of the Comm’r, Del. Alcoholic Beverage Control v. Appeal Comm’n, Del. Alcoholic Beverage Control , 116 A.3d 1221, 1226 (Del. 2 015)) (emphasis in the original).

17 The Superior Court cases cited by UPS

— Wright
, Robey , and McIntosh

— which were not cited below, do not stand for the proposition that an administrative agency must follow Superior Court Civil R ules when its own rule s fail to address an issue

. See Wright v. Quorum Litig. Serv. , 1997 WL 524061 , at * 2

– 3 (Del. Super. Apr. 4, 1997) ( applying Superior Court Civil Rule 60(b) by way of analogy ) ; see also Robey v. State , 2004 WL 440378 , at *1

– 2 (Del. Super. Jan. 21, 2004) ( con sidering arguments by claimant and employer under Superior Court Civil Rule 15 ) ; McIntosh v. Chrysler Corp. , 1995 WL 339078 , at *4 (Del. Super. Mar. 16, 1995) (declining to apply a Superior Court Civil Rule because applicable board r ule existed)

. 18 Betts , 765 A.2d at 534 (citing Messick v. Star Enter. , 655 A.2d 1209, 1211 (Del. 1995)).8

( 14 ) C onsent judgments generally cannot support claims of issue
preclusion. 19 W hen an adjudicative body approves a consent agreement, the issue
adjudicated is not on the merits of the claim at issue, but rather “the fairness of the

settlement as a whole.” 20 C ollateral estoppel applies when the facts sought to be
precluded in a subsequent suit have been “actually litigated and determined” in the

first case. 21 C onsent judgments , by contrast, are contractual in nature , and thus we

determine their preclusive effect by the intent of the parties. 22 W e determine the

intent of the parties by ordinary contract principles. 23 An intention to be bound in

future actions should not be found unless “ the language . . . affirmatively points to

19 See Arizona v. California , 530 U.S. 392, 414 (2000); see also Auerbach v. Cities Serv

. Co ., 134 A.2d 846, 851 (Del. 1957) (refusing to apply doctrine of collateral estoppel to consent judgment); Town of Cheswold v. Cent

. De l. Bus

. Park , 163 A.3d 710, 719 (Del. Super. 2017)
, rev’d on other grounds , 188 A.3d 810 (Del. 2018) (citing U nited States v. Int’l B ldg. Co. , 345 U.S. 502, 506 (1953) (holding “the doctrine of collateral estoppel does not apply to consent agreements [.] ”) )

. 20 Auerbach , 134 A.2d at 851; see 18A Charles Alan Wright, Arthur R. Miller, & Edward H. Cooper, § 4443 (3d ed. 1998) [ hereinafter “ Wright & Miller ”] (“[T]he central characteristic of a consent judgment is that the court has not actually resolved the substance of the issues presented. To be sure, in various circumstances judicial approval of a consent judgment may require careful scrutiny of its fairness in light of the probable outcome on the merits. . . . However close the examination may be, the fact remains that it does not involve contest of decision on the merits. Any findings made as part of the approval process go to the reasonableness of the settlement, not the merits of the dispute.”).

21 Auerbach , 134 A.2d at 851 (citing Petrucci v. Landon , 107 A.2d 236, 238 (Del. Super. 1954)).

22 Wright & Miller § 4443 n.23 (c ollecting sources); see also Restatement (Second) of Judgments § 27, cmt. e; Town of Cheswold , 188 A.3d at 818 (citing Harley

- Davidson, Inc. v. Morris , 19 F.3d 142, 148 (3d Cir. 1994)) (“Consent orders are interpreted like contracts.”).

23 Town of Cheswold
, 188 A.3d at 818 (citing Harley

- Davidson, Inc. , 19 F.3d at 148)

.9

it,” and should not be inferred from “the circumstance, taken alone, that the
agreement or judgmen t contains a stipulation or recital of the fact’s existence.” 24

( 15 ) T he S tipulation does not clearly manifest the parties’ intention to be
bound by UPS’s allegation that “claimant’s disability had terminated as of February
7, 2020.” 25 The language fails to create a mandate that Hawkins could no longer

contest the facts asserted in the Petition for Review

. 26 Rather, it quali fies the facts
sought to be precluded as mere allegations. 27 The S tipulation also does not state that

Hawkins a greed that UPS’s factual allegations would be subject to preclusion. 28 The
parties likewise did not agree that a claim for recurrence of total disability was

forever barred or that Hawkins’s disability had not recurred as of the filing of the

24 Sarkis v. Harsco Corp

. , 332 A.2d 156, 158

– 59 (Del. Super. 1975) (quot ation omitted ) ; see also 50 C.J.S. Judgments § 1051 (2023) (citations omitted) (“[C]onsent judgments do not have issue p reclusion effect unless such intent is clearly manifested or reflected. . . . The consent decree must contain far

- reaching preclusive language. ”); Am

. Home Assur. Co. v. Chevron, USA, Inc. , 400 F.3d 265, 27 2 (5th Cir. 2005) (citing Hughes v. Santa Fe Int’l Corp. , 847 F.2d 239, 241 (5th Cir. 1988)) (“Because [the ] claims were settled, and the settlement agreement did not indicate that the judgment of dismissal should be considered conclusive on the matter of f ault, the issue was never actually litigated.”) ; Amador County v. Salazar , 640 F.3d 373, 38 4 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (quoting Otherson v. Dep’t of Justice, INS , 711 F.2d 267, 274 n.6 (D.C. Cir. 1983)) (“Preclusion is appropriate when the stipulation clearly manif ests the parties’ intent to be bound in future actions.”)

. 25 Am. App. to Opening Br. at A12 (Stipulation for Termination).

26 See De Prins v. Michaeles , 942 F.3d 521, 525 (1st Cir. 2019) (holding collateral estoppel did not apply where there was “no indication that the parties intended the agreement to be binding on the issue”).

27 Am. App. to Opening Br. at A12 (“ [T]he carrier filed a Petition for Review of Compensation on February 7, 202 0 , alleging that claimant’s disability had terminated as of Febr uary 7, 202 0 [.]”)

. 28 Id . (“Claimant no longer opposes the carrier’s Petition to Terminate his Temporary Total Disability benefits [.] ”).10

S tipulation. At bottom, the fact s UPS seeks to preclude

— that Hawkins’s total
disability had terminated as of February 7, 2020
, and had not recurred as of October

21, 2020

— were not actually litigated before and determined by the IAB

. Accordingly, the Board did not err when it held that collateral estoppel d id not bar
Hawkins from bringing his claim for recurrence of total di sability.

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Superior

Court is AFFIRMED.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ N. Christopher Griffiths Justice