Title: Rhodes v. Diamond State Port Corporation
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 79, 2010
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: July 29, 2010

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
WILLIAM RHODES, 
 
§ 
 
 
§ 
No. 79, 2010      
 
Claimant Below, 
§ 
 
Appellant, 
§ 
Court Below: Superior Court of  
 
 
§ 
the State of Delaware in and for 
              v. 
 
§ 
New Castle County 
 
 
§ 
DIAMOND STATE PORT 
§ 
C.A. No. 09A-04-005 
CORPORATION, 
§ 
 
 
 
§ 
 
 
Employer Below, 
§ 
 
 
Appellee. 
§ 
 
 
 
Submitted:  June 23, 2010 
 
 
Decided:     July 29, 2010 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, JACOBS and RIDGELY, Justices. 
 
O R D E R 
 
 
This 29th day of July 2010, upon consideration of the briefs of the parties and 
the record in this case, it appears to the Court that: 
 
1. This is an appeal from a decision of the Superior Court affirming the 
denial by the Delaware Industrial Accident Board (“IAB” or “Board”) of William 
Rhodes’1 Petition to Determine Compensation Due.  Rhodes advances two claims 
on appeal.  The first is that the Superior Court erred in affirming the IAB’s 
decision, because the IAB abused its discretion by ignoring or misconstruing 
relevant and uncontroverted evidence.  The second is that the Superior Court erred 
                                          
 
1 Because Mr. Rhodes is deceased, his estate filed the petition on his behalf.  For ease of 
reference, the petitioner is referred to as “Rhodes.” 
 
2
in affirming the IAB’s decision because the IAB misapplied, or failed to apply, the 
“last injurious exposure” rule.2  We find no merit to either argument and affirm. 
 
2. Rhodes worked as a forklift operator at the Port of Wilmington from 
1987 until October 19, 2006.  The City of Wilmington owned the Port until late 
1995, when it was sold to Diamond State Port Corp. (“DSPC”).  The North 
American Smelting Company (“NASCO”) site, which was located within the Port, 
was owned and operated by DSPC.  A Work Plan for the Remediation & 
Demolition of the NASCO site was prepared by RMI Environmental, a company 
retained to remove asbestos from the site.  That Work Plan stated that there were 
“significant amounts of nonstructural and structural asbestos containing materials.”  
From 1984 to 1996, “the [NASCO site] was leased to Port tenants for vehicle 
maintenance and bulk storage of sodium nitrate and urea.”  In 1996, the NASCO 
site was found to be unsuitable for any use, and in 1997 the building was 
demolished. 
 
3. Rhodes was diagnosed with lung cancer in December 2006.  He died 
from the disease later that month.  Rhodes had a long medical history, which  
included uncontrolled diabetes, HIV, lung infections, high blood pressure, a heart 
                                          
 
2 The “last injurious exposure” rule “puts the whole burden of compensation payments upon the 
last insurer in the case of a compensable occupational disease which developed over a lengthy 
period of time.”  Standard Distrib. Co. v. Nally, 630 A.2d 640, 644 n.1 (Del. 1993). 
 
3
attack, and prostate surgery.  Rhodes had also smoked two packs of cigarettes a 
day for forty years. 
 
4. A Petition to Determine Compensation Due was filed on Rhodes’ 
behalf, alleging that he developed lung cancer as a result of being exposed to 
asbestos during his employment with DSPC.  The IAB held a hearing on the 
petition. 
 
5. At that hearing, Rhodes’ widow, Linda Peterson-Rhodes, testified that 
she brought lunch to her husband at work daily from 1987 until 2006, and that she 
believed Rhodes worked in all the warehouses, including the NASCO site.  Trevor 
Knight, the Assistant Port Engineer from 1987 to 1994, testified that several of the 
Port’s buildings contained asbestos, that forklift operators would spend 90% of 
their work days in warehouses, and that the NASCO site was used as a warehouse. 
 
6. Rhodes’ expert witness, Dr. Orn Eliasson,3 testified that a reading of 
Rhodes’ December 2006 x-rays indicated asbestos-related interstitial fibrosis and 
small calcified pleural plaques, and that the combination of smoking and asbestos 
exposure had caused Rhodes’ lung cancer.  Dr. Eliasson also testified that asbestos 
abatement can leave friable asbestos dust residue.4  Dr. Eliasson reviewed 
                                          
 
3 Dr. Eliasson is a National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health certified B-reader.  B-
reading is a specialized training in x-ray reading to determine the existence or non-existence of 
changes consistent with occupational exposure of hazardous material. 
 
4 The process used to demolish the NASCO site included asbestos abatement, which is the 
removal of the asbestos containing materials from the building before demolition. 
 
4
documents that discussed asbestos issues at the Port, and opined that the 
documents revealed the existence of friable asbestos at the NASCO site, and that 
anyone working at the NASCO site would have been exposed to “medically 
significant” levels of asbestos. 
 
7. DSPC’s expert witness, Dr. Albert Rizzo,5 opined that Rhodes’ lung 
cancer was caused exclusively by cigarette smoking.  Dr. Rizzo testified that there 
were no findings indicating to a reasonable degree of medical probability that 
asbestos exposure had contributed to Rhodes’ lung cancer.  Dr. Rizzo also testified 
that none of Rhodes’ treating physicians or radiologists had noted interstitial 
fibrosis, pleural plaques or pleural thickening on any of the diagnostic reports. 
 
8. The IAB denied Rhodes’ petition.  Rhodes appealed to the Superior 
Court, contending that the IAB had abused its discretion by ignoring relevant 
evidence, and had committed legal error by misapplying the “last injurious 
exposure” rule.  The Superior Court affirmed the IAB’s decision, and this appeal 
followed. 
 
9. Rhodes contends that the IAB disregarded relevant and unrebutted 
evidence.  We review the IAB’s factual findings to determine whether they are 
                                          
 
5 Dr. Rizzo is not a National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health certified B-reader. 
 
 
5
supported by substantial evidence,6 which is “such relevant evidence that a 
reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.”7  This Court 
does not “sit as the trier of fact nor do we have the authority to weigh the evidence, 
determine questions of credibility, or make factual findings and conclusions.”8  We 
review the record “in the light most favorable to the party prevailing below, 
resolving all doubts in its favor.”9  “Only when there is no satisfactory proof in 
favor of a factual finding of the Board may the Superior Court, or this Court for 
that matter, overturn it.”10 
 
10. It is well-settled law that the Board may accept the opinion testimony of 
one expert and disregard a different expert’s conflicting opinion.11  Moreover, “an 
award cannot stand on medical testimony alone, if the medical testimony shows 
nothing more than a mere possibility that the injury is related to the accident.”12  It 
                                          
 
6 Steppi v. Conti Electric, Inc., 991 A.2d 19 (Table), 2010 WL 718012, *2 (Del. Mar. 16, 2010); 
Glanden v. Land Prep Inc., 918 A.2d 1098, 1100 (Del. 2007). 
 
7 Steppi, 2010 WL 718012, at *2. 
 
8 Id. 
 
9 Id (quoting Gen. Motors Corp. v. Guy, 1991 WL 190491, *3 (Del. Super. Aug. 16, 1991)). 
 
10 Id. (quoting Johnson v. Chrysler Corp., 213 A.2d  64, 66 (Del. 1965)). 
 
11 Id. at *3 (citing Standard Distrib. Co. v. Nally, 630 A.2d at 646). 
 
12 Id. (quoting Gen. Motors Corp. v. Freeman, 164 A.2d 686, 688 (Del. 1960)). 
 
 
6
is the petitioner’s burden to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the 
injury sustained was caused by occupational exposure to asbestos.13 
 
11. The IAB determined that the petitioner failed to meet his burden.  
Rhodes and DSPC presented conflicting testimony about what caused Rhodes’ 
lung cancer.  Dr. Eliasson opined that occupational exposure to asbestos was a 
cause of Rhodes’ lung cancer, while Dr. Rizzo opined that the cancer was caused 
exclusively by cigarette smoking.  The IAB found Dr. Rizzo’s testimony to be 
more credible than that of Dr. Eliasson.  The IAB also articulated a reasonable 
basis for its determination: 
For several reasons, the Board found Dr. Rizzo’s causation opinion 
more persuasive that Dr. Eliasson’s opinion.  First, Dr. Eliasson’s 
causation opinion is based upon the unsubstantiated conclusion that 
[Rhodes] was exposed to friable asbestos while working at the 
NASCO site at the Port of Wilmington in 1995 and 1996.  Dr. 
Eliasson even went so far as to characterize [Rhodes’] asbestos 
exposure as “very significant.”  Yet, upon closer examination of his 
testimony, it is clear that he did not know when or if [Rhodes] even 
worked at the NASCO site....  [I]t is clear from his cross-examination 
testimony, that Dr. Eliasson did not know whether [Rhodes] worked at 
the NASCO site and he had no information regarding asbestos 
contamination at the Port outside of the NASCO Building14 
 
*** 
 
                                          
 
13 29 Del. C. § 10125(c); see Anderson v. General Motors Corp., 442 A.2d 1359, 1361 (Del. 
1982). 
 
14 Board Decision at 4 (emphasis in original). 
 
 
7
It is clear from Dr. Eliasson’s testimony that [Rhodes] was “relatively 
healthy” that he did not have a full understanding of [Rhodes’] prior 
medical history and the other potential risk factors that could have 
caused the alleged abnormalities demonstrated on [Rhodes’] 
diagnostic studies.15 
 
 
12. Rhodes contends that the IAB ignored unrebutted evidence of friable 
asbestos at the NASCO site, and also mischaracterized witness testimony.  The 
IAB’s decision focused on the absence of evidence that Rhodes was exposed to 
asbestos at the NASCO site.  The IAB observed that Trevor Knight’s testimony 
indicates, at best, that Rhodes may have worked at the NASCO site before the 
transfer of ownership in 1995.16  The IAB also found Mrs. Rhodes’ testimony to be 
unpersuasive.  Mrs. Rhodes testified that she believed that Rhodes worked in many 
of the warehouses, including the NASCO site.  But, she did not testify that Rhodes 
actually worked in the NASCO site between 1995 and 1996.  The IAB’s decision 
was supported by “the minimum quantum of evidence required.”17 
 
13.  Rhodes also claims that the IAB misapplied the “last injurious 
exposure” rule―a claim that we review de novo.18  The IAB found that Rhodes 
failed to demonstrate that he was exposed to asbestos while working at the Port of 
                                          
 
15 Board Decision at 6. 
 
16 Trevor Knight did not work at the Port of Wilmington after 1994. 
 
17 Steppi, 2010 WL 718012, at *3. 
 
18 Id. at *2 (citing Scheers v. Indep. Newspapers, 832 A.2d 1244, 1246 (Del. 2003)). 
 
 
8
Wilmington for DSPC.  Alternatively, even if Rhodes was exposed to asbestos that 
remained after the abatement process, the IAB credited Dr. Rizzo’s opinion that 
the medical evidence and findings do not establish, to a reasonable medical 
probability, that asbestos exposure contributed to Rhodes’ cancer.19 
 
14.  Thus, the “last injurious exposure” rule does not apply, because Rhodes 
failed to prove injurious exposure while working for DSPC.  “The last injurious 
exposure rule provides, generally, that where a worker has contracted an 
occupational disease by exposure to a harmful substance over a period of years in 
the course of successive employments, the most recent employer where the worker 
was exposed is liable for the entire award.”20  Although injurious exposure need 
not be prolonged, or in itself be sufficient to cause the disease, such exposure must 
be “of the type which could cause the disease given prolonged exposure.”21  In 
Lake Forest School District v. DeLong,22 the Superior Court held that, where the 
claimant died of mesothelioma and the building in which the claimant worked 
contained asbestos, a sufficient causal relationship existed between the exposure 
                                          
 
19 The IAB was persuaded by the following: (1) none of Rhodes’ treating physicians ever opined 
that Rhodes’ lung cancer was caused by asbestos exposure; (2) Dr. Rizzo testified there are other 
causes of pleural thickening and interstitial fibrosis (including chronic lung infection), and that 
Rhodes did not have mesothelioma, which is the type of cancer almost certainly linked to 
asbestos exposure; and (3) both experts agreed that Rhodes smoked two packs of cigarettes a day 
and that the type of cancer Rhodes had may be caused by cigarette smoking. 
 
20 Lake Forest Sch. Dist. v. DeLong, 1988 WL 77665, at *3 (Del. Super. Ct. Jul. 20, 1988). 
 
21 Id. 
 
22 Id. 
 
9
and the disease to establish the last injurious exposure.  Here, in contrast, the IAB 
acted within its discretion when finding that Rhodes had not established that he 
was exposed to asbestos while working at the Port of Wilmington.  Moreover, 
there was sufficient evidence for the IAB to accept Dr. Rizzo’s opinion that 
cigarette smoking alone caused Rhodes’ lung cancer. 
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Superior 
Court is AFFIRMED. 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
/s/ Jack  B. Jacobs 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
Justice