Opinion ID: 1965058
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Total Disability Established

Text: The Board held that Gilliard-Belfast did require arthroscopic surgery and that the need for surgery was due to her industrial accident at Wendy's. [2] The Board also held that Gilliard-Belfast had not established her entitlement to temporary total disability benefits while she was waiting to have that surgery, even though the treating physician had ordered her not to work. The Board ruled that, although Dr. DuShuttle gave her an order not to work, from a physical standpoint, Gilliard-Belfast has not been, and is not, totally disabled. [3] The precedential effect of the Board's decision would place injured workers in a completely untenable position. If a treating physician's order not to work is followed, the claimant risks the loss of disability compensation if the Board subsequently determines that the claimant could have performed some work. Conversely, if the treating physician's order not to work is disregarded, a claimant who returns to work not only incurs the risk of further physical injury but also faces the prospect of being denied compensation for that enhanced injury. After the independent medical examination of Gilliard-Belfast by Dr. Sopa, Wendy's insurance carrier had notice that Dr. Sopa agreed the second surgery was necessary but disagreed with the treating physician's no work order. Wendy's has expressed concerns about the length of time that Gilliard-Belfast did not work prior to the second surgery. Those concerns would have been ameliorated if Wendy's insurance carrier had either expedited its authorization for the second surgery or requested Gilliard-Belfast's treating physician to reconsider his no work order. The Board's decision to deny Gilliard-Belfast compensation for total disability while she waited for a second operation is contrary to well-established Delaware law. Dr. DuShuttle was Gilliard-Belfast's treating physician. On June 10, 1998, Dr. DuShuttle wrote that Gilliard-Belfast should not work at all until the second surgery had been performed. Thirty years ago, the Superior Court held that [e]ven assuming that claimant could, if absolutely necessary, physically maintain a job of some sort, he nevertheless remains disabled from the viewpoint of workmen's compensation so long as his treating physician insists that he remain unemployed.... [4] We agree. We hold that a person who can only resume some form of employment by disobeying the orders of his or her treating physician is totally disabled, at least temporarily, regardless of his or her capabilities. [5]