Opinion ID: 1914790
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Did Chubb Suffer a Recurrence of Total Disability?

Text: Chubb filed a Petition to Determine Additional Compensation Due pursuant to 19 Del. C. § 2347. [8] Under that section, if an employee's incapacity to work (total disability) has recurred, the Board may amend a previous compensation award or agreement. [9] The issue here is whether the Board erred by holding that Chubb failed to establish a recurrence of total disability after May 11, 2004  the end date of the agreed upon period of total disability. On appeal, we must analyze two separate issues: (1) what constitutes a recurrence of total disability under section 2347; and (2) whether Chubb's impairment is a return of total disability. Chubb had the burden of proving that he suffered a recurrence after he voluntarily terminated his total disability benefits. [10] We have defined recurrence as the return of an impairment without the intervention of a new or independent accident. [11] Focusing on the word return, the Board held that when an employee's impairment remains unchanged, there can be no returnand therefore no recurrence  of total disability. The Board agreed with both Dr. DuShuttle's and Dr. Case's opinions that Chubb's permanency rating increased from 15% to 20% and his work restrictions remained unchanged. Those doctors described a permanency rating as a measurement of a person's disability because of their pain level and mobility of that extremity. Dr. Case further opined that the patient's movement could be better or worse depending on the day. Neither doctor opined that Chubb's restrictions should have been altered because of the increased permanency rating. Work restrictions that continue to impair an individual in the same manner do not support a finding that that individual had a recurrence of total disability. If a condition has not changed for the worse, then a no recurrence has occurred. [12] Furthermore, a slight change in impairment will not support a finding of recurrence in total disability. [13] Because a slight change in impairment does not support a finding of recurrence, neither does a continuation of impairment. The Board had substantial evidence supporting a finding that a percentage increase in a permanency rating is not a return in the impairment, because an increase in this rating alone did not affect Chubb's ability to work. Rather, the rating quantifies the patient's mobility and discomfort. The Board correctly held that the work restrictions were the proper measure to determine the amount of Chubb's disability. Therefore, the Board had substantial evidence supporting a conclusion that Chubb had not shown a return of total disability.