Court Opinion

ID: 9780993
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-30 15:07:33.086974+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:09:52.633375
License: Public Domain

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

KAREN SHAFFER,                         )
                                       )
                                       )
           Employee-Appellant,         )
                                       )
      v.                               )    C.A. No: S23A-03-003 MHC
                                       )
ALLEN HARIM FOODS LLC,                 )
                                       )
                                       )
                                       )
                                       )
            Employer-Appellee.         )

                                    ORDER

                            Submitted: June 5, 2023
                           Decided: August 29, 2023

Upon Consideration of an Appeal of the Decision of the Industrial Accident Board,
                                AFFIRMED.

Stephen T. Morrow, Esquire, Rhoades & Morrow, LLC, Wilmington, Delaware,
Attorney for Employee-Appellant.

H. Garrett Baker, Esquire, Elzufon, Austin & Mondell, Wilmington, Delaware,
Attorney for Employer-Appellee.

CONNER, J.
       For the reasons below, the Court AFFIRMS the decision of the Industrial

Accident Board (“IAB”) in favor of Allen Harim Foods, LLC (“Employer”):

    1. On September 3, 2018, Karen Shaffer, (“Claimant” and/or “Appellant”)

       suffered injuries to her left thumb and both wrists while working for

       Employer. Following the injury, Claimant was receiving total disability

       benefits. Claimant underwent four surgeries, one each year from 2019

       through 2022.1

    2. Employer filed a Petition for Review on May 19, 2022 alleging that

       Claimant was released to work by her treating physician, is physically

       capable of working with some restrictions and does not have any partial

       disability.

    3. The IAB conducted a hearing on February 1, 2023. On February 9, 2023, the

       IAB issued its decision granting Employer’s Petition for Review to

       terminate Claimaint’s total disability benefits.

    4. Claimant appeals the IAB’s granting of Employer’s Petition for Review

       arguing that she remains totally disabled because she is a prima facie

       displaced worker and that Employer cannot meet its burden of proof.

1
  The first surgery was performed by Dr. Richard DuShuttle on March 28, 2019. The second,
third, and fourth surgeries were performed by Dr. Matthew Eichenbaum on August 14, 2020,
June 1, 2021, and January 14, 2022.
                                              1
    5. Pursuant to 29 Del. C. § 10142(a), this Court possesses jurisdiction over

       appeals from administrative agencies including the IAB. The Court reviews

       the IAB’s decision to ensure the decision is supported by substantial

       evidence and free from legal error.2 “Substantial evidence is ‘such relevant

       evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a

       conclusion.’”3 Substantial evidence is more than a scintilla but less than a

       preponderance of the evidence.4 The credibility of the witnesses, the weight

       of the witnesses’ testimony and the reasonable inferences drawn from that

       testimony are to be determined by the IAB.5 Deference must be given to the

       specialized competency and experience of the IAB.6 If the Court finds the

       IAB has made no errors of law, the Court reviews for abuse of discretion.7

       The IAB abuses its discretion when the decision exceeds the bounds of

       reason in light of the matter’s circumstances.8

    6. The IAB heard testimony from two medical doctors. Dr. Andrew Gelman

       testified on behalf of Employer. Dr. Gelman examined Claimant four times

       between September 2019 and April 2022. Dr. Gelman opined that Claimant

       was physically capable of working full-time with no restrictions to her right

2
  Washington v. Delaware Transit Corp., 226 A.3d 202, 210 (Del. 2020).
3
  Id. (internal citations omitted).
4
  Id.
5
  Clements v. Diamond State Port Corp., 831 A.2d 870, 878 (Del. 2003).
6
  Padgett v. R&F Metals, Inc., 2021 WL 2742593, at *1 (Del. Super. June 30, 2021).
7
  Id.
8
  Id.
                                              2
   hand and no repetitive, forceful pushing or pulling with her left hand. Dr.

   Elliot Leitman testified on behalf of Claimant. Dr. Leitman opined Claimant

   is physically capable of working in a full-time medium-duty capacity. Also

   considered by the IAB was Claimaint’s history with Dr. Eichenbaum, who

   cleared her for work as of March 7, 2022.

7. The IAB also heard testimony from Dr. Neil Kaye, a board-certified

   psychiatrist, on behalf of Employer. Dr. Kaye evaluated Claimant and

   reviewed her medical records in conjunction with the evaluation. Dr. Kaye

   testified that Claimaint’s mental health and emotional problems are

   unrelated to the injuries she suffered and were not exacerbated by the

   injuries she suffered. Furthermore, Dr. Kaye opined that Claimant is capable

   of working full-time with no restrictions regarding her mental health and

   emotional problems.

8. Dr. Barbra Riley, a senior vocational case manager, also testified on behalf

   of Employer. Dr. Riley prepared a labor market survey focused on Claimant.

   The labor market survey was representative of some of the jobs available in

   the labor market that are deemed appropriate for Claimant. Important to note

   is that this was not an exhaustive list. Although Claimant had worked for

   Employer in a production job setting, Claimant had previously held

   customer service jobs and had transferable skills based upon those previous

                                     3
   jobs and education. Dr. Riley found Claimant’s transferable skills to include

   critical   thinking,   communication,    self-control,     listening,   working

   independently and working with others. The jobs depicted on the labor

   market survey were appropriate for the medium-duty restrictions Dr.

   Leitman proposed, as the jobs were sedentary to light duty. Additionally,

   reasonable accommodations, like a one-handed keyboard, could be provided.

   All of the 24 jobs listed on the labor market survey are within Claimant’s

   education, experience, abilities, and locale. The jobs are considered entry-

   level, meaning no transferable skills would actually be necessary and on-the-

   job training would be provided.

9. Claimant testified before the IAB that she has belonged to five unions for 20

   years and is skilled in working with her hands. Claimant also testified that

   she has worked customer services jobs in the past but does not like them

   because of the interactions with people causing her to be pushed to argue

   frequently. Claimant testified she is aware that Dr. Gelman cleared her to

   work in April 2022 and Dr. Leitman cleared her to work in September 2022.

   She last saw Dr. Eichenbaum in March of 2022 and has not sought care from

   any other orthopedic doctors regarding her injuries since that time. Lastly,

   Claimant does not take any medications for her injuries.

                                     4
      10. The IAB decision thoroughly summarizes each of the witnesses’ testimony.

         The IAB concluded that all evaluating physicians determined Claimant is

         physically capable of working in at least a full-time medium-duty capacity

         with some restrictions to her left, non-dominant hand. Claimant even agreed

         that no doctor has opined she is unable to work due to the injuries to her

         upper extremities. Therefore, the IAB accepted the medical opinions of the

         doctors that Claimant has been capable of working since she was released

         from Dr. Eichenbaum’s care on March 7, 2022. The Court must give

         deference to the experience of the IAB and will not disturb the credibility

         and weight given by the IAB to the witnesses’ testimony.

      11. Since the IAB concluded Claimant was not totally physically disabled, the

         burden then shifts to Claimant to prove that she is a prima faice displaced

         worker.9 A worker is considered displaced when “not completely

         incapacitated for work, [but] is so handicapped by a compensable injury that

         [they] will no longer be employed regularly in any well-known branch of the

         competitive labor market and will require a specially-created job if [they are]

         to be steadily employed.”10 Factors to consider when determining if a person

         is a displaced worker include medical records, age, education, background,

         occupational experience, emotional stability, nature of work performable

9
    Roos Foods v. Guardado, 152 A.3d 114, 118-19 (Del. 2016).
10
     Id. at 119.
                                               5
         and availability of such work.11 An employee may be a prima facie

         displaced worker if the level of obvious physical impairment taken in

         conjunction with the factors listed above make a prima facie showing that

         the worker is displaced.12 If the evidence does not show that the employee is

         prima facie displaced, then the employee could be considered “actually”

         displaced by showing they have made “reasonable efforts to secure suitable

         employment which have been unsuccessful because of the injury.”13 When

         making its determinations, the IAB considered Claimant’s education level,

         work experience, transferable skills, and mental health condition. The IAB

         also noted that Claimant has previously secured other employment with her

         education level and mental health disorders, which she was diagnosed with

         in 2016. After thoroughly considering all necessary factors, the IAB

         concluded that Claimant is not a prima facie displaced worker because she

         can be employed in the regular labor market and does not require a

         specifically created job.

     12. Since the IAB determined Claimant was not a prima facie displaced worker,

         Claimant could have attempted to establish that she is an “actually”

11
   Id.
12
   Id.
13
   Id.
                                           6
        displaced worker.14 However, Claimant did not testify about attempting to

        search for a job and therefore, she cannot prove she is a displaced worker.

        Additionally, there are jobs available in the labor market that are suitable for

        Claimant.

     13. The IAB also determined that Claimant was not a partially disabled worker

        due to Dr. Riley’s labor market survey and opinion showing Claimant could

        earn an average of $673.10 a week compared to her previous weekly salary

        of $606.71.15 Since Claimant would not suffer a wage loss, the IAB

        determined she was not entitled to partial disability benefits.

     14. Claimant makes three arguments. First, the IAB’s decision that she is no

        longer medically disabled is not supported by substantial evidence. Second,

        the IAB’s finding that she is not a prima facie displaced worker is an error of

        law and not supported by substantial evidence. Lastly, the IAB’s decision

        that Employer met its burden of proof in proving available jobs is not based

        on substantial evidence.

     15. Regarding Claimaint’s first argument, it is extremely clear to the Court that

        the IAB’s finding that Claimant to be no longer medically disabled is

        supported not only by substantial evidence but all the evidence. All three

14
   Id.
15
   Gen. Motors Corp. v. Stewart, 2011 WL 4638775, at *6 (Del. Super. Sept. 29, 2011). (“An
employee is considered partially disabled when they suffer ‘a partial loss of wages as a result of
[their] injury.’”).
                                                 7
   doctors that examined and/or worked with Claimant found her to be able to

   physically work full-time in at least a medium-duty capacity. The Court

   finds the IAB’s determination to be supported by substantial evidence.

16. To support Claimant’s second argument, she states Dr. Riley had no

   personal knowledge of her communication skills, listening skills or ability to

   work with others because Dr. Riley never spoke with Claimant before

   preparing the labor market survey. Claimant does not provide any authority

   that requires the vocational case manager to speak with a Claimant before

   conducting the labor market survey. Although Claimant has primarily

   worked jobs in a production capacity, she has been employed in customer

   service-based positions. Again, the IAB decision carefully considered all of

   the relevant factors when determining that Claimant was not a prima facie

   displaced worker, including Dr. Kaye’s assessment of Claimant’s mental

   health. Claimant’s apparent preference for production-type jobs does not

   mean she does not possess other transferable skills. The IAB’s decision that

   Claimant is not a prima facie displaced worker was not an error of law and

   was supported by substantial evidence.

17. In further support of Claimant’s third argument, she offers two theories.

   First, the provided list of available jobs are not optimal for Claimant because

   of her injuries. Second, without knowing Claimant’s communication skills

                                      8
         and with knowing Claimant’s work history, the jobs provided via the labor

         market survey were not appropriate. As cited to by Claimant, the Delaware

         Supreme Court has found that “[j]obs must be realistically ‘within reach’ of

         the disabled person.”16 Again, Claimant was not found to be totally

         medically disabled by any doctor that examined her. Furthermore, the jobs

         listed on the labor market survey were entry-level positions, all providing

         on-the-job training.       Further reasonable accommodations are available

         through the employer, Delaware Department of Labor’s Division of

         Vocational Rehabilitation or other free services. Claimant’s doctors

         described some restrictions for her left hand, but again there are a multitude

         of accommodations, including one-handed keyboards, that are available. The

         jobs listed on the labor market survey are “within reach” of Claimant. Even

         though Dr. Riley did not speak to Claimant about her preference for non-

         customer service-based positions, that does not mean those positions are not

         appropriate for Claimant. The IAB heard Dr. Kaye's testimony and

         determined that Claimant did not possess any mental health diagnosis that

         would prevent her from working. To reiterate, Claimant’s preference to

         work with her hands and testimony that she is quick to argue with people

         does not preclude her from working customer service-based positions. The

16
     Campos v. Daisy Constr. Co., 107 A.3d 570, 576 (Del. 2014).
                                                9
       jobs listed on the labor market survey are appropriate for Claimant.

       Therefore, Employer met its burden of showing the required job availability

       establishing that she is not a displaced worker.

   18. Lastly, the IAB’s decision that she would not suffer a wage loss and thus

       not entitled to partial disability benefits is supported by the record.

   19. Accordingly, the record below reflects the IAB’s decision to grant

       Employer’s Petition for Review was supported by substantial evidence and

       free from legal error. The decision of the IAB is AFFIRMED.

       IT IS SO ORDERED.

                                                /s/ Mark H. Conner
                                                Mark H. Conner, Judge

cc: Prothonotary

                                           10