Court Opinion

ID: 4422297
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2019-08-01 21:02:47.693188+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:52:57.449771
License: Public Domain

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF EMPLOYER OF DELAWARE

HOWARD L. HARRIS,                            )
                                             )
              Appellant/Claimant-Below,      )
                                             )
      v.                                     ) C.A. No. N19A-03-004 ALR
                                             )
STATE OF DELAWARE,                           )
                                             )
              Appellee/Employer-Below.       )

                              Submitted: July 23, 2019
                              Decided: August 1, 2019

                 Upon Appeal from the Industrial Accident Board
                                 AFFIRMED

                                       ORDER

      This is an appeal from a decision of the Industrial Accident Board (“IAB”)

denying a petition to determine compensation due on the grounds that the claimant

failed to prove that his injuries were the result of a work-related accident. Upon

consideration of the facts, arguments, and legal authorities set forth by the parties;

statutory and decisional law; and the entire record in this case, the Court hereby finds

as follows:

      1.      Claimant-Appellant, Howard L. Harris (“Claimant”) is employed by

the State of Delaware (“Employer”) at the Port of Wilmington.

      2.      Claimant sought workers’ compensation benefits for injuries he

sustained on February 23, 2018.
      3.     Claimant originally reported that Claimant was injured when he was

assaulted by co-workers at the end of the workday on February 23, 2018. Later,

Claimant reported that Claimant was injured during the workday on February 23,

2018 when the forklift Claimant was operating was picked up into the air by a crane

and then dropped several feet to the ground.

      4.     Employer disputes that the alleged crane accident occurred. In the

alternative, Employer maintains that if Claimant was injured, then he was injured in

an altercation with co-workers and not in a work-related accident.

      5.     The IAB conducted a hearing on November 14, 2018. Employer

presented four employees as witnesses, each of whom testified no crane accident

took place on February 23, 2018. Claimant testified on his own behalf, explaining

that he simply forgot to mention the crane accident until two months after the

incident. Claimant presented the testimony of his treating physician who testified

that Claimant’s injuries could have been caused by either the alleged crane accident

or by an altercation. Employer’s medical expert testified that there was no objective

evidence that Claimant sustained any injury consistent with being dropped several

feet by a crane while seated in a forklift.

      6.     By Order dated February 26, 2019, the IAB denied Claimant’s Petition

(“IAB Decision”). Based on credibility findings, the IAB ruled that there was

insufficient evidence to establish that the alleged crane accident actually occurred.

                                              2
      7.    Claimant appeals from the IAB Decision denying Claimant’s Petition.

Employer opposes Claimant’s appeal.

      8.    In considering an appeal from an IAB decision, this Court’s role is

limited to determining whether the IAB’s conclusions are supported by substantial

evidence and are free from legal error.1 Substantial evidence is “such relevant

evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.”2

This Court reviews the IAB’s legal determinations de novo.3 Absent errors of law,

however, the standard of appellate review of the IAB’s decision is abuse of

discretion.4 This Court “does not sit as a trier of fact with authority to weigh the

evidence, determine questions of credibility, and make its own factual findings and

conclusions.”5 The Court must give deference to “the experience and specialized

competence of the [IAB] and must take into account the purposes of the Worker’s

Compensation Act.”6

1
  Glanden v. Land Prep, Inc., 918 A.2d 1098, 1100 (Del. 2007); Johnson v. Chrysler
Corp., 213 A.2d 64, 66 (Del. 1965).
2
  Roos Foods v. Guardado, 2016 WL 6958703, at *3 (Del. Nov. 29, 2016); Olney v.
Cooch, 42 A.2d 610, 614 (Del. 1981).
3
  Guardado, 2016 WL 6958703, at *3; Munyan v. Daimler Chrysler Corp., 909 A.2d
133, 136 (Del. 2006).
4
  Glanden, 918 A.2d at 1101 (citing Digiacomo v. Bd. of Pub. Educ., 507 A.2d 542,
546 (Del. 1986)).
5
  Christiana Care Health Servs. v. Davis, 127 A.2d 391, 394 (Del. 2015); Johnson,
213 A.2d at 66.
6
  Histed v. E.I. Du Pont de Nemours & Co., 621 A.2d 340, 342 (Del. 1993).

                                         3
      9.     The record evidence supports the IAB’s findings.7 The IAB made

permissible credibility determinations in order to reconcile competing medical

theories of causation and inconsistencies in the record.8 It is not the duty of this

Court to weigh the evidence or make credibility determinations in the context of an

administrative appeal.9 Rather, “[t]he function of reconciling inconsistent testimony

or determining credibility is exclusively reserved for the [IAB].”10

      10.    This Court is satisfied that there is sufficient record evidence to support

the IAB’s factual conclusions and that the IAB Decision is free from legal error.

Moreover, the IAB did not abuse its discretion.

      NOW, THEREFORE, this 1st day of August, 2019, the February 26, 2019

Industrial Accident Board Decision denying Claimant’s Petition to Determine

Compensation Due is hereby AFFIRMED.

      IT IS SO ORDERED.
                                                                                                                                  Andrea L. Rocanelli
                                               ________ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ___ ________ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ____

                                               The Honorable Andrea L. Rocanelli
cc:   Howard L. Harris, Appellant

7
  Davis v. Mark IV Transp., 2011 WL 6392950, at *3 (Del. Dec. 19, 2011) (“[T]he
sole function of the Superior Court…is to determine whether or not there was
substantial competent evidence to support the finding of the [IAB], and, if it finds
such in the record, to affirm the findings of the [IAB].”).
8
  See Whitney v. Bearing Const., Inc., 2014 WL 2526484, at *2 (Del. May 30, 2014);
Steppi v. Conti Elec., Inc., 2010 WL 718012, at *3 (Del. Mar. 2, 2010).
9
  Christiana Care Health Servs., 127 A.2d at 394; Johnson, 213 A.2d at 66.
10
   Simmons v. Delaware State Hosp., 660 A.2d 384, 388 (Del. 1995) (citing Breeding
v. Contractors—One—Inc., 549 A.2d 1102, 1106 (Del. 1988)); Martin v. State, 2015
WL 1548877, at *3 (Del. Super. Mar. 27, 2015).

                                           4