Claimant filed a Petition alleging injuries from a motor vehicle accident occurred while “working for Amazon.” Amazon asserted that Claimant was never an employee of the company and sought dismissal of the Petition. At the hearing, Claimant testified that he was delivering Amazon packages at the time of the accident. However, he was not driving an Amazon vehicle and was not hired or paid by Amazon. He was hired by a separate trucking company that contracted to transport products through a program called Amazon Relay.

The Board denied Claimant’s Petition, finding Claimant was not an Amazon employee. Claimant was never hired nor paid wages by Amazon. Amazon did not have the “power to control” the Claimant because he received his route assignment through the trucking company. Claimant rented the truck he drove and used credentials provided by the trucking company to log into the Amazon Relay app. Further, a contract demonstrated that all drivers were considered employees of trucking companies and to be covered under their worker’s compensation policies.

Mwangi v. Amazon.com, IAB Hrg. No. 1516558 (July 8, 2022).

LITIGATION LAW UPDATE

Watch Where You’re Going When Running on Dunkin – Parking Lot Design Expert Excluded

Delaware Superior Court excluded the testimony of the defendant/third-party plaintiff’s expert witness, finding that the expert did not arrive at his opinions in a systematic way or in a sound and methodologically reliable manner. The case arises out of a motor vehicle accident in a Dunkin Donuts parking lot. Defendant Poutre filed a third-party complaint alleging that the design of the parking lot contributed to the accident and retained an engineering expert regarding the parking lot design in support of the same.

Although the Court agreed that the expert was qualified to testify as an engineering expert, his opinions, deposition testimony and the documents upon which he relied were generalized in nature and did not point to any methods or particular facts he considered in arriving at his conclusions. The Court also found that the expert’s testimony regarding shopping centers and large traffic generators, rather than smaller fast-food restaurants, would confuse and mislead the jury.

The third-party defendant’s Motion in Limine was granted and the expert’s opinions were excluded.

Yvette De. Grinnell and William Grinnell v. David Alan Poutre v. Dough Management LLC and Dunkin Donuts, LLC, C.A. No. N19C-09-202 CLS (June 1, 2022)

EMPLOYMENT LAW

Plaintiff’s Appeal Denied as Untimely

Plaintiff worked as a casual/seasonal worker from 2015 until she was terminated on October 3, 2021. He worked on an as-needed basis and was not guaranteed hours. After he was terminated, he filed for unemployment benefits.  Plaintiff presented his case to an Appeal Referee on November 4, 2021. The Referee determined that the Plaintiff was not entitled to unemployment benefits. The Plaintiff had 10 days to appeal the Referee’s decision. However, the Plaintiff filed her appeal on November 16, 2021. The Plaintiff emailed the appeal but was experiencing Wi-Fi connection issues. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board determined that the appeal was untimely. Therefore, the Board did not take the appeal. The Plaintiff requested a rehearing, which the Board denied.

On March 23, 2022, the Plaintiff filed an appeal with the Superior Court.   On appeal, the Superior Court “must determine whether the findings and conclusions of the Board are free from legal error” and whether they are “supported by substantial evidence in the record.” Substantial evidence is “such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” Absent an abuse of discretion by the Board, the Superior Court will uphold the Board’s determination.

Pursuant to 19 Del. C. §3318(c), a Board’s decision is “deemed to be final unless within 10 days after the date of notification or mailing of such decision further appeal is initiated.”  In this case, the Plaintiff had until November 14, 2021, to file his appeal and he filed it on November 16, 2021. The Board found that there was no evidence of Departmental error that prevented the Plaintiff from filing a timely appeal, but instead that the appeal was filed untimely because of Wi-Fi issues.

Therefore, the Court affirmed the Board’s decision and found that the Plaintiff failed to establish that the Board abused its discretion in denying the appeal.

Should you have any questions regarding this decision, or any liability law questions, please contact any attorney in our Liability Law Department.

Faucett v. Unempl. Ins. App. Bd., 2022 WL 3025661, at *1 (Del. Super. Aug. 1, 2022)