On August 5, 2024, Claimant filed an initial Petition seeking disability benefits and medical expenses from an alleged February 19, 2024, lumbar spine injury due to mixing mortar and concrete. The employer disputed the alleged accident and injury in full.

The Board found the claimant failed to meet his burden of proof to support any work-related lumbar spine injury related to his work duties. Claimant’s testimony at Hearing was not found credible. He never timely reported an injury to his Employer. There were inconsistencies in his testimony. He did not seek treatment until March 21, 2024, which was both a month after the alleged injury and six days after he was fired for insubordination.

The testimony of Employer’s expert, Dr. Rushton, was more credible than Claimant’s expert, Dr. Eskander. When the claimant finally sought treatment about 1 month after the alleged injury, he denied any specific injury and admitted to one year of similar symptoms. His complaints dated back to at least 2023. There was no mention of any work event. The emergency room diagnosis of “low back pain and spondylolisthesis,” was consistent with what would be expected in a laborer in his 60s according to the defense expert. Even Claimant’s treating physician testified that the diagnosis was largely degenerative, and he mistakenly believed the claimant was asymptomatic prior to the alleged injury.

Should you have any questions regarding this Decision, please contact John Ellis or any attorney in our Workers’ Compensation Department.

Prince Parker v. The Borsello Companies, Inc., IAB Hearing #1547071 (March 31, 2025).

EMPLOYMENT LAW UPDATE

Delaware Superior Court Affirms Unemployment Board’s Decision in Termination Turned Voluntary Quit Case

Claimant filed for unemployment benefits after alleging that she was terminated without just cause from her employment as a pharmacy technician.

A Department of Labor Claims Deputy qualified Claimant for receipt of benefits with a finding that Claimant was terminated without just cause.

Employer appealed the benefits determination and a hearing was held on May 13, 2024. Claimant did not attend the hearing.  At the hearing it was revealed that Claimant had “‘stormed off’” from her post and subsequently failed to appear for the next three shifts. As a result of those facts, the Appeals Referee concluded that Claimant was not terminated but voluntarily quit her job. Additionally, the Appeals Referee did not find any “evidence of a substantial change in working conditions or any unsafe condition that . . . [Claimant] attempted to address through available remedies before quitting.”

The Appeals Referee’s decision contained a June 1, 2024 appeal deadline by which any party, if dissatisfied, could appeal to the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board.

On June 6, 2024, Claimant filed a Board appeal citing, among other things, that she was not aware of the May 13, 2024 hearing. The Board found Claimant’s appeal was untimely and affirmed the Appeals Referee’s decision. Moreover, the Board did not find any circumstances that would allow Claimant’s appeal to proceed (e.g. administrative error by the Department of Labor, interests of justice).

As a result of the Board’s denial, Claimant filed a timely appeal to the Delaware Superior Court. The Court issued a briefing schedule and Claimant filed a one-page opening brief. Employer filed a response. Claimant failed to file a reply brief by an October 22, 2024 deadline.

Due to Claimant’s failure to file a reply brief, the Court put Claimant on notice of the delinquency of her filing and as Claimant’s filing remained delinquent through December 2024. On or about January 8, 2025, the Court reviewed the case based on the submissions filed.

The Superior Court reviewed the Board’s decision on two bases: (1) whether the Board’s findings and conclusions are supported by substantial evidence and (2) whether the Board’s findings or conclusions are free from legal error.

The Superior Court affirmed the Board’s decision as it was supported by substantial evidence and free from legal error.  The Court found that “it is undisputed that . . . [Claimant] walked off the job.”  There was also no evidence that there was any conduct chargeable to the Employer that led to Claimants “abruptly leaving mid-shift.” Ultimately, the Court suggested that “even if the Board had considered the merits [of the case], it likely would have affirmed the Referee’s Decision.”

If you have any questions concerning this case or any Delaware Unemployment Insurance matter, please contact an attorney in our liability department.

Naya-Monet Sembe v. Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board C.A. No. N24A-07-003 KMV (Del. Super. April 8, 2025)

LITIGATION LAW UPDATE

Do You Need Legal Representation? The Court’s Analysis of Supreme Court Rule 57

The Superior Court reviews Supreme Court Rule 57 regarding “artificial entity” representation. Rule 57 mandates that artificial entities must be represented by counsel. However, Rule 57(b) allows an officer or employee to represent a company in small claim cases to alleviate high costs of representation for small businesses in small claims.

In this case, homeowner filed suit against contractor in JP Court, alleging incomplete and substandard work on a remodel. The contractor, Moises Maldonado d/b/a Maldonado’s Makeovers, defended asserting he was prevented from finishing the job. Mr. Maldonado filled out a Form 50 in JP Court, allowing him to represent his business at that level.

JP Court ruled for contractor, finding “impossibility of performance,” and homeowner appealed to the Court of Common Pleas. At the pretrial conference, CCP advised contractor he could not represent his business. Mr. Maldonado did not obtain counsel, and a default judgement was entered.

On Appeal, the Superior Court reviewed the record and determined there was no discussion in CCP as to Maldonado’s Makeovers’ alternative entity status – the court “seemingly assuming the Business was an artificial entity.”  The Superior Court discussed Rule 57 and subsequent case law. While the Court agreed an artificial entity must be represented by counsel, while a sole proprietorship may be represented by its owner (noting there is no legal separation between a sole proprietorship and its owner), the Court ruled that the record below was insufficient of any discussion as to contractor’s entity status. The case was remanded for further factfinding.

Moises Maldonado’s Makeovers v. Sandra Jones, C.A. no. N23A-11-048 KMV, April 8, 2025