Claimant filed a Petition alleging a cumulative detrimental effect injury to her bilateral knees resulting from her work as a Stower at an Amazon warehouse. After Hearing, the Board issued a Decision, denying the Petition, and accepting the opinion of defense expert Dr. Gelman over claimant’s treating physician Dr. Palma.

Both experts agreed claimant had pre-existing conditions in her knees including patella alta (high riding kneecap), genu varum (bowleggedness), that create altered mechanics and abnormal forces on the knees. These conditions are physiologic and developmental, and likely contributors or causes of claimant’s knee complaints. Both experts agreed with the diagnosis of chondromalacia patella. Symptoms associated with chondromalacia patella can come and go with time, and be aggravated by walking for exercise or claimant’s biomechanical issues. Claimant had treatment for the bilateral knees in 2023 including physical therapy. Her complaints then were very similar to the complaints in August 2024. Dr. Gelman felt the treatment in August 2024 was likely for the same condition that existed in 2023 as opposed to something new.

The Board shared concerns expressed by Dr. Gelman about the credibility of Claimant’s medical history and exaggerations in the type and extent of work activities she was engaged in during the weeks and months leading up to 8/22/24. Dr. Palma conceded he relied on claimant’s history in forming his causation opinion.

Claimant denied a history of prior knee problems in her intake paperwork with Dr. Palma in the fall of 2024 and did not reveal the history of severe bilateral knee pain and treatment in 2023 when she saw him in November 2024. Dr. Palma became aware of this history on the date of his deposition. Dr. Palma said the prior records would not change his causation opinion if claimant became pain free after the 2023 treatment. The last known medical record from the 2023 treatment was a physical therapy note dated 1/5/24 that showed 6/10 bilateral knee pain. The Board was therefore not persuaded her 2023 knee pain resolved, commenting “improvement is not the same as resolution.” The Board did not find it believable that claimant somehow forgot the severe bilateral knee pain in 2023, the time she was out of work and treated for same, by the time she saw Dr. Palma in the fall of 2024.

The Board agreed with Dr. Gelman that claimant exaggerated her work hours and activities in the timeframe immediately prior to the alleged 8/22/24 date of manifestation. Payroll records documented she worked substantially less hours than she claimed, including 5.5 hours the week before the alleged date of manifestation, and 17.07 hours the week before that, and less than full time many weeks prior. Claimant testified she spent half her day squatting and the other half climbing stepladders, but an employer representative testified the job requires 11-25% squatting and 1-10% climbing. The job is mostly walking. Lifting requirements are fairly light. Amazon updates their job descriptions yearly to make sure these averages are accurate. The Board did not dispute that there were physical demands with the job, but felt claimant overstated same.

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

Desardouin v. Amazon.com, IAB Hrg. No. 1550750 (July 11, 2025).

EMPLOYMENT LAW UPDATE

Voluntary Resignation Without Cause Attributable to Employer Disqualifies Claimant from Receipt of Benefits

Claimant worked for Employer At Home InfuCare, LLC “as a live-in caretaker for a single client.” Although Claimant’s position was funded by Medicaid funds, At Home InfuCare, LLC was Claimant’s employer of record.

Claimant contended that her care client was an alcoholic and had become physically abusive. Moreover, Claimant alleged “that others living in the home used cocaine and engaged in illegal activities.”

Employer proffered evidence that it offered assistance to Claimant by making available other training such that she could be placed with a new client. The new position would have also come with a pay increase.

Claimant declined Employer’s offer to be placed elsewhere, resigned, and filed a Delaware Unemployment Insurance claim.

The Claims Deputy rendered a determination that Claimant “resigned without first exhausting her administrative remedies with the Employer.”

Claimant appealed and a lower authority appeal hearing commenced and during the hearing Claimant testified that she began substance abuse treatment immediately after her resignation, which included a two-month hospital stay. The Appeals Referee affirmed the Claims Deputy’s decision on the basis that Claimant resigned for personal health reasons and that she did not exhaust her remedies with the Employer.

Claimant appealed to the Board and the Board affirmed the Appeals Referee’s decision for the same reasons and noted that “the issues that arose in the home were not within the Employer’s control.”

Claimant then appealed to the Delaware Superior Court and argued that the Employer “did not properly intervene when she suffered abuse at the hands of her client, and she had exhausted all reasonable alternatives before leaving the [. . .] [Employer].”

The Superior Court reviewed the Board’s decision only to the extent that the decision was based on substantial evidence and free of legal error.  The Superior Court noted that “The Delaware Supreme Court has elaborated on what provides an employee good cause to leave—namely, reasons that are within the employer’s control that would compel any reasonably prudent employee to leave, [and] [t]he employee must also exhaust all reasonable alternatives before resigning.” The Superior Court underscores further that “an unpleasant work environment does not alone constitute good cause to resign.”

The Superior Court affirmed the Board’s decision because Claimant does not make any contention that the Board committed a legal error and because “the record contains evidence sufficient for a reasonable mind to conclude that [. . .] [Claimant] voluntarily resigned from her employment without good cause.”

If you have any questions concerning this case or whether an employee resignation can be attributable to an employer, please contact an attorney in our liability department.

Kathy Ann Barry v. Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board and At Home InfuCare, LLC; C.A. No.: K25A-01-001 JJC (Del. Super. August 14, 2025)

LITIGATION LAW UPDATE

When a “Social Call” Leads to a Fall: An Analysis of Delaware’s Guest Premises Statutes

Plaintiff, Ms. Arthur, filed suit against homeowner, Ms. Cummings, for injuries sustained when she tripped and fell over a tree root in the yard while visiting Ms. Cummings. In this motion for summary judgment, the Court analyzed Delaware’s Guest Premises Statute, which states that a guest without payment or a trespasser on the premises of private residence must show that an accident “was intentional on the part of the owner or occupier or was caused by the [willful] or wanton disregard of the rights of others.” In other words, a social guest at a private home must prove more than simple negligence in a personal injury case.

However, in this case, Ms. Arthur contended that she was on Ms. Cummings property as a business invitee, such that she only needed to prove simple negligence. In support of her claim, Ms. Arthur pleaded that she had written a book, which Ms. Cummings had previously purchased, and that she had offered to visit Ms. Cummings to answer any questions she had about the book.

While the benefit paid to the landowner need not be monetary, a de minimis benefit is not enough to shift a “social guest” into a “business invitee.” The Court weighed the evidence presented, which included deposition testimony from Ms. Arthur stating: “I told her if she had questions I would come back and talk with her. You know, I was lonely; she was lonely. And so I thought it would be a nice way to get to now her, you know.” The Court compared this exchange to other Delaware case law involving situations like a guest bringing food or drink to a party, and concluded that such benefit would be de minimis and thus insufficient to make Ms. Arthur a business invitee at Ms. Cummings home. Defendant’s motion for summary judgment was, therefore, granted.

Lottie Arthur v. Barbara A. Cummings, C.A. No. K24C-02-022 JJC, August 14, 2025