Claimant filed a Utilization Review Appeal relating to chiropractic treatment. She had previously gone to the Board for permanency, and the Board had concluded claimant’s treatment had plateaued and there was no treatment left that would improve her condition. Despite this, claimant continued to treat periodically with a chiropractor. The Employer sent the treatment to Utilization Review, which found there was no evidence of benefit or gain from the treatment. Claimant appealed this determination.

At the Hearing, claimant’s treating chiropractor, Mary Schuler, testified live. She did bring any records with her and only provided generic responses to questions. The Board denied claimant’s Petition, finding Dr. Schuler’s recordkeeping was inadequate, as it lacked critical information such as pain scores, progress toward goals, and any differences in the subjective and objective portions of the records across a long period of time.

The Board found there was insufficient evidence to prove the treatment provided any significant change or objective functional gain for the claimant. While claimant subsequently had some improved range of motion, the Board could not attribute this to the chiropractic treatment in question, given her own self-reported relief lasted only from one day to one week, and the subsequent range of motion measurement was months after the most recent chiropractic visit. The Board found its conclusions were consistent with the prior ruling on permanent impairment and claimant’s condition having plateaued. Lastly, the Board noted claimant failed to prove the treatment was compensable as palliative care, as she did not prove it provided benefits that were not achievable through the use of medications and home exercise. Therefore, the Petition was denied outright.

Should you have any questions regarding this Decision, please contact Nick Bittner, or any other Attorney in our Workers’ Compensation Department.

Rowland v. State of Delaware, IAB No. 1532970, Jan. 9, 2026

EMPLOYMENT LAW UPDATE

Superior Court Affirms Board Decision Finding Just Cause for Claimant’s Termination Repeated Unsafe Driving

Claimant, a school bus driver, was terminated from his employment on September 26, 2024 after multiple observations of Claimant’s unsafe operation of a school bus.

On November 3, 2024, Claimant filed for Delaware Unemployment Insurance benefits. A Claims Deputy granted Claimant the benefits on the basis that Employer did not have just cause to terminate the Claimant.

Employer appealed and a lower authority telephone hearing was held after which the Appeals Referee affirmed the Claim’s Deputy’s decision. The Appeals Referee’s rationale was that the Employer did not have sufficient evidence that Claimant was “engaged in willful or wanton conduct.”

Employer appealed the lower authority Decision to the Board and a hearing was held on May 28, 2025. Before the Board, counsel for Employer (retained by Employer after the lower authority hearing) facilitated the entry of additional evidence lacking at the lower authority level namely an affidavit of facts from Claimant’s trainer and live testimony from witnesses who observed the Claimant frequently crossing the center line on a roadway.

On June 30, 2025, the Board issued a Decision in favor of the Employer finding that Employer had just cause to terminate Claimant and therefore Claimant was disqualified from receipt of Unemployment Insurance Benefits.

On July 25, 2025, Claimant filed an appeal to the Delaware Superior Court in which he indicated disagreement with the Board’s Decision.

The Court ordered briefing which was concluded on or about November 12, 2025, when Claimant informed the Court that he wanted the case to be decided on opening briefs.

Claimant’s argument on appeal was that the affidavit of facts from Claimant’s trainer incorrectly represented his name and that he has a good driving record and was not otherwise pulled over by aby police while he was driving the bus for Employer. Employer argued that Claimant did not identify what relief he sought from the Court and that the Board’s decision was supported by substantial evidence and free from legal error.

The Court held that the Board’s Decision was proper and that, among other things, the issue identified by the Claimant as to the affidavit of facts was a clerical error that had already been addressed by the Board. As a result the Court affirmed the Board’s Decision to disqualify Claimant from receipt of benefits.

If you have any questions about this case or about defending unemployment claims, please contact an attorney in our liability department.

Eugene Hodges v. Tonys Bus Service, LLC and Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board; S25A-07-003 RHR (Feb. 13, 2026)

LITIGATION LAW UPDATE

Watercraft Accident: Is Plaintiff Passenger an Intended Beneficiary under the Marina’s Policy?

Plaintiff, a watercraft passenger, brought suit against Rehoboth Marina and the boat captain for personal injuries when he allegedly fell from the boat and was struck by the boat’s running propeller. Westport Insurance, which insured the marina, denied coverage for the loss, prompting plaintiff to file this declaratory judgment action.

Westport moved to dismiss, arguing that an injured party lacks standing to bring a direct claim against the tortfeasor’s insurer absent one of three recognized exceptions: i.e., assignment, intended third-party beneficiary status, or subrogation. This case turns on whether plaintiff, as a passenger/business invitee, is an intended third-party beneficiary under the policy. The insurance policy provides that Westport will pay medical expenses for bodily injury caused by an accident “on ‘insured watercraft’” and “regardless of fault.” Plaintiff contends that, as a business invitee aboard the watercraft, he is entitled to medical payments pursuant to this insurance provision, thus evidencing that he is an intended third-party beneficiary.

The Court here found that plaintiff’s complaint sufficiently pled his status as an intended third-party beneficiary under the policy provisions so as to withstand Westport’s motion for dismissal. Instead, further discovery and proceedings would be needed to fully evaluate whether Westport and the marina intended passengers of vessels to have third-party beneficiary status under the policy.

Austin Volpi v. Westport Insurance Corporation, C.A. No. N25C-08-232 FWW, February 18, 2026