On 1/19/24, Claimant sustained a C4 fracture while working for Employer and was placed on total disability. On 8/27/24, Employer filed a Petition to Review seeking to stop total disability. The unrebutted medical testimony at Hearing was claimant could work part time modified duty in accordance with a functional capacity evaluation.

Claimant argued that total disability should not be terminated under a prima facie displaced worker theory, because: (1) he did not have a high school diploma, (2) he is suited only for general labor type work, (3) he has limited English proficiency, (4) and he walks with a cane. The Board rejected each argument and terminated total disability effective the date of filing of the Petition.

At the outset the Board noted that claimant is only 36 years old. This is a benefit to his employability. There was no indication at Hearing that there is any issue with his mental capacity. Indeed, he was able to understand and respond to questions through an interpreter. Although he does not have a high school diploma, he completed the 11^th grade in Puerto Rico. Employer’s vocational rehabilitation specialist was able to identify 16 positions that did not require a high school diploma or equivalent. Of course, the labor market survey did not list all jobs potentially available to claimant, but rather a representative sampling. Claimant also had skills well outside of general labor. His pre-injury position as an apartment maintenance technician included a wide variety of responsibilities such as repairing items in tenant homes, often under time pressure, and without guaranteed access to the most ideal supplies. This required him to troubleshoot, make independent decisions, and adjust quickly between tasks like painting, appliance repair, and mechanical work. There was a customer service component due to inherent frequent interactions with tenants, many of whom did not speak Spanish. The Board was not convinced that claimant’s pre-injury work orders and tasks were all communicated in Spanish as he contended. His job offer, which he signed to accept, was in English. Claimant admitted several office members he interacted with spoke only English. The job description for the pre-injury position required ongoing communication with the office. As for the cane, there was no medical testimony indicating that the cane was a barrier to return to work, or that the need for the cane was causally related to his compensable cervical spine condition. Claimant had a well-known lumbar condition that had not been accepted as work related.

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

Sanchez-Miranda v. Love Communities, LLC, IAB Hrg. No. 1548839 (Nov. 17, 2025).

EMPLOYMENT LAW UPDATE

Need Help? Heckler & Frabizzio is Here to Assist Employers in Managing Delaware Paid Leave Claims

On January 1, 2026, the Delaware Family and Medical Leave Insurance Program began to accept claims.

The Delaware Department of Labor has created a forty-page Guide for Employers & Third Party Administrators that discusses eligibility, coverage, and reporting under the program.

The Guide is a helpful document for Employers to understand their responsibilities during the reporting and claims process.

We invite you to contact any attorney in our liability department for assistance in navigating this new administrative claims process in Delaware.

LITIGATION LAW UPDATE

Delaware’s Relation Back Requirements for Amended Pleadings

On July 1, 2024, plaintiffs sued Nationwide for uninsured motorist coverage following a March 27, 2023 motor vehicle accident involving an unknown driver. After acquiring body-worn camera footage from the investigating police officer, plaintiffs were able to identify Mr. Castagnaro as the other driver. An amended complaint adding Mr. Castagnaro was then filed on April 11, 2025. Mr. Castagnaro filed this motion to dismiss, arguing that the claim was time-barred and did not “related back” to the original filing.

Under Delaware Superior Court Civil Rule 15(c), a claim will “relate back” if 1) the claim arises out of the same conduct, transaction or occurrence as set in the original pleadings; 2) the party was served within the period provided (within 120 days from running of the statute of limitations); and 3) the new defendant received notice of the action and knew or should have known that, but for the mistaken identity, suit would have been brought against him.

Here, the suit arose out of the same accident, and Mr. Castagnaro was served on May 28, 2025, within 120 days from March 27, 2025. Regarding the third element, the Court reviewed both the mistake and the knowledge piece. Here, plaintiffs had searched extensively for Mr. Castagnaro’s identity and thus established an intent to sue him but for the mistaken identity. The Court also found that Mr. Castagnaro knew or should have known within the “period allowed” that plaintiffs intended to sue him and that he would have been named as a party but for the mistaken identity. Of note, the Court confirmed that the relevant time deadline for the new party to know of the claim is the period provided for service. Here Mr. Castagnaro knew of plaintiffs’ intention to sue him on or about April 17, 2025 when he received a service copy of the amended complaint from counsel. Thus, the third element (i.e. Mr. Castagnaro’s timely knowledge of plaintiff’s intent to sue but for the mistake) was satisfied.

Mr. Castagnaro’s Motion to Dismiss was denied.

Kelz v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company and Castagnaro, C.A. No. N24C-07-001 KMM, January 14, 2026