Claimant filed a Petition to Determine Compensation Due, seeking acknowledgment of an accident with injuries to the neck and right shoulder, total disability, and medical expenses, including a rotator cuff surgery, shoulder replacement surgery, and possible neck surgery. The Employer did not dispute the accident, but maintained any injury was limited to a neck strain which had resolved within a week or so after the accident when claimant told her doctor she was back to her preexisting baseline of 4/10 neck pain; she also did not have any symptoms in any upper extremity at that point.

At the Hearing, claimant testified that she actually lied to her doctor about having any preexisting baseline of pain. She claimed she only did so because she did not like being on sedentary-duty restrictions and wanted to go back to full-duty work. When pressed, claimant insisted she was honest with every other doctor. She also disputed when her shoulder problems first emerged and the lack of documentation as to same for months of medical records. In addition, when confronted with the records showing a permanent total disability restriction a few years before the new accident (which her doctor testified was never rescinded), claimant testified she had subsequently been released, despite having no documentation as to same.

The Board found claimant was not credible and rejected her testimony, finding she did have preexisting neck pain. The Board allowed a few weeks of treatment, including a return to her prior surgeon, but then the injury resolved. The Board also denied the shoulder, noting there was no evidence of shoulder complaints for months, even when the extremities were specifically examined. Lastly, the Board found no evidence that claimant was ever totally disabled. As a result, claimant’s Petition was only granted as to a resolved neck injury with less than a month of treatment.

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

Tessari v. PAM Rehabilitation, IAB No. 1557855, Jun. 18, 2026

EMPLOYMENT LAW UPDATE

Superior Court Affirms Unemployment Board’s Decision Upholding Just Cause Termination

The Delaware Superior Court affirmed the Delaware Unemployment Appeal Board’s decision finding that employer Wells Fargo had just cause to terminate Claimant for unprofessional behavior.

Claimant was a branch manager for Wells Fargo and during the course of her employment, certain concerns arose about Claimant’s leadership style and abilities. Wells Fargo received complaints about the Claimant and on August 1, 2024, Claimant received corrective action. After the corrective action was issued, Employer received an additional complaint and Claimant was placed on leave for Employer to complete an investigation.

As a result of the investigation, Claimant was terminated on or about September 26, 2024. Claimant applied for unemployment insurance benefits and was denied at the determination level. Claimant appealed and a lower authority hearing was held before an Appeals Referee. Claimant prevailed at that level. Employer appealed the Appeals Referee’s decision.

At the Board hearing, the Employer presented witness testimony from Wells Fargo employees who had negative interactions with Claimant (later described by the Court as “aggressive managerial tactics”) and Employer argued that Claimant failed to meet company standards. As a result of the Board hearing, the Board reversed the Appeals Referee’s decision and found that the Employer had just cause to terminate Claimant. As a result of the Board decision, Claimant was disqualified from receipt of unemployment insurance benefits.

Claimant appealed the Board’s decision to the Superior Court and the case was partially briefed prior to the commencement of oral argument.

Claimant argued that the Board relied on hearsay testimony, and the Court clarified that the Board’s “decision relied heavily on first-hand witness testimony and was based, in part, on the direct testimony by employees who worked under [Claimant].”

The Court held otherwise that the Board’s decision was free from legal error and supported by substantial evidence, and furthermore that the Court does not have the ability to weigh the credibility of the evidence in the record, as it is the Board’s power to do so.

If you have any questions concerning just cause terminations in the context of a Delaware unemployment insurance claim, please contact an attorney in our liability department.

Davonne Briddell v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. and Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board; C.A. No. N25C-05-007 DJB (June 24, 2026).

LITIGATION LAW UPDATE

On Campus Fight Results in Suit Against National Fraternity: Court Find Sufficient Nexus to Exercise Personal Jurisdiction Over Defendant

Plaintiff filed suit against Sigma Alpha Epsilon Fraternity (“ΣΑΕ”), the Delaware Alpha Chapter of ΣΑΕ, and several individual members, following an alleged altercation within and on the grounds of the fraternity house. Plaintiff alleged assault and battery against the individuals, in addition to vicarious and custodial liability against ΣΑΕ and the Delaware Alpha Chapter. ΣΑΕ moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and failure to assert facts supporting the claims.

Regarding personal jurisdiction, ΣΑΕ claims it does not have continuous and systemic contacts with Delaware for general personal jurisdiction, nor does it have sufficient minimum contacts with Delaware to support specific personal jurisdiction. General jurisdiction requires “greater contacts with the forum state” but allows jurisdiction over a nonresident “on the basis of wholly unrelated contacts with the forum” whereas specific jurisdiction “requires a link between the cause of action and the defendant’s conduct.” In reviewing prior Delaware case law involving local chapters of national fraternities, the Court reasoned that “since International Shoe, minimum contacts have been found where a defendant maintained a single isolated contact with a state.” Thus, a single isolated contact may provide a sufficient nexus to the conduct to establish in personam jurisdiction.

Here, ΣΑΕ received ongoing fraternity dues and multiple fees from the Delaware Alpha Chapter, thus benefitting from its affiliation with Delaware Alpha. This continuous and beneficial relationship was deemed sufficient to find ΣΑΕ subject to personal jurisdiction of the Delaware Courts.

As to vicarious and custodial liability, the Court reasoned that plaintiff sufficiently pled his case to overcome a request for dismissal; further factual development is warranted prior to the Court assessing the adequacy of plaintiff’s proof.

Castaña-Vera v. Kaplan, et al., C.A. No. K25C-09-256 SPL, June 30, 2026