Claimant was injured in a compensable 12/30/22 work accident with associated two-level anterior/posterior lumbar fusion surgery and right total knee replacement. On 9/26/25, Claimant filed a Petition seeking disfigurement benefits for scarring to the abdomen, low back, right knee, and for altered gait. Her average weekly wage and compensation rate were both $138.80. The Board awarded a total of 70 weeks of benefits, as follows:

1.     Abdomen: 20 weeks for a “discolored” scar described as 6 inches long, and ¼ inch wide or “wider than the average surgical scar”.

2.     Low back: 15 weeks for a “distinctly discolored” 4.5 inch scar of similar width to the abdominal scar.

3.     Right knee: 15 weeks for a “distinctly darker” 5.5 inch scar that was up to ½ inch wide.

4.     Gait: 20 weeks for a “moderate” gait alteration described as “a slowness to the walking movement with a discernible hitch…not as severely altered as if she had a rigid leg”.

As the Employer offered 75 weeks in total, outside the 30-day rule, there was no attorney’s fee Award. Should you have any questions regarding this Decision, please contact John Morgan or any other attorney in our Workers’ Compensation Department.

Glover v. YMCA of Delaware, IAB Hrg. No. 1531873 (Feb. 3, 2026).

EMPLOYMENT LAW UPDATE

Superior Court Affirms Board Decision To Decline Merits Hearing of Late Appeal

Claimant resigned from his position with Penske Truck Leasing and thereafter filed for Delaware Unemployment Insurance benefits.

The Department of Labor issued a Notice of Determination on February 11, 2025 that disqualified Claimant from benefits because he voluntarily quit without cause. The Notice of Determination enumerated an appeal deadline of February 26, 2025.

On April 14, 2025, Claimant filed an appeal of the Notice of Determination, and such appeal triggered a telephone hearing before an Appeals Referee. The issue on appeal was whether Claimant’s appeal was timely.

At the telephone hearing, Claimant argued that he filed an appeal via e-mail on February 25, 2025, but did not provide any extrinsic evidence that he did so.

As a result, the Appeals Referee deemed Claimant’s appeal to be untimely.

Claimant then filed a timely appeal to the Board, and the Board declined to hear Claimant’s case on the merits because Claimant’s appeal of the Notice of Determination was untimely.

As a result, Claimant appealed to the Superior Court seeking relief and, in so doing, proffered some evidence that his lower authority appeal was timely. The concern, as the Court identified, is that the Court cannot review evidence not placed on the record below (i.e. at the telephone or board level).

The Superior Court ruled that the Board’s finding concerning the Claimant’s untimeliness was correct and that the Board did not abuse its discretion in declining to consider the merits of Claimant’s appeal because it was late.

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

Harold Long v. Unemployment Appeal Board; N25A-08-002 CLS (March 11, 2026)

LITIGATION LAW UPDATE

Motions in Limine: When is Evidence of a Non-Party’s Negligence Admissible?

The Superior Court analyzed the extent to which evidence of non-party negligence may be introduced at Trial. Plaintiffs collectively brought a wrongful death action against multiple defendants arising out of a construction site accident when an aerial boom lift raised to approximately 120 feet tipped over in wind. The decedents were working for Velex, Inc. at the time of the accident. Velex was not sued by plaintiffs due to its immunity from litigation under Delaware’s workers’ compensation exclusivity rule. Additionally, two other named defendants were voluntarily dismissed with prejudice by way of a joint stipulation of dismissal.

Plaintiffs filed multiple motions in limine seeking to preclude the remaining defendants from introducing evidence of negligence of Velex and the two previously dismissed parties.

Regarding Velex’s negligence, the court analyzed prior, seemingly inconsistent, cases regarding the introduction of an employer’s negligence and ultimately held that when an employer’s action was contributory in nature (an intervening event) it could not be introduced, whereas “a defendant may nonetheless introduce evidence to establish that the negligence of the immune party was a supervening cause of the plaintiff’s injury.”

Regarding the two previously dismissed defendants, the Court reasoned that the prior Order clearly stated all claims and cross-claims asserted against those two defendants were dismissed with prejudice. Such dismissal had been expressly agreed to by the remaining defendants, and the Court “intends to hold the parties to their agreements.” Thus, any evidence or expert testimony intended to prove the negligence of those two parties would be irrelevant, could confuse or mislead the jury, and shall be excluded.

Vanessa Andino, et al v. Nexius Solutions, Inc., Myndco, Inc., Sunbelt Rentals, Inc. C.A. No. N22C-10-671 FJJ, March 13, 2026