ANNOUNCEMENTS

Top Workplace 2024

Delaware’s main newspaper, The News Journal, has published its list of Delaware’s Top Workplaces for 2024. Heckler and Frabizzio is proud to again be recognized as one of Delaware’s Top Workplaces especially because we were awarded this honor based on a survey of our employees. The Top Workplace program is designed to obtain anonymous responses from staff regarding many aspects of our workplace including, but not limited to, company culture, manager relations, and benefits. Heckler & Frabizzio had over 100 comments from our staff and is ranked as a top employer in Delaware for the eighth year in a row. We would like to thank our team for providing feedback and for continuing to work through these uncertain times in keeping with our core value.

Adjuster Education Credits

Heckler & Frabizzio Partners, Amy Taylor, and Miranda Clifton are hosting an Investigations virtual seminar on November 5th, from 10am-12pm. This course is approved for two-hour Delaware general credits. Heckler & Frabizzio Partners, Gregory Skolnik, and Nicholas Bittner are hosting a virtual Terminating WC seminar on November 14th, from 2pm-3pm. This course is approved for a one-hour Delaware general credit. Heckler & Frabizzio is looking forward to continuing to offer free continuing education. We would also like to offer a $5 Wawa gift card to the first person who emails Natalie below with the subject gift card. If you’d like to join us, please email Natalie Bogia, with your National Producer Number (NPN) and Delaware License Number. We hope to see you there!

Keeping Up with H&F

Annual Firm Picnic

Heckler & Frabizzio’s annual employee picnic was on Thursday, August 22nd. We announced our staff voted Superlatives. Law Clerk Teryn Shipman won our Fashion Week award, Paralegal Shiree Anderson won our Confetti award, Paralegal John Jackson won our Teamwork Titian, Secretary Sandra Glackin, won our Dewey Decimal award, and Firm Administrator Page Chase, won our Most Reliable award.

Congratulations to all our winners! Your zeal and professionalism are truly commendable. Keep up the fantastic work! It was a fun day spent with our co-workers and their families!

The Department of Labor has issued a Final Order (effective: 8/11/24) for the publication of the revised Healthcare Practice Guidelines (which govern treatment of workers’ compensation patients in Delaware for certain common classes of work injuries).

This Order repeals all prior Practice Guidelines and replaces them with the revised Practice Guidelines, as approved by the Workers Compensation Oversight Panel.

The revised Guidelines are available on the Department of Labor’s website, specifically: Health Care Practice Guidelines – Delaware Department of Labor.

The most significant changes are to the Chronic Pain Guidelines, including language limiting the use of narcotic medication.

It is important to note that neither ortho-biologics for spinal disorders, nor medical marijuana, were added to the Healthcare Practice Guidelines in connection with these revisions. It is expected that these issues may be addressed in the future.

Should you have any questions, please contact any partner in our Workers’ Compensation Department.

EMPLOYMENT LAW UPDATE

Delaware Superior Court Affirms Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board’s Decision to Deny Rehearing Request

On February 2, 2024, the Delaware Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board issued a hearing notice to Claimant Weddington concerning her claim. The Board scheduled her hearing to commence on February 14, 2024.

Claimant Weddington failed to appear at the February 14, 2024 hearing because she was confused about the Board hearing start time and the start time of a previously scheduled physical therapy appointment.

The Board denied Claimant’s request for a rehearing because Claimant’s therapy appointment “was not sudden, irregular, or unexpected” and because the Board has discretion to deny a rehearing.

Claimant appealed the Board’s rehearing denial to the Delaware Superior Court. In doing so, she also asked the Court to determine her unemployment benefits status.

Concerning Claimant’s benefits status, the Superior Court clarified that its role in performing a judicial review can only occur when a party seeking relief has exhausted all administrative remedies provided by Delaware statute. The Court indicated that since Claimant did not appear at the Board hearing, she did not exhaust her administrative remedy, and as such the Court cannot make any determination on the merits.

The Superior Court’s review of the Board’s discretionary decisions is “‘limited to whether the Board abused its discretion.’”

Concerning the Board’s alleged abuse of discretion, the Court held that the Board did not abuse its discretion to deny Claimant’s request for a rehearing. The Court’s reasoning is that the Board followed its hearing notice procedures and that Claimant did not “[demonstrate] excusable neglect sufficient to excuse her failure to timely appear for the Appeal Board hearing.”

If you have any questions concerning this case or the Delaware Unemployment Insurance claim procedure, please contact an attorney in our liability department.

Jasmine Weddington v. Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, C.A. No. N24A04-004 CLS (Del. Super. August 28, 2024).

LITIGATION LAW UPDATE

When One Trial Is Better Than Two: A Review of Rule 42 on Bifurcation

The Delaware Superior Court reviews the requirements of Superior Court Civil Rule 42(b) in determining whether a bifurcated trial is warranted in a wrongful death suit. Plaintiffs oppose Defendant Advancexing Pain & Rehabilitation Clinic’s Motion to Bifurcate.

Superior Court Civil Rule 42(b) allows for a separate trial if “in furtherance of convenience or to avoid prejudice, or when separate trials will be conducive to expedition of economy.” The Court notes there is a presumption to try claims together when involving common issues of fact or law. However, the Court will also weigh the costs, effort and time required and will seek to avoid an “overlap of evidence and witness testimony, double expenses, judicial efficiency, undue hardship to the parties . . . [and] undue prejudice or jury confusion.”

Defendant Advancexing argues that a consolidated trial would be prejudicial because plaintiffs was likely to introduce evidence of criminal allegations against the co-defendant, as well as evidence in support of punitive damages. Advancexing argues that a jury could incorrectly apply that evidence to the claims against Advancexing, possibly exposing Advancexing to a larger judgment under joint and several liability. In response, plaintiffs argue that there is no prejudice to Advancexing because the theories of liability differ between the defendants, while the factual evidence is “indivisibly intertwined.”

The Court agrees with plaintiffs, stating that proper jury instructions will be sufficient to clarify any possible jury confusion or prejudice. Furthermore, a joint trial would avoid duplication of evidence, inconsistent verdicts, and would better address plaintiffs’ claims that the joint actions of both doctors caused the decedent’s death.

Joseph Distefano, Individually and as Administrator of the Estate of Charlene DiStefano, et al v. Karl McIntosh, M.D., Karl McIntosh, M.D., P.A. and Advancexing Pain & Rehabilitation Clinic, P.A., C.A. No. N21C-06-233 FJJ (Del. Super. Ct., Sept. 11, 2024)