Successfully proved a claimant is not entitled to indemnity benefits for wage replacement.

The claimant argued that repetitive motion caused shoulder issues and filed a petition for benefits. The claimant later underwent shoulder surgery and was taken out of work by his surgeon. A fact investigation revealed that the claimant quit working for the employer and had applied for Social Security Disability benefits for multiple disabilities, including the left shoulder, prior to being taken out of work by his treating surgeon. We argued that the timing sequence of the claimant's actions evidenced a deliberate, affirmative act on his claimant that demonstrated his intent to discontinue working in the active labor market prior to an out-of-work note being issued by his treating surgeon, thus invalidating the claimant's arguments of reliance on his surgeon's out-of-work note for indemnity benefits, pursuant to the Delaware Supreme Court holding in Gilliard-Belfast v. Wendy's and its progeny. As the claimant affirmatively removed himself from the active labor market before being granted out-of-work status by his surgeon, the court agreed that the claimant is not entitled to indemnity benefits for wage replacement.