Industrial Accident Board Denies EMT’s Motion to Amend Injury Date, Citing Statute of Limitations and Inexcusable Neglect

The Industrial Accident Board dismissed a workers’ compensation claim after determining that the claimant’s attempt to amend the alleged date of injury was both untimely and the result of inexcusable neglect. The claimant initially reported an injury occurring on May 26, 2023, but later acknowledged—well after the two-year statute of limitations had expired—that the incident had actually taken place in March 2023. Arguing that amendment should “relate back” to his original petition, the claimant sought to preserve the claim despite the revised date. However, the Board applied Superior Court Rule 15(c) and found that the amendment failed to arise from the same occurrence and that the delay in correcting the date was unjustifiable. As a result, the motion to amend was denied, and the petition was dismissed as time-barred.

The claimant worked as an EMT for the employer. On August 21, 2023, he reported that a few months earlier, on May 26, 2023, he had injured his low back while moving a patient in a stretcher. The claim was denied by the employer due to the late reporting of the event and because there was no evidence to support that a work accident occurred on that day. On December 1, 2024, the claimant filed a Petition to Determine Compensation Due that sought acknowledgment of injuries sustained at work on May 26, 2023.

On February 23, 2025, the employer inquired as to whether the correct date of loss was asserted because medical records reflected a similar incident on March 20, 2023. On April 8, 2025, the claimant responded that, upon review of his text messages, the accident at work had actually occurred in March 2023, not May 26, 2023. Upon request, the claimant produced screenshots of the text messages and represented to the employer that the correct accident date was actually March 20, 2023, or March 21, 2023—the claimant worked a night shift from the 20th to the 21st. The employer objected to an amendment of the date of loss, now more than two years after the alleged accident. The claimant filed a motion to amend the petition and contended that the amendment should “relate back” to the original filing date of December 13, 2024, which was within the two-year statute of limitations. 

The Board determined that the best way to analyze the issue of “relation back” was to apply Superior Court Rule 15(c) because the Workers’ Compensation Act, Administrative Procedure Act and the Board Rules do not contain such a provision. To relate back, Rule 15(c) requires that the amendment “arise out of the conduct, transaction or occurrence set forth in the original pleading.” Additionally, Delaware courts will reject motions to amend when the moving party has shown inexcusable neglect. The Board concluded that the claimant’s proposed amendment failed on both fronts: (1) it did not arise out of the same occurrence as the original pleading and (2) his conduct constituted inexcusable neglect.

The Board reasoned that the proposed change of the date of injury by more than two months was not a trivial amendment of a few days or a week. The revised claim occurred on a completely different day and time. Moreover, the Board emphasized that the claimant’s delay in reporting and subsequent failure to correct the date until after the statute of limitations had elapsed resulted in prejudice to the employer and constituted inexcusable neglect. Lastly, the Board held that no provision of the savings statute applied to grant the claimant an additional year to make a timely filing of the petition. The claimant’s motion to amend was denied, and the pending petition was dismissed. 

_{What’s Hot in Workers’ Comp, Vol. 29, No. 7, July 2025, is prepared by Marshall Dennehey to provide information on recent legal developments of interest to our readers. This publication is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship. We would be pleased to provide such legal assistance as you require on these and other subjects when called upon. ATTORNEY ADVERTISING pursuant to New York RPC 7.1 Copyright © 2025 Marshall Dennehey, all rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm. For reprints or inquiries, or if you wish to be removed from this mailing list, contact tamontemuro@mdwcg.com.}