Dawn Peer v. State of Delaware, (C.A. No. K20A-02-001 WLW-Decided Oct. 29, 2020)

The Superior Court holds that the Board correctly ruled that the claimant was required to execute a Receipt stating that the work injury had resolved which is consistent with a prior Board decision.

This case came before the court on the claimant’s appeal from the Board’s decision which the claimant contended should be reversed since it contained errors of law. There were actually two Board decisions in this case that were intertwined. The first decision was issued October 9, 2019, and granted the claimant’s petition. In this decision, it was found that on April 17, 2019, the claimant suffered a compensable work injury while driving a bus for the employer when she was involved in a rear-end collision and sustained injuries to her head, shoulder, neck and lower back. The claimant was awarded compensation for a closed period of temporary total disability from April 17, 2019 to June 25, 2019. Importantly, the Board’s decision found that the injuries had resolved as of the latter date.

Subsequent to that decision, the employer sent the claimant an Agreement and Receipt of Compensation Paid reflecting the period of disability also stating: “Per Board Order of October 9, 2019, the Claimant’s injuries resolved by June 25, 2019.” On the advice of her counsel, the claimant signed the documents, but crossed out the language on the Receipt indicating that the injuries had resolved. The employer filed for a legal hearing before the Board, following which the Board issued the second decision dated January 15, 2020, affirming the initial decision by finding that the claimant’s compensable injuries had resolved and directing the claimant to execute the legal documents in their original form.

The claimant’s argument on appeal was that the purpose of a Receipt is merely to acknowledge the compensation benefits the employer has paid but that, if the claimant signs the Receipt with language stating the injury has resolved, it would effectively terminate her claim in the same manner as a commutation. The employer’s counter argument was that the claimant’s appeal was in essence an effort to appeal the Board’s first decision of October 9, 2019, which found that the injury had resolved, but the time for taking an appeal had passed. The employer further argued that the “resolved” language in the Receipt simply reflected what the Board had found in its initial decision.

The Superior Court agreed with the employer’s argument and proceeded to dismiss the claimant’s appeal. In so doing, the court reasoned that the Board’s initial decision, that the claimant’s compensable injuries had resolved as of June 25, 2019, was based on the testimony of medical experts and surveillance evidence showing the claimant conducting herself in a manner inconsistent with someone continuing to suffer residual injuries. The court reasoned that since the initial Board decision was clearly based on substantial evidence and contained no errors of law, the Board was correct in its second decision directing the claimant to execute the Receipt as prepared by the employer, including the “resolved” language.

This case illustrates that while in Delaware the typical Receipt of Compensation Paid does not include language stating that an injury has resolved, it is legally permissible where the parties either agree to it or, as in this case, where the Board has made such a determination.

 

What’s Hot in Workers’ Comp is prepared by Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin 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 © 2021 Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin, 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.