Two incidents. One injury. Recurrence Versus Aggravation
The Delaware Superior Court reviewed and affirmed a decision by the Industrial Accident Board concerning a claimant who sustained a compensable work-related back injury in 2015, commuted the claim in 2018 and in 2023, while working for a different employer, experienced renewed back pain following a physically demanding emergency response. The court was tasked with determining whether the 2023 incident constituted a new injury or a recurrence of the prior one. Ultimately, the court upheld the Board’s finding that the claimant’s condition was a recurrence of the 2015 injury, not a new, compensable work accident.
The claimant sustained a compensable back injury while working for Belvedere Fire Company in 2015. He received treatment and had diagnostic studies. Afterwards, in 2016, he was assessed with a 10% permanent impairment of the thoracic spine by his medical expert. In 2018, the claimant agreed to the commutation of his 2015 claim.
On October 6, 2023, the claimant was working for the City of Wilmington Fire Company when he responded to a call that required him to climb a staircase while laden with a significant amount of heavy equipment. As he climbed the stairs, he became short of breath and experienced chest pains. Back at the station, he felt back pain and spasms. Although it was determined that he had not had a cardiac event, he continued to have back pain, for which he received diagnostic testing and treatment.
The claimant filed a petition for benefits with the Industrial Accident Board, claiming a work-related injury from the October 6, 2023, event. After a hearing, the Board held that the claimant failed to sustain his burden of proving that the October 2023 incident caused a new injury. Instead, the Board found that the condition the claimant experienced on October 6, 2023, was a recurrence of the 2015 work injury.
In the analysis, the Delaware Superior Court discusses the difference between “aggravation” and “recurrence” or a pre-existing condition. Aggravation is a change in the mechanics of the condition such that the condition is different than before. Whereas, if the previous condition has not changed as a result of the workplace incident, it is not a compensable work accident.
The court addressed the aggravation/recurrence framework set out in Standard Distribution Co. v. Nally, 630 A.2d 640 (Del. 1993) and the need for an intervening or untoward event to break the chain of causation from the pre-existing condition. It also discusses the medical evidence, including the diagnostic studies, as support for its determination that there is substantial evidence in the record to support the Board’s factual findings. Therefore, the court affirmed the Board’s decision that the 2023 incident was a recurrence of the 2015 injury, not a new injury.
What’s Hot in Workers’ Comp, Vol. 29, No. 5, May 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.