Affirmed: dismissal of petition to determine compensation due; contract of hire made in Texas, not Delaware.

The claimant’s accident and work-related injury did not occur in Delaware. The key issue before the Board was whether jurisdiction existed pursuant to § 2303(a) of the Act: (1) the employer was not incorporated in Delaware and did not have a business license in Delaware; (2) the employer had no place of business in Delaware; (3) the claimant did not regularly work at or from any place of business in Delaware; (4) the claimant did not spend a substantial amount of his time working in Delaware; (5) the claimant signed a job application and was interviewed in Delaware by a representative of the employer; and (6) processing the claimant’s application and the decision to hire occurred in Texas, where the employer was headquartered. The Board concluded that the contract of hire was made in Texas and that they did not have jurisdiction to hear the petition. The Superior Court affirmed, finding that substantial evidence existed to support the Board’s conclusion that the contract of hire was not made in Delaware. The court concluded that, since all of the meaningful events in the hiring process took place in Texas, substantial evidence existed to support the Board’s conclusion that the contract of hire was made in Texas.

_{Case Law Alerts, 4^th Quarter, October 2015}

_{Case Law Alerts 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. Copyright © 2015 Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin, all rights reserved. This article may not be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm.}