Employer not liable to pay travel expenses for claimant's spouse to accompany him to medical appointments absent medical evidence that claimant requires assistance of a travel companion.

In Delaware, pursuant to §2322(g) of the Act, a claimant is entitled to mileage reimbursement for travel to and from medical appointments for a work-related injury. In this case, the claimant had originally moved to Nebraska following his work injury and sought payment for not only his own travel expenses but also those of his wife in returning to Delaware for medical treatment.

In a prior ruling, the Board had found that the employer was only required to pay for the claimant's travel expenses and not for those of a spouse since there was no evidence of the medical necessity of claimant having a travel companion.

Following this ruling, the claimant then moved to Puerto Rico and filed a motion seeking to have travel expenses paid from Puerto Rico to Delaware for an upcoming defense medical examination.

The facts show that the claimant and his wife were willing to use airline travel vouchers in order to fly from Puerto Rico to Delaware. However, the claimant was seeking an order directing the employer to pay for a rental car, in lieu of a car service, and to pay for the gas and tolls, with the intention that the claimant's wife would drive the car from the airport to the medical appointment. The employer refused the request to pay for the rental car in part based on increased liability issues that would result if the claimant's wife were driving the rental car as opposed to the employer providing a car service for the claimant.

The Board commented that the claimant's request was not unreasonable under the totality of the circumstances. However, the Board held consistent with its prior ruling that the employer was not required to pay any additional costs associated with the claimant's wife accompanying him on this trip. Specifically, the Board stated that it would not order the employer to rent a car for the claimant's wife to drive since there was no medical evidence showing that the claimant required a travel companion. Therefore, the claimant's wife was permitted to accompany him on this trip, but she would need to pay her own expenses for doing so.

Case Law Alert - 1st Qtr 2012