Andreason v. Royal Pest Control
72 A.3d 115
| Del. | 2013Background
- Andreason, a Royal Pest Control technician, suffered a compensable right knee injury in 2008 and later had shoulder and back issues alleged to be related to a fall in 2009.
- Medical treatment after the fall showed shoulder injury but no initial back injury; later back pain emerged and led to lumbar surgeries in 2009 and 2010.
- Board decisions: (a) awarded knee and shoulder compensation but denied back injury; (b) denied Andreason’s reargument challenging the back non-compensability.
- Chartis paid back-related medical bills by mistake; adjuster discovered the error and sought repayment after learning the back injury was unrelated to the knee injury.
- The Board applied Tenaglia-Evans to hold no implied agreement existed; the Superior Court affirmed, and the Delaware Supreme Court affirmed the Board’s findings, holding section 2322(h) did not abrogate the common-law 'feeling of compulsion' doctrine.
- Andreason argued the three-day waiting rule, later eliminated, underpinned the compulsion doctrine; he also claimed 2322(h) either supplanted Tenaglia-Evans or applied to unilateral mistakes, but the court rejected these.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Board erred in finding no implied agreement to pay back the back injury | Andreason argues compulsion existed, creating agreement. | Chartis payments were made by mistake, not under compulsion. | No implied agreement; payments were mistaken. |
| Whether Title 19, § 2322(h) abrogates the compulsion doctrine | Section 2322(h) supersedes Tenaglia-Evans. | Statute does not repeal the common-law compulsion rule. | Section 2322(h) does not abrogate the compulsion doctrine. |
| Whether § 2322(h) governs unilateral mistake and duty to pay | Unilateral mistake could create liability for continued payments. | Unilateral mistake does not bind carrier to compensability; Tenaglia-Evans controls. | Unilateral mistake does not create compensability; Tenaglia-Evans controls. |
| Whether the Board reasonably found the back payment was a mistaken payment | Carriers’ payments imply compensability under compulsion. | Evidence showed payment was mistaken and without compulsion. | Substantial evidence supports mistaken-payment finding. |
Key Cases Cited
- Starun v. All American Eng’g Co., 350 A.2d 765 (Del.1975) (implied agreement when carrier paid under a feeling of compulsion)
- New Castle County v. Goodman, 461 A.2d 1012 (Del.1983) (payments may signal agreement; five-year vs two-year statutory period)
- McCarnan v. New Castle County, 521 A.2d 611 (Del.1987) (payments before missing three days gratuitous; later absence of compulsion evidence)
- Tenaglia-Evans v. St. Francis Hosp., 913 A.2d 570 (Del.2006) (mistaken payments not by compulsion; Tenaglia-Evans sets standard)