Arrants v. Home Depot
65 A.3d 601
| Del. | 2013Background
- Arrants sustained a May 2004 back and neck injury at Home Depot and settled workers’ compensation for total disability.
- 2007 Board denied Home Depot’s petition to terminate total disability payments, finding Arrants still totally disabled.
- 2011 Home Depot petitioned again; Dr. Stephens testified Arrants’ disability was based on subjective pain and had not improved since 2007; noted opioid dependency.
- O’Neill identified eighteen sedentary jobs in the current labor market and confirmed Arrants’ qualifications with prospective employers.
- Dr. Xing testified Arrants was totally disabled based on subjective pain, though could typically return to work; suggested psychological benefits of working.
- Board found Arrants no longer totally disabled, finding work availability within restrictions and awarding partial disability benefits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether termination was supported by changed condition and available work | Arrants argues no change in condition; still disabled per all experts. | Board properly concluded changed condition and available sedentary work under 2347. | Board findings supported; change in condition and employment availability established. |
| Whether Board could rely on Dr. Stephens over Dr. Xing | Dr. Xing’s opinion shows continued total disability; Board cannot discount it. | Board may rely on one expert over another; substantial evidence supports Stephens’ view of sedentary work. | Board acted within discretion; Stephens’ testimony constitutes substantial evidence. |
| Whether the Board’s ‘tolerance’ remark was harmless error | Board impermissibly cited Arrants’ tolerance to condition without record support. | Remark is secondary; ultimate conclusion supported by objective/other evidence. | Harmless error; record ample to support termination decision. |
Key Cases Cited
- Person-Gaines v. Pepco Holdings, Inc., 981 A.2d 1159 (Del. 2009) (substantial evidence standard and review of Board findings)
- Olney v. Cooch, 425 A.2d 610 (Del. 1981) (defining substantial evidence)
- Turbitt v. Blue Hen Lines, Inc., 711 A.2d 1214 (Del. 1998) (abuse-of-discretion review framework)