Brown v. Parker's Express, Inc., 156, 2016

Michael Brown worked as a commercial truck driver for Parker’s Express beginning April 2011 and was injured in a work-related accident on November 22, 2013.
Brown was medically cleared for light-duty work on March 31, 2014; the Employer had a modified-duty position available and provided a worker’s compensation form to Brown’s doctor, who signed it on April 18, 2014 identifying restrictions.
Brown did not contact the Employer or return to work; Employer warned on May 20, 2014 that his full-time driver position would be held open only until June 9, 2014.
Brown applied for unemployment benefits in December 2014; at a March 2015 referee hearing (with counsel), the referee found Brown was released to modified duty, the Employer had accommodating work, and Brown did not pursue it.
The referee and the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board disqualified Brown under 19 Del. C. § 3314(1) (voluntarily leaving without good cause); the Superior Court affirmed, and the Delaware Supreme Court affirmed on appeal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Brown voluntarily left employment without good cause under § 3314(1)	Brown argued he did not quit for reasons attributable to employer and thus had good cause (implicitly contested employer’s position availability)	Employer argued Brown was released to modified duty, a position accommodating restrictions was available, and Brown failed to pursue it	Court held Brown voluntarily left without good cause; substantial evidence supported disqualification
Whether Brown may challenge the authenticity of the doctor’s form on appeal	Brown contended the doctor’s note was altered and the doctor never signed the employer’s form	Employer relied on the admitted medical form and doctor’s signature in the record	Court refused to consider the new authenticity challenge because Brown (with counsel) did not object below; waived on appeal
Proper standard of review for Board’s factual and legal conclusions	Brown sought reversal of Board’s factual/legal conclusions	Board/Employer argued review is limited: factual findings reviewed for substantial evidence; legal questions de novo; absent legal error, review for abuse of discretion	Court applied substantial evidence review to factual findings and de novo review to legal claims and found no error; affirmed

Thompson v. Christiana Care Health Sys., 25 A.3d 778 (Del. 2011) (defines “good cause” and standards for voluntarily leaving employment under § 3314(1))
Olney v. Cooch, 425 A.2d 610 (Del. 1981) (explains substantial-evidence standard of appellate review)
Consolo v. Federal Maritime Comm’n, 383 U.S. 607 (1966) (describes the substantial-evidence test for administrative findings)