Capital Uniform & Linen Service v. Martin
K16A-06-003 WLW
| Del. Super. Ct. | Feb 13, 2017Background
- Claimant Reginald Martin injured his cervical spine in a 2013 work-related delivery-truck accident and later underwent surgery.
- At hearing, Martin testified he believed Dr. James Zaslavsky had placed him on a no-work order in late December 2015.
- The parties entered Dr. Zaslavsky’s deposition, which contained inconsistent statements: he both said Martin was "out of work" under his orders and elsewhere stated Martin had been on light duty since August 2015 and was on light duty as of December 23, 2015.
- The Industrial Accident Board awarded total disability through 8/30/2015, partial disability 8/30/15–12/23/15, and total disability from 12/24/15 onward.
- Capital Uniform appealed the award of total disability from 12/24/15 onward, arguing the Board failed to reconcile the doctor’s contradictory testimony and improperly relied on a supposed no-work order that followed a period of light duty.
- The Superior Court reversed and remanded because the Board did not articulate how it reconciled Dr. Zaslavsky’s inconsistent testimony; it also dismissed claimant’s conditional cross-appeal procedure and directed the claimant to show cause why his cross-appeal should not be dismissed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Board’s award of total disability from 12/24/15 was supported by substantial evidence given conflicting physician testimony | Martin: Board need not resolve every conflict; it harmonized the doctor’s statements with claimant’s testimony that he believed he was under a no-work order | Capital: Board must reconcile the doctor’s inconsistent testimony (doctor said both "out of work" and "on light duty"); without reconciliation, award lacks substantial evidence | Court: Board failed to articulate how it reconciled the conflict; decision reversed and remanded for the Board to explain its resolution |
| Whether a claimant may rely on a treating physician’s no-work order that follows a period of light/sedentary duty | Martin: Treating physician’s no-work order governs; claimant is totally disabled while following doctor’s orders | Capital: The no-work order should not automatically create ongoing total disability after a closed period of light duty | Court: Reaffirmed rule that a treating physician’s order taking claimant out of work renders claimant temporarily totally disabled (assuming doctor acts in good faith); declined to narrow that rule |
| Procedural: Whether claimant may "conditionally withdraw" his cross-appeal subject to remand directives | Martin: Attempted to conditionally withdraw cross-appeal | Court/Capital: Procedure not authorized by rules | Court: Conditional withdrawal is not authorized; cross-appeal dismissed sua sponte unless claimant shows cause |
Key Cases Cited
- Vincent v. E. Shore Mkts., 970 A.2d 160 (Del. 2009) (standard of review: Board decisions reviewed for substantial evidence and legal error)
- Breeding v. Contractors-One-Inc., 549 A.2d 1102 (Del. 1988) (substantial evidence definition and review posture)
- Gilliard-Belfast v. Wendy's, Inc., 754 A.2d 251 (Del. 2000) (treating physician’s no-work order renders claimant temporarily totally disabled)
- Attix v. Voshell, 579 A.2d 1125 (Del. Super. 1989) (Board’s duty to resolve conflicting testimony)