Food Liner v. Harris
N16A-09-015 CEB
| Del. Super. Ct. | May 1, 2017Background
- Ms. Nickeya Harris injured her shoulder at work on December 12, 2013 while cleaning tanker trucks for Food Liner and collected disability benefits.
- She underwent shoulder surgery in February 2015 by Dr. Crain but continued to have pain and restricted motion postoperatively.
- Dr. Morgan (a shoulder specialist) evaluated Harris and opined she needed a second surgery to remove postoperative adhesions; Employer obtained a contrary opinion from Dr. Stevens who recommended further conservative care/physical therapy.
- Harris sought a predetermination under the Industrial Accident Board that the second surgery was "reasonable and necessary;" the Board held a hearing, received depositions from Drs. Crain, Morgan, and Stevens, and heard Harris’s live testimony.
- The Board credited Dr. Morgan as the most persuasive expert, found the second surgery reasonable and necessary (noting adhesions would not resolve with physical therapy), and approved the procedure; Employer appealed to Superior Court.
- Superior Court reviewed for substantial evidence and legal error and affirmed the Board, rejecting Employer’s challenges to Harris’s physical-therapy noncompliance and to Dr. Morgan’s testimony about a post‑surgical MRI/date error as immaterial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Harris) | Defendant's Argument (Food Liner) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the second shoulder surgery is "reasonable and necessary" and compensable | Second surgery required to remove adhesions post‑surgery; surgery, not PT, is necessary | Surgery unnecessary; appellee failed to complete post‑op PT and employer expert says PT should precede surgery | Board credited Harris’s expert (Dr. Morgan); substantial evidence supports finding surgery was reasonable and necessary; affirmed |
| Whether Harris’s failure to fully attend physical therapy undermines her claim | Noncompliance did not change Dr. Morgan’s opinion that adhesions would not respond to PT | Employer argues noncompliance and post‑hearing ATI records undercut credibility and should alter result | Court found Board reasonably discounted PT noncompliance as immaterial given Morgan’s opinion; employer’s post‑hearing records did not warrant reversal |
| Whether Dr. Morgan improperly relied on an MRI that was not produced and misstated the surgery date | MRI was postsurgical and corroborated adhesions; Morgan relied primarily on exam and experience | Employer argues MRI report wasn’t produced and Morgan misstated surgery year (casting doubt on his reliance) | Court held no evidence Morgan relied on MRI; date slip was immaterial; Board permissibly credited Morgan’s testimony |
| Whether the Board committed legal error in weighing evidence or credibility | Board acted within its fact‑finding role in crediting expert testimony and assessing credibility | Employer asks Superior Court to reweigh evidence and credibility based on documentary challenges | Court applied substantial‑evidence standard and declined to substitute its judgment; affirmed Board |
Key Cases Cited
- Johnson v. Chrysler Corp., 213 A.2d 64 (Del. 1965) (Superior Court does not retry facts or reweigh credibility on appeal from administrative fact‑finder)