Fowler v. Perdue Farms, Inc.
K21A-01-002 NEP
| Del. Super. Ct. | Mar 16, 2022Background
- Fowler contracted COVID-19 in late March 2020 (symptoms March 27; positive test March 29) and filed a workers' compensation Petition claiming workplace exposure at Perdue Farms.
- Fowler testified he routinely ate in a crowded plant cafeteria (about 200 people; shoulder-to-shoulder seating) and had short breaks there; Perdue acknowledged a facility outbreak and identified multiple employees with possible COVID-19 in March 2020 and temporarily closed for deep cleaning.
- Perdue's retained expert, Dr. Alfred Bacon, opined (in deposition) that Perdue's high-density workplace—especially the cafeteria—made it highly likely Fowler acquired COVID-19 there; Fowler's PCP, Dr. Brown, concurred but relied on Dr. Bacon's causation analysis.
- The Industrial Accident Board denied Fowler's claim, reasoning it was not "more likely than not" Fowler contracted COVID-19 at Perdue and citing numerous alternative exposure possibilities (Walmart, gas station, daughter, doctor’s office), some not supported by record evidence.
- The Superior Court reversed and remanded, holding the Board (1) improperly substituted its own lay judgments and speculative extrarecord knowledge for expert medical causation, and (2) applied an incorrect, impermissibly demanding burden by effectively requiring certainty rather than a preponderance of the evidence. The Court ordered additional questioning of Dr. Bacon about contacts he had not known of and limited the Board to considering only contacts supported by substantial evidence.
- The Court declined to rule on whether COVID-19 qualifies as an occupational disease, leaving that issue for the Board if Fowler is found to have met his causation burden on remand.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Fowler) | Defendant's Argument (Perdue) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Causation: Did Fowler prove he contracted COVID-19 at Perdue? | Dr. Bacon's opinion — "no doubt" he got it at work given crowded cafeteria and timing. | Board permissibly doubted causation because other possible exposures existed; alleged gaps in Fowler's reporting undermined experts. | Reversed and remanded: expert testimony unrebutted; Board improperly disregarded it and speculated about other exposures. |
| Board's factfinding: May the Board rely on its own extrarecord knowledge/speculation about COVID risk? | Board should defer to infectious-disease experts on relative risk and not invent alternative exposure scenarios without record evidence. | Argued Board acted within credibility-assessment role in discounting experts not shown all contacts. | Held: Board overstepped — substituted lay conclusions for expert opinion and speculated about unproven contacts; impermissible. |
| Burden of proof: What standard must claimant meet to show workplace causation? | Preponderance of the evidence (more likely than not) based on expert probabilistic causation suffices. | Board treated lack of absolute certainty and multiple possible exposure sites as dispositive. | Held: Board applied an incorrect, effectively impossible standard; claimant need not prove certainty or negate all other possibilities. |
| Occupational-disease classification: Did Court decide whether COVID-19 is an occupational disease under the Act? | Fowler asked Court to declare COVID-19 an occupational disease if workplace causation established. | Perdue did not seek that judicial resolution at this stage. | Held: Court declined to decide; remand court should address occupational-disease question only if causation is found. |
Key Cases Cited
- Johnson v. Chrysler Corp., 213 A.2d 64 (Del. 1965) (appellate court will not weigh evidence but reviews sufficiency).
- Breeding v. Contractors-One-Inc., 549 A.2d 1102 (Del. 1988) (definition of substantial evidence).
- Nat'l Cash Register v. Riner, 424 A.2d 669 (Del. Super. 1980) (review requires searching the whole record).
- Wyatt v. Rescare Home Care, 81 A.3d 1253 (Del. 2013) (view the record most favorably to the prevailing party).
- Murphy & Landon, P.A. v. Pernic, 121 A.3d 1215 (Del. 2015) (deference to administrative findings is not absolute).
- Pusey v. Natkin & Co., 428 A.2d 1155 (Del. 1981) (Board cannot ignore unrebutted medical evidence).
- Clements v. Diamond State Port Corp., 831 A.2d 870 (Del. 2003) (Board cannot substitute its judgment to nullify objective medical findings).
- Histed v. E.I. Du Pont de Nemours & Co., 621 A.2d 340 (Del. 1993) (administrative expertise is entitled to due account but has limits).
- Hoult v. Workers' Comp. Comm'r, 383 S.E.2d 516 (W. Va. 1989) (claimant not required to negate all possible non-occupational causes).