Garrett v. Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board, K17A-01-002 JJC

Garrett worked for Amazon and was injured on the job; Amazon placed her on approved medical leave and paid disability benefits through that period.
After leave ended, Garrett's doctor cleared her for eight hours/day but only on "light duty" restrictions.
Garrett filed for unemployment after failing to obtain workers’ compensation; the Claims Deputy denied benefits because Garrett did not prove Amazon had terminated her.
At the referee hearing Amazon did not appear but submitted a statement that Garrett failed to return from leave and remained an employee; the referee denied benefits.
On appeal, the Board reviewed Garrett’s doctor’s light-duty restriction and her testimony that Amazon could not accommodate it, and concluded she remained medically unable to perform her job and thus was not eligible for unemployment benefits.
The Superior Court affirmed: because Garrett was not medically cleared to work without restrictions and Amazon could not accommodate her light duty, she was not "available for work" and therefore ineligible for unemployment benefits.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Garrett was "unemployed" and thus eligible for unemployment benefits	Garrett argued she was terminated due to light-duty restriction and therefore unemployed and entitled to benefits	Amazon maintained Garrett had not been fired and remained an employee who failed to return from leave; it could not accommodate light duty	Held: Garrett is not entitled to benefits because she was not available to work without restrictions and remained medically unable to perform her job
Whether a worker with medical restrictions is "available for work" when employer cannot accommodate restrictions	Garrett argued she was able to work under light-duty restrictions and sought work/unemployment	Amazon argued it had no light-duty position to offer and thus Garrett was not actually available to work	Held: An employee on restricted duty whom the employer cannot accommodate is not "available" and cannot collect unemployment until fully cleared to work without restrictions

Unemployment Ins. Appeal Bd. v. Duncan, 337 A.2d 308 (Del. 1975) (standard for court review of administrative unemployment decisions)
Thompson v. Christiana Care Health Sys., 25 A.3d 778 (Del. 2011) (review limited to record; courts do not reweigh evidence)
Olney v. Cooch, 425 A.2d 610 (Del. 1981) (definition of substantial evidence, quoting Consolo)
Consolo v. Federal Maritime Comm’n, 383 U.S. 607 (U.S. 1966) (substantial evidence standard)
Petty v. Univ. of Del., 450 A.2d 392 (Del. 1982) (burden on claimant to prove ability and availability for work)
Morris v. Unemployment Ins. Appeal Bd., 340 A.2d 162 (Del. Super. Ct. 1975) (unemployment benefits are not a substitute for health insurance)