Gonzalez v. Perdue Farms, Inc.
K21A-01-001 RLG
| Del. Super. Ct. | Jan 14, 2022Background:
- Claimant Maria Pena Gonzalez suffered two workplace injuries at Perdue Farms: March 15, 2017 (car strike) and February 5, 2019 (slip onto right knee); MRIs showed knee pathology and spine arthritis; right knee arthroscopy was performed in May 2017.
- Claimant sought ratings of 9% permanent impairment to the right lower extremity and 5% to the lumbar spine via two Petitions to Determine Additional Compensation Due.
- Treating physician Dr. Richard DuShuttle testified for Claimant and assigned the requested permanency ratings under the AMA Guides; employer’s examiner Dr. Evan Crain examined Claimant multiple times and concluded there was no accident-related permanent impairment by September 2020.
- The Industrial Accident Board credited Dr. Crain, found Claimant’s hearing testimony inconsistent with prior statements to doctors (including a September 2020 statement that she had no problems), found Claimant not credible, and denied both petitions.
- Superior Court reviewed for substantial evidence and legal error, deferred to the Board’s factfinding (including credibility and choosing between conflicting medical opinions), and affirmed the Board’s denial.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Board mischaracterized medical evidence in rejecting Claimant’s permanency ratings | Board misread Dr. Crain’s exams and misconstrued Dr. DuShuttle’s testimony; medical evidence supports permanency | Board may resolve conflicting medical opinions and reasonably relied on Dr. Crain and the broader medical record | Board’s choice of Dr. Crain over Dr. DuShuttle is supported by substantial evidence; affirmed |
| Whether the Board erred in finding Claimant not credible | Alleged mischaracterization of medical evidence produced an incorrect credibility finding | Inconsistent statements to examiners and at hearing justify finding of non-credibility | Credibility determinations are for the Board; substantial evidence supports its credibility finding |
| Whether the Board misconstrued Claimant’s ability to work when denying permanency | Return to full duty was motivated by financial necessity, not symptom resolution, so work status does not negate impairment | Claimant returned to eight-hour standing assembly-line work full-time, undermining claim of permanent functional impairment | Substantial evidence supports Board’s finding that Claimant was not functionally permanently impaired |
| Whether an interpretation/translation error explains discrepant reports to Dr. Crain | Final exam used a professional interpreter; discrepancies could result from translation errors, not symptom resolution | Dr. Crain testified he did not experience communication barriers; Board considered and rejected the translation theory | Board considered the possibility and reasonably rejected it; appellate court defers to the Board |
Key Cases Cited
- Glanden v. Land Prep, Inc., 918 A.2d 1089 (Del. 2007) (reviewing court evaluates IAB decisions for substantial evidence and legal error)
- Oceanport Indus., Inc. v. Wilmington Stevedores, Inc., 636 A.2d 892 (Del. 1994) (defines substantial evidence standard)
- Onley v. Cooch, 425 A.2d 610 (Del. 1981) (substantial-evidence standard in administrative review)
- Munyan v. Daimler Chrysler Corp., 909 A.2d 133 (Del. 2006) (IAB may resolve conflicting medical testimony and rely on either expert)
- Clements v. Diamond State Port Corp., 831 A.2d 870 (Del. 2003) (credibility and weight of testimony are for the Board)
- Dallachiesa v. General Motors Corp., 140 A.2d 137 (Del. Super. 1958) (appellate court should not substitute its judgment for Board factfinding)