Greenville Country Club, (Guard Insurance) v. Greenville Country Club, (Technology Insurance)
150 A.3d 1194
| Del. | 2016Background
- Employee Jordan Rash suffered two compensable lumbar spine work injuries at Greenville Country Club: one in 2009 (insured by Guard) and one in 2012 (insured by Technology).
- Guard paid benefits for the 2009 injury until September 2009; Technology paid benefits for the 2012 injury until July 2013.
- Rash filed petitions in 2014 against both carriers seeking medical costs (including 2014 lumbar surgery) and additional temporary total disability benefits for a condition he said manifested in July 2013.
- The Industrial Accident Board found the 2013 condition was a recurrence of the 2009 injury, not an aggravation caused by the 2012 accident, and held Guard wholly liable under the successive-carrier rule (Standard Distributing Co. v. Nally).
- The Superior Court affirmed the Board; Guard appealed, arguing (1) the Board misapplied the successive-carrier rule and (2) there was insufficient evidence that the 2012 injury did not cause the ongoing condition.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Which carrier is liable for Rash’s later condition? | Rash: the condition is a recurrence of the 2009 injury, so Guard (first carrier) is liable. | Guard: once Technology accepted the 2012 injury, liability for subsequent conditions shifted to Technology without further proof. | Held: Liability depends on which injury proximately caused the later condition; burden is on the initial carrier to prove the second event caused it. Board correctly applied Nally. |
| Was there substantial evidence that the 2012 accident did not cause the later condition? | Rash: medical testimony supports causation by the 2009 injury. | Guard: insufficient evidence that Rash fully recovered from 2012 or that 2012 did not cause ongoing condition. | Held: Substantial evidence supported the Board’s adoption of four experts attributing the condition to the 2009 injury; Guard failed to meet its burden. |
Key Cases Cited
- Standard Distributing Co. v. Nally, 630 A.2d 640 (Del. 1993) (establishes analysis for successive-carrier liability and burden to show second event caused later condition)
- DiSabatino & Sons, Inc. v. Facciolo, 306 A.2d 716 (Del. 1973) (explains recurrence vs. new/ aggravated injury and which insurer is liable)
- Forbes-Steele & Wire Co. v. Graham, 518 A.2d 86 (Del. 1986) (applies last injurious exposure when both accidents contributed to condition)
- Alloy Surfaces Co. v. Cicamore, 221 A.2d 480 (Del. 1966) (distinguishes occupational-disease causation issues where history is uncertain)