Kriss Contracting v. Gonzalez
S20A-09-001 RHR
| Del. Super. Ct. | Sep 30, 2021Background
- Claimant Jose Gonzalez suffered work-related back injuries in 2007; his claim has had multiple IAB proceedings.
- Medical testing included three FCEs: two indicated sedentary-to-light work (one only part‑time); a third (performed at Claimant’s treating clinic) indicated no work capacity and Claimant could not complete an April 2020 FCE in one session due to pain.
- Treating physicians (Drs. Balu and Yalamanchili) opined Claimant was not fit for work and would require ongoing pain management; Employer’s expert (Dr. Brokaw) testified Claimant could do sedentary-to-light work starting part‑time.
- A labor market survey identified nine mostly sedentary, part‑time jobs (19–38 miles away), but none had actually offered Claimant employment.
- The IAB found Claimant a prima facie displaced worker and denied Employer’s petition to terminate total disability benefits; Employer appealed only the displaced‑worker finding.
Issues
| Issue | Gonzalez (Claimant) Argument | Kriss Contracting (Employer) Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether IAB erred in finding Claimant a prima facie displaced worker | Claimant has minimal education and transferable skills, is 63, has obvious impairments, and need not search for work if prima facie displaced | Employer: all doctors said Claimant could do sedentary work; Claimant hasn't looked for work since 2007 so not displaced | Court: Affirmed IAB — substantial evidence supports prima facie displaced finding; deference to IAB credibility and weight of treating physicians' opinions |
| Whether Employer met its burden to show regular employment within Claimant’s capabilities | Jobs identified by Employer’s survey are speculative and would not likely result in hire given Claimant’s limits | Employer: labor market survey shows suitable part‑time sedentary jobs within medical restrictions | Court: Affirmed IAB — substantial evidence that Employer failed to prove available regular employment within Claimant’s capabilities |
Key Cases Cited
- Roos Foods v. Guardado, 152 A.3d 114 (Del. 2016) (sets factors and standards for prima facie displaced‑worker determination)
- Chrysler Corp. v. Duff, 314 A.2d 915 (Del. 1973) (burden shifting when employer seeks termination of disability benefits)
- Johnson v. Chrysler Corp., 213 A.2d 64 (Del. 1965) (appellate court must defer to IAB on credibility and factual findings)
- Person‑Gaines v. Pepco Holdings, Inc., 981 A.2d 1159 (Del. 2009) (definition and application of substantial‑evidence review)
- Ham v. Chrysler Corp., 231 A.2d 258 (Del. 1967) (definition of displaced worker concept)