Morgan Properties Payroll Services, Inc. v. Bowers
N16A-07-007 ALR
| Del. Super. Ct. | May 31, 2017Background
- Claimant Teresa Bowers, a property manager, suffered a compensable slip-and-fall at work on Jan. 17, 2014; Employer (Morgan Properties Payroll Services, Inc.) accepted the claim and paid benefits.
- Claimant had a prior, unrelated cervical fusion (C5-6 and C6-7) from a 2005 motor vehicle accident that included a bone graft and hardware.
- Claimant sought Board approval for a posterior cervical fusion at C6-7 (Repair Surgery) performed March 17, 2016, to address a non‑union/deterioration of the prior bone graft.
- Employer disputed that the Repair Surgery was related to the 2014 work accident; Claimant argued the 2014 accident aggravated the preexisting condition and hastened degeneration requiring surgery.
- The Board heard testimony from Claimant, Claimant’s experts (Drs. Rudin and Bandera), and Employer’s expert (Dr. Fink), credited Dr. Rudin’s opinion, and granted Claimant’s petition in part, ordering payment of medical expenses for the Repair Surgery.
- Employer appealed to Superior Court arguing the Board’s causation finding lacked substantial evidence; Superior Court affirmed the Board, concluding its factual findings were supported by substantial evidence and proper credibility determinations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Bowers) | Defendant's Argument (Morgan) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the March 2016 cervical repair surgery was causally related to the Jan. 2014 work accident | The 2014 accident aggravated a non‑union at C6-7, accelerated degeneration of the prior fusion, and caused symptoms leading to surgery | The Repair Surgery was unrelated to the 2014 accident and therefore not compensable | Held for Bowers: Board reasonably credited Claimant’s expert that the 2014 accident caused/aggravated the condition necessitating surgery; causation established |
| Whether the Board’s factual finding is supported by substantial evidence | Board’s adoption of Dr. Rudin’s testimony and Claimant’s consistent symptom history constitute substantial evidence | Argued Board lacked substantial evidence and improperly connected the surgery to the work injury | Held for Bowers: Superior Court found record evidence a reasonable mind could accept as adequate to support the Board’s conclusion |
| Whether the Board permissibly resolved conflicting medical opinions | Dr. Rudin’s testimony was more persuasive on temporality and medical probability | Employer urged deference to its expert, Dr. Fink | Held for Bowers: Board may credit one expert over another; adopted opinion supplies substantial evidence |
| Standard and scope of appellate review of Board findings | N/A (procedural) | N/A | Held: Superior Court reviews Board legal conclusions de novo but upholds factual findings if supported by substantial evidence and not legal error |
Key Cases Cited
- Glanden v. Land Prep, Inc., 918 A.2d 1098 (Del. 2007) (standard of review for appeals from Industrial Accident Board)
- Munyan v. Daimler Chrysler Corp., 909 A.2d 133 (Del. 2006) (agency factual findings reviewed for substantial evidence)
- Johnson v. Chrysler Corp., 213 A.2d 64 (Del. 1965) (Superior Court’s limited role in reviewing Board factual findings)
- Olney v. Cooch, 42 A.2d 610 (Del. 1981) (definition of substantial evidence)
- Simmons v. Delaware State Hosp., 660 A.2d 384 (Del. 1995) (credibility determinations reserved to the Board)
- Breeding v. Contractors–One–Inc., 549 A.2d 1102 (Del. 1988) (reconciling inconsistent testimony is Board’s function)