Selby v. Talley Brothers, Inc.
N16A-02-009 ALR
| Del. Super. Ct. | Mar 1, 2017Background
- On July 6, 2014, Claimant Shannon Selby was working on the I‑495 bridge in Wilmington inside a manhole, wearing a harness tethered by a lanyard to the bridge wall.
- An unauthorized vehicle entered the closed worksite and struck the area near the lanyard; parties dispute whether Selby remained hooked to the lanyard when the vehicle contacted it and whether Selby was jolted, broke a wooden enclosure, and was dragged.
- Selby filed a Petition to Determine Compensation (June 1, 2015) seeking disability and medical benefits; Talley Brothers denied the accident occurred as alleged and disputed causation.
- A stipulated hearing before a Hearing Officer occurred (Nov. 19, 2015); testimony included Claimant, multiple eyewitness laborers (including Pittman and Grimes), Delaware State Police, employer representatives, and competing medical experts.
- The Hearing Officer credited eyewitnesses Pittman and Grimes and employer expert Dr. Townsend, discredited Claimant’s account and his medical expert, and denied compensation for lack of proof that the accident occurred as claimed or caused the alleged injuries.
- On appeal the Superior Court reviewed for substantial evidence and legal error and affirmed the Hearing Officer’s decision (Mar. 1, 2017).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the July 6, 2014 accident occurred in the manner Selby described (jolted, broke enclosure, dragged) | Selby: lanyard was attached to his harness when vehicle snagged it, causing him to be pulled through the wooden barrier and dragged, producing injuries | Talley: witnesses (Pittman, Grimes) unhooked Selby before vehicle contact; vehicle snagged only the unattached lanyard later; no dragging or barrier breach | Court upheld Hearing Officer: substantial evidence supports crediting Pittman and Grimes that Selby was detached before entanglement, rejecting Selby’s account |
| Whether Selby sustained compensable injuries caused by the accident | Selby: his injuries arose from the event and are supported by his treating physician | Talley: medical records lack objective trauma findings; employer expert linked injuries to subjective complaints, not the accident | Court upheld Hearing Officer’s reliance on employer expert and absence of contemporaneous abrasions/contusions; no preponderant proof of work‑caused injury |
| Credibility/resolution of conflicting testimony and investigation notes | Selby: Hearing Officer failed to explain why eyewitnesses were more credible than other evidence (e.g., police notes) | Talley: eyewitness testimony was consistent and persuasive; police interviews were unrecorded and focused on different issues | Court: credibility determinations are the Board’s function; Hearing Officer gave specific reasons for crediting witnesses and discounting police notes; decision supported by substantial evidence |
| Standard of review and whether legal error occurred on appeal | Selby: Hearing Officer’s factual findings lack substantial evidentiary support | Talley: findings are supported and review is limited to substantial evidence/legal error | Court: applied limited review, found no legal error, and that the Hearing Officer’s factual findings were supported by substantial evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- Glanden v. Land Prep, Inc., 918 A.2d 1098 (Del. 2007) (articulates standard of appellate review for Industrial Accident Board decisions)
- Munyan v. Daimler Chrysler Corp., 909 A.2d 133 (Del. 2006) (trier of fact may adopt one expert’s medical opinion over another)
- Simmons v. Delaware State Hosp., 660 A.2d 384 (Del. 1995) (reconciling inconsistent testimony and credibility determinations are reserved for the factfinder)
- Streett v. State, 669 A.2d 9 (Del. 1995) (only when no satisfactory proof supports a factual finding may a court overturn the Board)
- Johnson v. Chrysler Corp., 213 A.2d 64 (Del. 1965) (Superior Court’s role is limited to determining whether substantial evidence supports the Board’s findings)