State v. DeSantis
N17A-02-007 ALR
Del. Super. Ct.Nov 7, 2017Background
- DeSantis, a state employee, was involved in a car accident while driving home from work at about 12:03 a.m.; he left the worksite between 11:30 and 11:45 p.m. and drove his personal vehicle.
- The Industrial Accident Board awarded workers’ compensation for the injury, applying the “semi-fixed place of employment” exception to the going-and-coming rule despite finding DeSantis was not paid for commute time or mileage.
- The Superior Court (Oct. 17, 2017) reversed and remanded, holding the Board committed legal error by applying an exception after finding the employment agreement already resolved compensability of travel time.
- DeSantis moved for reargument, arguing the court misapprehended law/facts, specifically the State’s overtime payment scheme and whether he was ‘‘on the clock’’ for part of his commute.
- The Court denied reargument, ruling (1) Spellman requires the Board to first determine whether the employment agreement contemplates compensable travel time and, if so, stop the inquiry; (2) the Board erred by invoking the going-and-coming exception after finding DeSantis wasn’t paid for travel; and (3) factual findings (time left work, time of accident, timekeeping increments) were not misapprehended.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Board properly awarded compensation by applying a going-and-coming exception after finding the employment agreement addressed travel pay | DeSantis argued the Board correctly applied the semi-fixed place exception to award compensation | State argued Spellman requires the Board to defer to the employment agreement first and not apply exceptions once the agreement resolves compensability | Court held Board erred: if employment agreement addresses travel pay, inquiry ends and exceptions should not be applied |
| Whether the Court misapprehended facts about overtime/timekeeping such that DeSantis was ‘‘on the clock’’ during the accident | DeSantis asserted the State’s overtime scheme and his rounding could have kept him on the clock until midnight | State pointed to Board finding that overtime was kept in 15-minute increments; DeSantis left by 11:45, so he would not be on the clock at the accident time | Court held it considered timekeeping and found no misapprehension; DeSantis would not have been on the clock at the accident |
| Whether the employment agreement was vague/ambiguous requiring further fact development on remand | DeSantis argued terms were vague and ambiguous and should be developed further | State argued this ambiguity argument was raised for first time on reargument and cannot be used to relitigate | Court rejected the new ambiguity argument as untimely and denied reargument |
| Whether the Superior Court incorrectly applied legal standard in its prior opinion | DeSantis claimed the Court misapplied law | State maintained Spellman controls the sequence of analysis and the Court applied it correctly | Court reaffirmed its prior ruling and denied reargument |
Key Cases Cited
- Spellman v. Christiana Care Health Services, 74 A.3d 619 (Del. 2013) (Board must first examine employment agreement to determine if travel time is compensable before applying going-and-coming exceptions)
- Hessler, Inc. v. Farrell, 260 A.2d 701 (Del. 1969) (standard for motions for reconsideration)
- Future Ford Sales, Inc. v. Public Service Commission of the State of Delaware, 654 A.2d 837 (Del. 1995) (remand required where administrative decision rests on legal error)