ROLAND C. ANDERSON, Appellant,
GENERAL MOTORS, LLC, Appellee.
Submitted: March 18, 2019
From the Industrial Accident Board.
C. Anderson, Pro Se Appellant.
A. Brewington, Esquire and Renee M. Mosley, Esquire, RICHARDS
LAYTON & FINGER, P.A., Wilmington, Delaware. Attorneys
Charles E. Butler, Judge.
C. Anderson ("Anderson") worked for General Motors,
LLC ("GM") for six months in 1982. Fifteen years
later, he filed a claim with the Industrial Accident Board
("IAB") alleging he suffered a work-related
shoulder injury while so employed. The IAB determined that
Anderson's claim was barred by the statute of
limitations. Shortly thereafter, Anderson took his first
appeal to this Court. The Court remanded Anderson's
appeal to the IAB for a determination of the "trigger
date" to establish the statute of limitations. The IAB
ruled that Anderson knew or should have known about the
injury during the six months that he worked at GM in 1982.
more rounds of appeals followed between the IAB and Superior
Court, with Mr. Anderson appealing IAB dismissals to the
Superior Court and the Superior Court in turn affirming the
IAB dismissals. Once in 2000, Anderson filed a writ of
certiorari to the Delaware Supreme Court. The Supreme
Court upheld the IAB's dismissal of the case.
quiet, for more than fifteen years. Then in November of 2016,
Anderson filed a debt action in Justice of the Peace Court
against GM's insurance claims administrator, Sedgwick,
alleging that GM had informed the Centers for Medicare and
Medicaid Services ("CMS") that it was the primary
insurance carrier responsible for Anderson's workers'
compensation claim. Consideration of the debt action was
summarily denied when the J.P. Court concluded that it lacked
jurisdiction to consider the matter.
September 2017, Anderson incurred medical expenses related to
an arthritic shoulder. He submitted the bills to CMS for
payment. It appears that when asked by CMS, Anderson told CMS
that the injury for which he sought compensation was related
to his work related shoulder injury from back in 1982.
Apparently based on nothing more than Anderson's say so,
CMS wrote to GM and assigned GM liability for $1, 800.87 in
conditional payments for Anderson's health care expenses,
but noted that GM was welcome to dispute the claim of its
liability for conditional payments if GM believed the
assignment was inaccurate.
August 2018, GM wrote to CMS denying responsibility,
attaching the orders from all three courts that had dismissed
Anderson's claims against GM as proof. A month later, in
September 2018, Appellant filed a motion to reopen his
original IAB claim, stating that he had new evidence and
requesting an expedited hearing. GM promptly moved to
gave Anderson a hearing in October 2018, at which time he
claimed his new evidence was a portion of the letter from CMS
to GM. Anderson alleges that the letter proves that GM
committed fraud in denying its liability for his 1982
worker's compensation claim. The IAB ruled that the CMS
letter does not constitute new evidence. The IAB also ruled
that there was no evidence that GM misled the IAB, the courts
or Anderson or that GM had accepted liability for his CMS
claim. This appeal followed.
only reason this case has revisited the Court's docket so
long after its resolution is the letter from CMS and the