Submitted: July 10, 2019
Consideration of Appellant's Appeal from the Industrial
Accident Board Affirmed in part. Remanded in part.
Timothy E. Lengkeek, Esquire, Young Conaway Stargatt &
Taylor, LLP, Wilmington, Delaware, Attorney for
Andrews, Esquire, Dover, Delaware, Attorney for
Honorable Calvin L. Scott, Jr., Judge.
this Court is Appellant Ronald Goodchild's
("Appellant") appeal from the decision of the
Industrial Accident Board ("Board"). For the
following reasons, the Board's decision is AFFIRMED IN
PART and REMANDED IN PART.
October 2, 2017, Appellant was injured in a work-related
motor vehicle collision ("Work Event"). At a
hearing before the Board, Appellant sought the Board's
acknowledgment that a lumbar surgery proposed by his treating
neurosurgeon was reasonable, necessary, and causally related
to the Work Event. Appellant also sought payment of medical
bills from his employer, Appellee R&E Excavation LLC
("Appellee") for other injuries Appellant suffered
as a result of the Work Event. On February 8, 2019, the Board
denied Appellant's claims.
28, 2019, Appellant filed his Opening Brief. Appellant
alleges the Board's decision erred as a matter of law in
two distinct ways. First, the Board erred by applying a more
onerous standard of causation to Appellant's claim. The
Board should have applied the "but for" standard of
causation set forth by the Delaware Supreme Court in
Reese v. Home Budget Center. Second, the Board erred
by failing to make a factual finding that Appellant sustained
compensable work-related injuries and that the medical
treatment and bills Appellant incurred (excluding the
potential lumbar surgery) were reasonable, necessary, and
causally related to the Work Event.
14, 2019, Appellee filed its Answering Brief. Appellee argues
that the Board applied the correct standard of causation and
that there was substantial evidence to support the
Board's decision. Appellee also argues that the Board was
not required to address the issue of Appellant's medical
bills because Appellant failed to raise this issue on the
record before the Board.
10, 2019, Appellant filed its Reply Brief. Appellant again
argues that the Board applied the incorrect legal standard
for causation to Appellant's claim. Appellant argues that
the issue of Appellant's medical bills was properly
before the Board. Appellant points out that the Industrial
Accident Board Pre-Trial Memorandum shows that Appellant
sought medical bills and both medical experts testified that
Appellant's medical bills (other than for the lumbar
surgery) were reasonable and necessary to treat the injuries
Appellant suffered in the Work Event.
appeal from a decision of the Industrial Accident Board, this
Court determines whether the Board's conclusions are
supported by substantial evidence and are free from legal
error. This Court does not weigh the evidence,
determine questions of credibility, or make its own factual
findings. Instead, it evaluates ...