 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Williams v. Kraft Foods1/28/2005
Doris Williams ("the claimant") suffered a compensable injury while working at Kraft Foods ("the employer") in 2002. In January of 2004, she filed a Petition to Determine Additional Compensation. This appeal from the decision of the Industrial Accident Board ("the Board") on that petition is a narrow one, presenting only a question as to whether the Board erred by deciding not to award the claimant medical witness fees for one of her witnesses. It is not necessary, therefore, to discuss all the facts in the case and only the relevant facts are included below.
The issues raised by the claimant's petition were: 1) whether the claimant was entitled to an award of medical expenses for services rendered by Dr. Upadhyay; and 2) whether the claimant was permanently impaired as a result of her compensable injury and thus entitled to additional compensation. Two doctors testified on her behalf. Dr. Rodgers testified regarding the claimant's alleged permanent impairment. Dr. Upadhyay testified concerning the same issue and also outstanding medical expenses which the claimant incurred for his services. The Board awarded the claimant the outstanding medical expenses but denied the request for a permanency award. The employer was taxed the claimant's witness fees for Dr. Upadhyay but not for Dr. Rodgers. In its decision, the Board stated it was not taxing Dr. Rodger's fees to the employer because they did not find any permanent impairment and did not accept the testimony of Dr. Rodgers.
The issue is whether the Board properly denied the claimant's medical witness fees for Dr. Rodgers.
I. STANDARD OF REVIEW
The scope of review for appeal of a board decision is limited to examining the record for errors of law and determining whether substantial evidence is present on the record to support the Board's findings of fact and conclusions of law. "Substantial evidence" is defined as such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. On appeal, the court does not "weigh the evidence, determine questions of credibility, or make its own factual findings." The court is simply reviewing the case to determine if the evidence is legally adequate to support the agency's factual findings. The court must give "due account of the experience and specialized competence of the Board and of the purposes of our workers' compensation law." When reviewing the Board's findings, the reviewing court should accept those findings, even if acting independently, the reviewing court would reach contrary conclusions. Absent an error of law, the standard of review is abuse of discretion. An abuse of discretion arises only where the Board's decision has "exceeded the bounds of reason in view of the circumstances." Only where no satisfactory proof exists to support the factual finding of the Board may the Superior Court overturn it.
II. DISCUSSION
The relevant statute is 19 Del. C. ยง 2322(e) which reads:
The fees of medical witnesses testifying at hearings before the Industrial Accident Board on behalf on an insured employee shall be taxed as a cost to the employer or the employer's insurance carrier in the event the injured employee receives an award.
Despite the mandatory language of the statute, the Delaware Supreme Court in Brandywine School District v. Hoskins held that the Board has some discretion when taxing medical witness fees as a cost to an employer. The court further stated that it would be inappropriate to require an employer to pay fees of medical witnesses whose testimony is unreasonably cumulative or redundant. The employer argues that Dr. Rodger's medical witness fee was properly denied und
Page 1 2 3 Delaware Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|