Foods v. Chandler

• Decision Date: 28 March 2011
• Docket Number: C.A. No. S10A-09-001 ESB
• Parties: RE: Pinnacle Foods v. Marian A. Chandler
• Court: Delaware Superior Court

RE: Pinnacle Foods

v.Marian A. Chandler

C.A. No. S10A-09-001 ESB

SUPERIOR COURT

OF THE

STATE OF DELAWARE

Date Submitted: December 1, 2010

March 28, 2011

E. SCOTT BRADLEY

JUDGE

SUSSEX COUNTY COURTHOUSE

1 The Circle, Suite 2

GEORGETOWN, DE 19947

H. Garrett Baker, Esquire Elzufon, Austin, Reardon, Tarlov & Mondell, P.A.

Eric M. Doroshow, Esquire James R. Donovan, Esquire Doroshow, Pasquale, Krawitz & Bhaya

Letter Opinion

Dear Counsel:

This is my decision on the appeal filed by Pinnacle Foods of the Industrial Accident Board's decision granting Marian A. Chandler's Petition to Determine Compensation Due in this worker's compensation case involving an employee who worked for many years in a food processing plant. Chandler claimed that she was entitled to an award of total and partial disability benefits for her back problems that gradually worsened over her many years of working on a pickle processing line at Pinnacle's food processing plant in Millsboro, Delaware. The Board granted Chandler's petition, finding that she and her medical expert were more credible witnesses than were Pinnacle's witnesses. Pinnacle filed an appeal, arguing that the Board's decision was not supported by substantial evidence in the record. I have denied Pinnacle's appeal and affirmed the Board's decision because the testimony offered by Chandler and her medical expert and the other medical evidence does adequately support the Board's findings.

STATEMENT OF THE FACTS

Chandler is 56-years-old. She was employed by Pinnacle Foods in a pickle processing plant for 33 years, the last 26 of which were as a full-time employee. Chandler sorted and packed pickles into jars and five gallon pails. Her job required her to spend most of her time on her feet leaning over a line of moving pickles, removing rotten and broken pickles and foreign objects. Chandler would also have to twist and turn in order to dispose of these items. She also spent part of her work-day lifting heavy bags of seeds and loading them into a machine.

Chandler had low-back pain for approximately three years. She managed her back pain by using over-the-counter medications, sports creams, heat, massages, and a hot tub. Chandler did not miss any work because of her back pain and was able to do her job. Her back pain increased in severity in the last week of January 2008. Chandler went to see Cindy Dickerson, a human resources employee at Pinnacle Foods, about her back pain. Chandler told Dickerson that she felt pain when she got out of her car and that it was so bad that she could barely move. Dickerson told Chandler to go see her family doctor. Dickerson followed up with Chandler the next week to see if she had gone to see her doctor yet. Chandler had not gone to see her doctor yet and was still in pain. She talked to Dickerson a few days later, telling her that she thought her back pain was related to her job. Chandler's back pain got so bad that she went to the Nanticoke Memorial Hospital emergency room on February 19, 2008. Chandler never returned to work and was terminated a year later.

Chandler filed a Petition to Determine Compensation Due with the Board on July 28, 2008. She sought total disability benefits from February 18, 2008 to April 22, 2008, ongoing partial disability benefits thereafter, authorization for back surgery, and payment of her medical expenses. The Board held a hearing on February 25, 2009. Stephanie Parker, Walter Wilman, Cindy Dickerson, Mary Ann Palmer, Richard P. Dushuttle, M.D., Jerry L. Case, M.D., and Chandler testified at the hearing. Parker is a crew leader at Pinnacle. She has worked with Chandler for many years. Parker testified about the nature of Chandler's job. Wilman is Chandler's boyfriend. He testified about Chandler's back pain and how she managed it. Dickerson testified about Chandler's work history and complaints of back pain. Palmer is a vocational case manager. She testified about jobs that Chandler could do. Drs. DuShuttle and Case are board certified orthopedic surgeons. Dr. DuShuttle testified for Chandler. Dr. Case testified for Pinnacle. Both testified about Chandler's back problems and they largely agreed that she has widespread degenerative disk disease at L2-3, L3-4 and L5-S1, with some degenerative spondylolisthesis at L3-4, and a possible annular tear at L3-4, with spondylotic disk protrusion at L5-S1. The two doctors disagreed over whether Chandler's back problems were caused by her job. Dr. Dushuttle testified that Chandler's back problems were aggravated over time by her job. Dr. Case testified that Chandler's back problems were not caused by her job. He testified further that the first time any doctor diagnosed Chandler's back problems was when she went to the Nanticoke Memorial Hospital emergency room on February 19, 2008. Chandler testified about the nature of her job and her back pain. The Board found that Chandler's Petition to Determine Compensation Due was barred by the statute of limitations, reasoning that she should have recognized the nature, seriousness and probable compensable character of her back pain three years before she filed her claim.

I reversed the Board's decision and remanded the case back to the Board to consider the merits of Chandler's claims.¹ Pinnacle filed an interlocutory appeal of my decision with the Supreme Court, but the Supreme Court declined to hear it.² On remand, the Board ruled in favor of Chandler, finding that she and Dr. DuShuttle were credible witnesses and that, based on their testimony, Chandler was entitled to all of the relief she sought. Pinnacle then filed this appeal.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

The Supreme Court and this Court repeatedly have emphasized the limited appellate review of the factual findings of an administrative agency. The function of the Superior Court on appeal from a decision of the Industrial Accident Board is to determine whether the Board's decision is supported by substantial evidence and whether the Board made any errors of law.³ Substantial evidence means such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.⁴ The appellate court does not weigh the evidence, determine questions of credibility, or make its own factual findings.⁵ It merely determines if the evidence is legally adequate to support the Board's factual findings.⁶ Absent an error of law, the Board's decision will not be disturbed where there is substantial evidence to support its conclusions.⁷

DISCUSSION

Pinnacle argues that (1) the Board's finding that Chandler's job required her to bend frequently and lift up to fifty pounds is not supported by substantial evidence in the record, (2) the Board's finding that Chandler was totally disabled from February 18, 2008 to April 22, 2008 is not supported by substantial evidence in the record, and (3) the Board's finding that Chandler is entitled to ongoing partial disability benefits after April 22, 2008 is not supported by substantial evidence in the record.

I. Bending and Lifting

Pinnacle argues that the Board's finding that Chandler's job required her to bend frequently and lift up to fifty pounds is not supported by substantial evidence in the record. The Board did find that Chandler's "job duties required her to bend frequently and lift up to fifty pounds."⁸ However, Pinnacle's argument gives an incomplete view of the Board's findings and rationale for its decision, is based on selected snippets of testimony from Chandler and Parker, and ignores large parts of their testimony that the Board found credible and persuasive. Pinnacle's argument ignores the Board's finding that Chandler "worked on the line for Pinnacle for about thirty years," which finding immediately preceded the Board's finding on "bending frequently and lifting up to fifty pounds." Pinnacle's argument also ignores the Board's finding that Chandler "worked on an assembly line for more than twenty-five years and bent over a lot in the pickle factory, which caused the injury." When you consider all of the Board's findings on the issue of bending and lifting, you see that the Board concluded that Chandler's back problems were caused, in part, by her many years of working while bent over a pickle processing line.

Parker testified that "the only time Claimant would have to bend and twist was when there was a foreign object in the pail" and that "[s]ome days there were no foreign objects in the pail all day and sometimes there are a few objects per day."⁹ Pinnacle failed to note that Parker also testified that Chandler is on her feet all the time,¹⁰ leans over most of the day,¹¹ that even if a whole day goes by without finding any foreign objects she does have to turn around for her machine,¹² and would not say that the bending and twisting that occurs on the pail line is merely incidental.¹³

When asked by her attorney if Parker's description of her work was accurate, Chandler said, "[m]ost of it, yes." Chandler then answered a number of questions by her attorney describing her work in detail. Her testimony offers a much more complete and accurate description of what she did at work than does Pinnacle's narrow view of her job. Chandler has worked on a number of different pickle processing lines during her 33 years at Pinnacle. She spent many years packing pickles into jars. During Chandler's last three years at Pinnacle she mostly worked on two different processing lines on a weekly basis. One processing line is known as the "pail line." This line required Chandler to spend most of her work-day on her feet standing over a line of moving pickles, removing rotten and broken pickles and foreign objects. The step on the "pail line" that Chandler had to stand on to do her job was too high for her, causing her to have to bend over and lay on her stomach in order to remove the broken and rotten pickles and foreign objects. She also had to twist and turn in order to dispose of the pickles and foreign objects behind her...