Minner v. Dean Witter/Discover Card, 87
| Decision Date | 24 November 1998 |
| Docket Number | No. 87,1998,87 |
| Citation | 723 A.2d 839 |
| Parties | Brenda MINNER, Claimant/Appellant Below, Appellant, v. Dean Witter/Discover CARD, Employer/Appellee Below, Appellee. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Delaware |
Court Below: Superior Court of the State of Delaware in and for New Castle County, C.A. No. 97A-01-007.
Before VEASEY, Chief Justice, WALSH and HARTNETT, Justices.
This 24th day of November, 1998, upon consideration of the briefs of the parties, it appears to the Court that:
(1) The Industrial Accident Board denied worker's compensation benefits to Brenda Minner on the ground that she failed to establish her claim of Sick Building Syndrome. Minner appealed the Board's decision to the Superior Court which affirmed the Board's ruling. On appeal to this Court, Minner argues that the Board erred by (a) ruling that the record lacked substantial evidence to support her claim; (b) misapplying the applicable standard of causation; and (c) relying on her lack of statistical evidence of employees with Sick Building Syndrome in relation to affected employees at her place of employment. We disagree and affirm.
(2) Minner began working for Discover Card in 1988. In 1990, Minner had to take a leave of absence for an illness unrelated to the present case. In 1991, she returned to work. At that time, she noticed a musty or moldy smell. Minner began experiencing several symptoms including headaches, dizziness, sore throat, mucus membrane irritation, and depression which she collectively referred to as "Sick Building Syndrome." As a result of her physical condition, Minner worked only four hours a day, and was absent for extended periods of time. Prior to her final day of work at Discover Card, Minner was admitted to the hospital for a week after having experienced respiratory problems at work. Following her last day at Discover Card, Minner saw her treating physician who diagnosed her with bronchitis, closed nasal passages, and swollen ears.
(3) Minner admitted to having sinusitis prior to working at Discover Card; however, she maintained that the symptoms were different than those associated with the Discover Card building. Minner also admitted that although she has left Discover Card, her condition has not significantly changed, and she continues to experience a feeling of general tiredness.
(4) On appeal of an administrative agency's decision, the court "... shall be limited to a determination of whether the agency's decision was supported by substantial evidence on the record before the agency." 1 Substantial evidence means "such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion." 2 Therefore, a Board decision will not be reversed unless the Board failed to consider relevant evidence or it examined relevant evidence but arbitrarily rejected it.
(5) In our view, the Board examined all relevant evidence, and correctly determined that the record lacked substantial evidence to support a claim of Sick Building Syndrome. For instance, Minner's treating physician testified that on two occasions, Minner exhibited sensitivity to outside stimuli. This fact supports that Minner's condition resulted from other factors than the Discover Card building.
(6) Additionally, Minner's expert testified that although the air filter system at Discover Card had problems, he was not qualified to opine regarding the possible effects of those problems on a person's health. On the other hand, Discover Card's expert testified that the air filtration system revealed no hazardous levels of organic chemicals that affected the air quality. Based on such testimony, the Board found Discover Card's expert more credible.
(7) Minner next challenges the Board's application of the two prong causation test set forth in Anderson v. General Motors Corp., Inc. 3 In Anderson, this Court held that a claimant must establish that (1) the alleged condition must be a natural incident of the working conditions, and (2) the employment has a hazard distinct from and greater than hazards present in employment generally.
(8) With regard to the first prong of Anderson, the Board found that Minner's condition was not a natural incident to her working conditions since she failed to show a "recognizable link between the disease and some distinctive feature of [her] job." 4 In support, the Board stated that Minner "had a variety of problems that preceded her employment at Discover Card ... (including that she) was a heavy smoker, 5 was undergoing a series of excessive stressors, and had some prior hyper-sensitivity." 6
(9) With regard to the second prong of Anderson, the Board found that Minner had "not established that her employment exposed her to a hazard that was distinct from or greater than a hazard attending...
To continue reading
Request your trial