Turulski Custom Woodworking v. Cabinetry, C.A. 03A-04-013-PLA (DE 5/11/2004)
| Decision Date | 11 May 2004 |
| Docket Number | IAB No. 1199754 & 1218972.,C.A. 03A-04-013-PLA. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Delaware |
| Parties | TURULSKI CUSTOM WOODWORKING, Employer-Below/Appellant, v. SUN DOG CABINETRY, Employer-Below/Appellee, JOHN BLEACHER, Employee-Below/Appellee. |
Robert H. Richter, Esquire, Elzufon Austin Reardon Tarlov & Mondell, P.A., Wilmington, Delaware, Attorney for Turulski Custom Woodworking, Employer-Below/Appellant.
Jessica L. Julian, Esquire, Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin, Wilmington, Delaware, Attorney for Sun Dog Cabinetry, Employer-Below/Appellee.
Kenneth F. Carmine, Esquire, Potter, Carmine, Leonard & Aaronson, P.A., Wilmington, Delaware, Attorney for Employee-Below/Appellee.
Employer, Turulski Custom Woodworking ("Employer/Appellant" or "Turulski"), has appealed from the March 26, 2003 decision of the Industrial Accident Board of the State of Delaware ("IAB" or "Board") awarding disability compensation benefits, medical witness fees, and attorney's fees to claimant, John Bleacher ("Employee/Appellee" or "Claimant"). The only portion of the Board's decision which is being appealed, is that portion of the decision which found that Turulski was liable for the compensation benefits awarded to the Claimant, rather than finding liability on the part of Claimant's previous employer, Sun Dog Cabinetry ("Employer/Appellee" or "Sun Dog"). Neither employer disputed that Claimant was entitled to the awarded benefits as a result of an injury he sustained on July 30, 2002 while working for Turulski. Hence, the sole question presented on appeal is whether Turulski, Claimant's employer at the time of his work injury, or Sun Dog, Claimant's previous employer, is liable for payment of the awarded compensation benefits predicated upon whether Claimant's injury was a "recurrence" or an "aggravation" under Delaware law. Because the Board found that Claimant suffered a compensable "aggravation" of a previously asymptomatic lower back condition, directly caused by an "untoward" or "intervening" event while working for Turulski, the Board held Turulski liable for compensating the Claimant. For the reasons set forth hereafter, this Court affirms the Board's decision.
In the fall of 2001, Claimant commenced his employment with Turulski as a cabinetmaker and countertop fabricator. His duties entailed cutting wood, manufacturing countertops, and fabricating cabinets. Claimant testified that his job consisted of approximately seventy percent fabrication and thirty percent installation.1 On July 30, 2002, Claimant and two co-workers were moving a large custom wall unit into a home for installation. After moving the wall unit into the home, Claimant and his coworkers experienced difficulty in manipulating the wall unit to fit properly in the designated opening of the homeowner's wall. While in the process of struggling with the installation and positioning of the wall unit, Claimant injured himself. He testified that he felt a sharp pain in his lower back, and that within one half hour, the pain radiated to his lower buttocks.2 Claimant also testified that the pain he experienced was similar to the pain he experienced on two earlier occasions in work-related injuries, in December 2000 and in July 2001, both times while employed with Sun Dog.3
Claimant has a history of lower back injuries and commensurate surgeries. In 1996, while working for Alura Cabinetry, Claimant sustained an injury to his lower back at the level of left L5-S1 lumbar disk. Dr. Argiers operated on the Claimant on December 10, 1996 to relieve the injured disk, and he returned to work shortly thereafter. In 2000, Claimant injured his lower back area again, this time while in the employ of Sun Dog. On January 25, 2001, Dr. Argiers performed surgery to correct the damage sustained by the injury on Claimant's right L4-L5 lumbar disk. Claimant returned to work for Sun Dog in the beginning of April 2001. On July 11, 2001, while still employed with Sun Dog, he was again involved in a work-related injury. In this instance, the injury was located at the right L4-L5 lumbar disk region, involving the same disk that had been operated on in January 2001. The two surgeries performed by Dr. Argiers in 2001 were a right laminectomy and a diskectomy.4 Claimant underwent his third corrective lower back surgery on August 18, 2001. After a recuperative period, Claimant returned to work for Sun Dog on or about September 17, 2001 without any restrictions. At some time in November 2001, Claimant began working for Turulski.5
Approximately six days after Claimant sustained his latest injury on July 30, 2002, Claimant testified that he experienced pain in his lower back that radiated down to his knee, and numbness in his foot. At first, uncertain of the extent of his injury, Claimant realized after a few days that his condition could be linked to another herniated disk.6 He sought treatment from his family physician, Dr. Fiero who recommended that he undergo an MRI. After reviewing the test results from Claimant's August 2002 MRI, indicating a disk herniation, Dr. Fiero sent Claimant for further treatment with a neurosurgeon, Dr. Otto Medinilla.
Claimant first visited Dr. Medinilla's office on August 30, 2002. Based on Claimant's MRI results, Dr. Medinilla found that Claimant had a right disk herniation at L4-L5, and that scar tissue, coupled with a bulge, were present at L5-S1. Dr. Medinilla also noted the prior surgeries to the L4-L5 region, in which only part of the disk was removed. Upon examination of the Claimant, it was Dr. Medinilla's opinion that the two previous surgeries performed by Dr. Argiers on the Claimant in 2001 at the L4-L5 level involved a right laminectomy and a diskectomy, in which Dr. Argiers removed part of the disk. On September 16, 2002, Dr. Medinilla performed a lumbar laminectomy, a diskectomy, and a lysis of adhesions on the Claimant to remove the offending disk and relieve Claimant's pain. It was Dr. Medinilla's further opinion that the adhesions, which were the result of previous surgeries in the area, were a normal finding given the nature of the previous surgeries, and would not have been expected to cause additional symptoms before Claimant's July 30, 2002 work accident.7 The operation was successful as it relieved nerve impingement symptoms. Claimant's full range of motion and reflex function returned after surgery. On October 21, 2002, after a month's recovery, Claimant was permitted to return to work with restrictions prohibiting him from lifting more than thirty pounds for the first month.8 On December 5, 2002, Dr. Medinilla released the Claimant to return to work without any restrictions.
On October 13, 2002, with respect to the work injury sustained on July 11, 2001, Claimant filed a Petition to Determine Additional Compensation Due to Injured Employee against Sun Dog, as employer (IAB #1199754), wherein he sought compensation based on "recurrence of total disability benefits pursuant to 19 Del. C. § 2324" (compensation for total disability) for the period(s) commencing "August 12, 2002 to August 20, 2002," and "August 24, 2002 and ongoing." In the same petition, Claimant sought reimbursement for medical expenses and bills, expert witness fees, and attorney fees, alleging a causal relationship between the July 11, 2001 injury and the August 6, 2002 work accident.9
On this same date, with respect to the work injury sustained on July 30, 2002, Claimant filed a Petition to Determine Additional Compensation Due to Injured Employee against Turulski, as employer (IAB #1218972), representing that Claimant and Turulski had failed to reach an agreement regarding compensation due and requested a hearing before the Board for determination of Claimant's claim. Also accompanying the petition, Claimant filed a Statement of Facts Upon Failure to Reach an Agreement, wherein he alleged, among other things, that he had not recovered from his injuries suffered on July 30, 2002, that he had not resumed work, and that it was undetermined how long he might be incapacitated and unable to return to his occupation. Upon submission of both petitions, counsel for Claimant requested that the Board consider both work-related incidents, alleging the July 30, 2002 onset.10
At the March 12, 2003 hearing before the Board, both Sun Dog and Turulski stipulated to the closed period of total disability of nine weeks and four days from August 12, 2002 until August 20, 2002, and from August 24, 2002 through October 20, 2002. Both parties also acknowledged that all the medical treatment and expenses associated with Claimant's latest injury were reasonable, necessary and related.11 The only matter upon which the parties could not agree was who should be held liable for paying Claimant's compensation benefits. As the Board stated in its decision, 12 At the hearing, Turulski argued that the Claimant sustained a "reaggravation" of the injury he suffered while employed previously with Sun Dog. In contrast, Sun Dog alleged that the Claimant sustained either a "new injury" or experienced an "untoward event," which precipitated his current medical condition.13
At the Board hearing, Dr. Medinilla was asked to consider the nature and circumstances surrounding the Claimant's July 30, 2002 injury, his medical observations at the time of the September 16, 2002 surgery that he performed on the Claimant, his review of Claimant's MRI results, and his evaluation of Dr. Argier's reports regarding Claimant's prior lower back injuries and surgeries. Dr. Medinilla opined that, within a reasonable degree of medical probability, the cause of Claimant's July 30, 2002 work-related injury,...
To continue reading
Request your trial