The Delaware Supreme Court, affirming a trial court's decision, has ruled that a company's second workers' compensation insurance carrier could be held liable for injuries to an employee sustained in two separate work accidents only when the employee's condition had resulted from an accident that occurred while the second insurer's policy was in effect.
Injuries stem from falls
While working for Greenville Country Club, Jordan Rash suffered injuries to his lumbar spine in two separate, compensable work accidents. The first accident occurred in 2009, when Guard Insurance Group was the country club's workers' compensation insurance carrier, and the company accepted compensability for Rash's claim. Guard last paid benefits stemming from the 2009 work injury on Sept. 4, 2009.
The second accident occurred in 2012. Technology Insurance was the workers' compensation carrier for the country club at that time, and it determined that the claim was compensable. Technology last paid benefits to Rash on July 10, 2013.
In 2014, Rash filed two petitions to determine additional compensation, one against Guard and one against Technology. He sought payment of outstanding medical bills, including lumbar spine surgery, and compensation for a recurrence of ongoing temporary total disability benefits. He alleged that the proximate cause of his medical condition was either the 2009 work injury, or the 2012 work injury, or both.
After a hearing, the Delaware Industrial Accident Board (IAB) determined that the condition in issue was a recurrence of the 2009 work injury and not an aggravation of the 2012 work injury. The IAB concluded, therefore, that Guard was wholly liable for the additional compensation to Rash.
A Delaware trial court affirmed IAB's decision, and Guard appealed to the Delaware Supreme Court, contending that the board had failed to properly apply the rule for determining successive carrier liability.
Decision turned on 'last injurious exposure' rule
The Delaware Supreme Court affirmed, rejecting Guard's contention that the occurrence of a second compensable injury in 2012 had shifted liability to the second carrier for all subsequent compensation for Rash's lumbar back without proof of a causal relationship between the 2012 injury and Rash's condition.
In its decision, the court ruled that the successive carrier was "not strictly liable as a matter of law for a later condition" that manifested itself after a second accident. It was liable, the court declared, "if the newer work-connected accident was the cause of the later condition." This was the "last injurious exposure" rule, the court said.
Concluding that Guard had failed to meet its burden of proving that Rash's condition had been proximately caused by the 2012 accident, it affirmed the trial court's judgment.
© Touchpoint Markets, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to TMSalesOperations@arc-network.com. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.